Joshua Zalinger
Sociology 022 – In the Facebook Age – Spring 2010 – Dhiraj Murthy

Infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, and you’ll produce Shakespeare. What Keen fails to mention is that all the other monkeys, the one’s who aren’t writing Shakespeare, are producing unintelligible drivel. Yes, the massive majority of videos on youtube are drivel. But the key thing to realize is that there are some diamonds in the rough. A filter for the garbage (which is what most newspapers are) will also cut out some of the things worth keeping. To get those last juicy bits, you have to deal with a LOT of garbage, but the “do it yourself” culture that is developing is okay with that.

So what gems do we get after sifting? Do we actually get works of Shakespeare? No, or not yet at least. But YouTube has never (at least in my mind) been about producing Shakespeare. Let Hollywood and the New York Times produce the best, the 10 out of 10′s. YouTube is about being able to find a lot of 7′s and 8′s. Tay Zonday, Maru the cat, and surprised kitten aren’t found on CNN, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t worth anything to our society.

Is a participatory culture a good thing? I don’t know. But judging by the continued success of YouTube, it’s time to stop trying to prevent it, and learn how to make it the best it can be. The era of primarily consumerist culture is morphing into something new. Try to keep up.

The internet has not and will not become some magically ideal public sphere. I agree with Papacharissi that such a public sphere has never actually existed: all examples in history have either not provided equal rights to all citizens or have been dominated by an elite (typically aristocratic or bourgeoise).

Instead, the internet is just a new public space, which will be used in fundamentally similar ways as other public spaces. Just as large mobs of people all contributing to a discussion quickly turns to chaos and confusion, the internet is also not effective at facilitating truly large scale conversations, political or otherwise.

The internet is merely an extension of our society: it’s form and function will follow from what we make of it. If our culture is too apathetic towards political action, it will remain that way despite any online efforts to the contrary. Previously existing digital divides will also serve to reduce open discussion. According to Papacharissi, only 6% of the world even has convenient access to the internet. How can an inclusive conversation exist with such a minority of the population being able to be involved?

Personally, my experience with twitter didn’t highlight any noticeable surveillance issues. Then again, I guess I probably wouldn’t, unless they became very serious problems. I can foresee some privacy issues, however. If anyone really tried to stalk me, they would probably be able to determine where I go to school, and a few things about my schedule. If I kept at it, I imagine there would be at least a few slip ups that would reveal more information about myself than is safe.

Overall, I think that our class’ twitters actually represent what twitter is supposed to be: a community. We definitely had some more interaction than normal, and certainly a lot more at odd hours. I didn’t meet new people through the network, but given time I can see hour more could potentially be added, if other Bowdoin students joined our twitter following.

The overall dangers of heavy twitter usage are fairly well known. An interesting response I’ve learned of is pleaserobme.com. The site is currently down, and you’ll realize why in just a few moments. pleaserobme.com gathered tweets, facebook status updates, and other similar pieces of public information on the internet and gathered them into a single easily searchable location. It focused on tweets and updates that specified where the user was. The risk here is this: if you’re telling everyone you’re at the mall, we burglars can be sure you’re not at home. The site was inspired in part by a news story where a man’s house was robbed after he happily told the world about his week vacation to Hawaii. With the spreading prevalence of geo-tagged posts, it’s easier than ever to know when someone isn’t home. Granted, robbers still need your address, but some people post that as well (when they are home), and consider this: even if a robber has your address, they have to spend a lot of time watching your house stealthily before they can confidently rob you without risk of detection. One step easier, and everyone’s doing it.

