Quinn Cohane
Sociology 022 – In the Facebook Age – Spring 2010 – Dhiraj Murthy

“Hi guys…um…so…this is my first video blog” (lonelygirl15). So begins the saga of lonelygirl15. Throughout the summer of 2006, sixteen-year-old Bree posted countless videos updating fans on her relationship with her parents, her friendship with a boy named Daniel, and her religious practices. While this seems like any average blog, lonelygirl15 is one of the best-known examples of an Internet hoax: “[lonelygirl15] initially presented her confessional videos as an ‘authentic’ video blog, later claimed them to be an ‘art project’ before they were finally discovered to be connected to a commercial media company” (Jenkins 2009, p. 123). The case of lonelygirl15 demonstrates the strength that YouTube holds over its users: the connection between viewers and lonelygirl15 was so powerful that viewers were noticeably betrayed when the truth behind the series was revealed. Lonelygirl15 seemed like a normal teenager, but the perception of amateur YouTube video-makers as average citizens is not always correct.
The creators of Lonelygirl15 tried to make Bree and her life believable in order to set up a relationship between her and the YouTube blog community. In Bree’s first video, she gives shout outs to several YouTube users whose blogs she enjoys (lonelygirl15). Bree talks about issues familiar to any teenager: overbearing parents, first kisses, and desire for independence. The only topic that is out-of-the-ordinary is her religion; Bree mentions having to learn a dead language and prepare for a secret ceremony. Bree’s everyday life stories helped viewers connect with her, and the secrecy surrounding some parts of her life kept them coming back for more.
While the creators of Lonelygirl15 dove head first into their imaginary world, some did have reservations. Grant Steinfeld, one of the creators, expressed some discomfort with the concept of lying to a loyal audience: “My first impression was like, wow, can this be legitimate? Is this ethical? I was very concerned about that in the beginning” (Heffernan and Zeller). However, the opportunity to gain a public following and draw attention to their venture won out over presenting fans of Lonelygirl15 with the truth. As Bree’s storyline continued, her fan base grew. Even so, viewers began to get suspicious about Bree’s strange life.
Fans of Lonelygirl15 were not content to just sit back and watch Bree’s video blogs; they were willing to go to extreme lengths to find out the truth about this supposed sixteen year old girl. They felt connected with Bree and wanted proof that she actually existed. Conspiracy theorists jumped on the chance to speculate on who was really behind Lonelygirl15: “The videos were a corporation’s viral marketing campaign; a teaser for an unknown major entertainment property; or something dreamed up by an obscure Christian sect, occultists, or Scientologists” (Fine 2006). The reason behind this suspicion was that Bree’s life just did not completely fit into the mold of an average teenage girl: “She’s just a little too charming, her videos a little too well edited, and her story a little too neatly laid out” (Sternbergh 2006). Instead of accepting Bree as an eccentric, but real person, dedicated fans threw themselves into finding out the truth about Lonelygirl15. The first clue: “The domain name for her fan site was registered a month before her first video went up” (Sternbergh 2006). The final straw: “three tech-savvy fans, working together, set up a sting on the e-mail address that was being used by ‘Bree’; the operation netted them the Internet address of a computer at Creative Artists Agency (Heffernan and Zeller 2006). These fans did not just do some Google searches and call it a day; they put time and effort into tracing Bree’s email address to find out her true identity. Fans of Lonelygirl15 liked her videos, but they were interested in finding the girl making them.
Viewers enjoyed watching Lonelygirl15 when they believed she was just an average teenager, but their dedication waned after learning Bree’s true identity. Once it was officially revealed that Bree did not exist and her life was a hoax, viewers were faced with a difficult decision: they could “embrace the project as a new narrative form, condemn it, or simply walk away, never to be fooled again” (Heffernan and Zeller 2006). For the most part, fans chose to walk away. The videos that make up Lonelygirl15 season one, before viewers found out that Bree was not real, have all received hundreds of thousands or millions of views. The later videos that are part of lonelygirl15 seasons two and three, which are a continuation of the storyline introduced in season one with more characters, have view counts mostly in the tens of thousands. The novelty of lonelygirl15 wore off once it was revealed that she was not authentic. Viewers wanted to believe that Bree was telling the truth, but once faced with the facts they were no longer interested in a fake story.