The combination of these readings and the given topic of “privacy and the internet” led me to consider if the internet should be viewed as a sort of “modern panopticon.” To be such, in the traditional sense, all actions on the internet would have to be publicly available in real time, open to unseen observation by any casual passerby. Clearly, the internet is not this open a space. However, if you ignore the “real time” clause, it can be. So much information on the internet, be it public or private, is logged and saved somewhere. Those facebook pictures will never really disappear, and there are massive databanks that save cached versions of websites on a regular basis, a sort of “history of the internet.” If you were called under judgement by the world at large, all of your personal data, all of your private decisions and actions, could (especially in the minds of the most paranoid) come out into the public space. If you are never truly anonymous on the internet, then everything you do can someday be observed, and in this sense the internet qualifies as a sort of “modern panopticon.” In some ways, it is even worse, since in a traditional panopticon if you take a forbidden action, you will soon know whether you got away with it or were observed. On the internet, observation is not time dependent, so any actions you take can be observed at any time in the future, a fact which ought to be almost paralyzing to anyone who really believes it.

Of course, I believe that few really believe this, and just as the panopticon is ineffective without the fear of constant observation, so is this evil specter of the internet.

PLEASE NOTE: for some reason, I can’t figure out how to upload the file itself. The paper is presented in its entirety below, and I’ll add a link to download it tomorrow. The powerpoint presentation is uploaded on E.J.’s page.

Self Expression on the Internet

The internet is an important tool for young adults to express themselves in modern society. It is sufficiently versatile as a medium that it can fill the changing needs of individual teenagers as well as the broad requirements of the generation as a whole. However, although it is a powerful tool, the internet is far from ideal for communicating information about oneself in the complicated context present in networks of human relationships.

Social networking sites on the internet have become emblematic of teenage socialization. Inhabited almost exclusively by young adults, sites like MySpace, Facebook, and LiveJournal serve as a primary means of self expression for their users. Considering the large and varied user bases, the success of these sites speaks to their broad versatility. The largest difference in usage seems to be caused by age. Younger users tend to have visually busier profiles, prominently displaying their tastes, hobbies, and personal preferences. In contrast, older users usually have simpler profiles, focused more on their friends and ongoing messages between members of their social groups. Livingstone talks about the fundamental difference between “identity as display,” where the profile focuses on the importance of expressing one’s personality, and “identity through connection,” wherein the profile emphasizes the network the user is a part of and interacts with (Livingstone, pg 402). The “display” centered profiles are representative of younger users, who use them as a means of self discovery as well as self presentation. Frequent changes to layouts and themes are commonplace, as the user seeks to showcase different parts of their personality. These profiles focus on the “me” aspect of self expression, or quite literally on the “self.” The “connection” based profiles still exhibit some expression of the “me,” but the main focus is on how the user fits into the larger social context and their mutual relationships and connections with their peers. These profiles display an acute awareness of a larger worldview, one in which their personality is less significant, and their social capital far more so. Livingstone quotes the 15 year old “Ellie” as saying “seeing as my friends know me, there’s no real need for me to advertise my personality,” which shows this transition to an identity based on “connection”, rather than “display” (Livingstone pg. 401). This idea fits well with the view that the internet is also a means to create and maintain social capital, and to display one’s social capital in the traditional model of “conspicuous consumption.” As social capital becomes more important, the internet may be used even more as a method to build social capital through self expression.

Clearly the internet can be a powerful tool for expressing one’s personality and displaying one’s social network. However, no medium is perfect. What are the limitations of using the internet, especially compared to more traditional face-to-face interactions? The most telling problem with social networking sites is their relative lack of complexity. Although they are improving, it remains to be seen if they will ever be able to accurately represent the complex stratifications of human relationships. Originally, most sites made a distinction only between “friends” and “not friends.” Several of the teenagers interviewed by Livingstone described the variety of different social networks they were a part of, and how those groups differed in intimacy and trust. Information that is appropriate for one group may not be for another. The most common example of this was the relationship between a teenager’s friends and their parents, and concerns about the visibility of information between these two groups. Thus, a binary distinction between “friend” and “not friend” is terribly insufficient. Some sites are beginning to add rough stratification through distinct “networks” of friends, in an attempt to mirror the differences in social networks, but due to the complexity of human interactions, the success of their attempts is uncertain.

It comes as no surprise, then, that the internet fails to completely replace “real” interaction with exclusively “virtual” ones. Livingstone cites Haythornthwaite’s idea that “most people’s contacts are local, with stronger ties centred [sic] on pre-existing… contexts,” (Haythornthwaite, 2001). In other words, the vast majority of online relationships also contain offline elements. The virtual is not a replacement for the real, but rather an augmentation. This is most evident when one considers that the internet forces users to express themselves largely in writing. This is not always the optimal way to express one’s emotional needs or desires, so the internet cannot be used as the be all and end all medium for social interaction: it is only one facet of a complicated system of self expression, peer interaction, and mutual support.

The internet is still in its infant stages as a medium for self expression, but young adults in America have already begun to extensively utilize social networking sites as a means to display their personalities, showcase their social groups and connections, and strengthen their offline relationships. Despite difficulties that exist in this overly simplified system, most users have largely surmounted them and created meaningful spaces in the virtual world. If the internet continues to be an important part in its users’ lives as they age, its importance will only grow, and the average interpersonal relationship will be constructed in a combination of mediums, both “real” and “virtual.”

Works Cited:

Haythornthwaite, C. 2001. ‘Tie Strength and the Impact of New Media,’ paper presented Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences at the 34, Hawaii, 3-6 January.

Livingstone, S. 2008. “Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self- expression.” New Media Society 10(3):393-411.

Both of the readings this week were exceedingly dense and chock full of information, so I’ll just focus on a few of the more interesting tidbits.

The lack of a race based “digital divide” in Japan is a very interesting contrast to the US situation. There is still racism online, but both sides have the ability to voice their opinions, even if they are overwhelmed by the majority. Internet access alone is clearly insufficient to defeat race based ethnic clashes, I’m sure much to the disappointment of the most optimistic proponents of the network society.

In comparison, Jones examined how the anonymity of the internet undermined some racial connections, especially ones that are centered around physicality. A “cyberJew” need not practice in the same way as a “real Jew.” Will this evolve into the newest paradigm in spirituality? Does “God” need a new name for the digital age? It sounds almost like Jones is suggesting worshipping some sort of computer deity.

An interesting example of grass roots internet power:

Dave Carroll is a Canadian musician who flew through Chicago on a tour with his band. After landing, he was alerted by a fellow passenger that “My god they’re throwing guitars out there.” And indeed, the ground crew was. Carroll’s $3500 Taylor guitar was, unsurprisingly, seriously broken, despite the fact that the guitar was in its hard travel case, which was inside a “padded protective exterior case.” After a year of struggling to get reimbursed for the $1200 repair, he gave a final ultimatum:

In my final reply to Ms. Irlweg I told her that I would be writing three songs about United Airlines and my experience in the whole matter. I would then make videos for these songs and offer them for free download on YouTube and my own website, inviting viewers to vote on their favourite United song. My goal:  to get one million hits in one year.

He did quite a bit better. Now sought after as a speaker on the failings of customer service, Carroll eventually received 2 free Taylor guitars from the company, partly as a “thank you” for the massive publicity they had gotten from the incident. According to the incident’s wikipedia page (Carroll doesn’t even have one of his own, only the event):

The YouTube video was posted on July 6. It had amassed 150,000 views within one day, prompting United to contact Carroll saying they hoped to right the wrong. It had garnered over half a million hits by July 9, 5 million by mid-August 2009, and over 8 million by March 2010.

Has the internet let David live up to his namesake against the Goliath airline? He thinks so.

“One of the key things I have learned from my United Breaks Guitars experience  is that the voice of one person is no longer “statistically insignificant” and that collectively we can improve the world one experience at a time.”

Without further ado, the youtube video itself:

United Breaks Guitars

Sources and more reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars
http://www.davecarrollmusic.com/ubg/story/

Witte, Mannon and Mannon draw some fairly unsurprising conclusions. Given the historical socio-economic status of minority races, it follows that race would be a statistically significant factor. Considering the wide ranging elements constituting internet usage, the lack of a significant divide due to gender is also quite reasonable.

Three separate factors all exhibited an interesting change from 2000 to 2007: education, employment, and income. While there was no change in the gap for overall use of the internet, the daily internet usage increase for the well-educated, employed, and higher income groups. This matches up with stereotypical views. In one sense, the digital divides are neither closing nor growing, since the gap is staying constant. However, the percentage of people (even in low income or poorly educated groups) who have used the internet is growing overall, which implies that eventually, if this trend continues, the gap will close when the higher use groups “max out” and no longer have room for growth. However, the gap in regular use is increasing. Thus, the more privileged groups have more consistent access, increasing the digital divide, despite the steady increase in overall use across the board.

In total, the education and income are the most significant indicators for overall internet use, while age and race are less significant. While I’m somewhat surprised at the more even field concerning age and race, the ability for income and education to be passed to one’s children and their corresponding significance to internet access are serious concerns for anyone desiring equality in the digital age.

Stream of consciousness:

“Privacy is basically a modern invention, towns used to be too small to keep any secrets.”

“When we’re left to our own devices, we make lousy choices.”

Light humor about the woman blogging in the same room as a person reading it.

People behave badly because no one’s holding their every action accountable. Blogging forces people to actually think about what they say and do.

A reader of the blog in Singapore asked the hospital how hard it would be to donate a kidney to the woman. The strength of purely online relationships.

Blogging can be a higher form of communication than a face-to-face physical relationship.

“Sometimes it’s easier to open up to people who aren’t looking at you.”

Is asking “strangers” for advice on a life decision inappropriate? She wants “feedback” on a serious decision that will impact the rest of your life.

You never have to be alone on the internet. But blogging about everything “turns our lives into entertainment.” Now, a legitimate “real” relationship is threatened by “virtual” relationships. Which trumps?

“I hate that you don’t have a blog. I hate that I don’t know what you’re thinking.”

Now she discovers she has cancer, with a year (ish) left to live. How does she react? I’m betting straight to the blog.

“Figuring out who people are takes time. It takes twice as long when that person is trying to impress you.” Part of the subplot, but perhaps also a statement on the blogging culture: without the need to physically impress those in face-to-face contact, online relationships are more pure and deep.

When she discovered she had a year to live, she was surprisingly steady (and I maintain went to the blog). When told she had days, she turned to the physical companion next to her. In an emergency, she still turns to the “real,” not the “virtual.”

“We all need some secrets. As long as they don’t kill us, they keep us safe and warm.”

In the end, she chooses the treatment that her significant other wanted, and then blogs about it with his support. Happy ending, and the threat of death makes her realize that the “real” is more important in the end than “virtual.”

Many students, myself included, have strong negative feelings towards writing papers. I’ve always wondered why writing papers in school has irritated and frustrated me, because I genuinely enjoy talking and debating about topics that I loathe writing about. I believe I’ve finally found the answer to my angst, courtesy of Paul Graham: writing a traditional paper is more like a lawyer’s case outline than an exploration of an idea. There is a pressure to write as if your reader is in conflict with you, and that you must force them into your line of thinking with powerful statements and confidence. There is no place for constructive collaboration with the reader- they are your enemy.

Because my eloquence only goes so far, here is an except of one of Graham’s essays (in the nontraditional exploring sense):

To understand what a real essay is, we have to reach back into history again, though this time not so far. To Michel de Montaigne, who in 1580 published a book of what he called “essais.” He was doing something quite different from what lawyers do, and the difference is embodied in the name. Essayer is the French verb meaning “to try” and an essai is an attempt. An essay is something you write to try to figure something out.

Figure out what? You don’t know yet. And so you can’t begin with a thesis, because you don’t have one, and may never have one. An essay doesn’t begin with a statement, but with a question. In a real essay, you don’t take a position and defend it. You notice a door that’s ajar, and you open it and walk in to see what’s inside.

Read the essay here.