Fans connected with Bree because she seemed so real and abandoned her when she became just another actress trying to achieve fame. The excitement of YouTube is that theoretically, anyone can become famous (Jenkins 2009, p. 113). By anyone, users usually assume this means average, undiscovered citizens armed with “a camera, a computer, and a catchy idea” (Sternbergh 2006). Viewers felt betrayed when they learned that Bree was not a normal girl trying to share her story but a paid actress with her own motivations. They had become so wrapped up in the saga of Bree that they did not want to believe that she was not just an everyday teenager.
According to viewers, authenticity is the name of the game. Bree brought her audience into her world, then betrayed them by being a fake. Most viewers lost interest after the big reveal, and while lonelygirl15 is still being produced as an Internet series, it is nowhere near as popular as Bree’s simple video blogs. Viewers were determined to find out if their beloved Bree was who she said she was and were disappointed when they found out it was all just a ploy. The authenticity of a video does matter: viewers want to know that what they’re watching is what it actually claims to be. Viewers were so interested in finding out the truth about Bree because of their dedication to her stories. YouTube is a site that inspires passion in its loyal viewers: fans of lonelygirl15 were passionate about Bree’s videos and passionate about getting to the bottom of her true identity.

Bibliography

Fine, J. (2006). “The Strange Case Of lonelygirl15”. Business Week [online]. Bloomberg L.P.Available from: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_37/b4000039.htm[Accessed 3rd May 2010].

Heffernan, V. and Zeller, T. (2006). “Lonely Girl’ (and Friends) Just Wanted Movie Deal”. New
York Times [online]. Available from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/technology/12cnd-

lonely.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1158120000&en=a56f0e777a707f56&ei=5094&partner=hom
epage [Accessed 3rd May 2010].

Jenkins, Henry (2009) What Happened Before YouTube. In: Burgess, J. and Green, J (2009).
YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity. p.
109-125.

Lonelygirl15. “First Blog / Dorkiness Prevails.” YouTube, 2006.

Sternbergh, A. (2006). “Hey There, Lonelygirl”. New York Magazine. New York Media LLC.
Available from: http://nymag.com/arts/tv/features/19376/ [Accessed 3rd May 2010].

Just as I couldn’t remember when key Facebook features like the News Feed were added, I can’t recall when I started using YouTube. It’s another Internet phenomenon that feels like it has been around forever. It was comforting to read in the Jenkins (2009) article that I am not alone. I have certainly utilized all of the benefits of the “star” Internet sites- YouTube, Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, etc. – so I am inclined to view them positively since they are a fixture in my life. However, I detected a negative tone in both articles when discussing these sorts of sites. On some level, both Jenkins and Keen have hostilities toward the biggest search engines and video portals and were happy to share just what they believe is wrong with them.

Issue #1: YouTube is too powerful
Evidence: “More optimistically, human rights activist Ethan Zuckerman argues that any platform sufficiently powerful to enable the distribution of cute cat pictures can also be deployed to bring down a government under the right circumstances” (Jenkins 2009, p. 114)
Ethan Zuckerman sees the good that can come of this ability, but I feel like playing the devil’s advocate. Should a website have that much power? It really depends on what kind of government is being brought down. If a video that speaks out against the dictator of a country starts getting a million hits, then perhaps there will be some necessary and beneficial changes made in that country. In that situation, YouTube deserves plenty of credit. However, what about a country with a democratic government? If activist groups like white supremacists or fascists start producing hundreds of YouTube videos and gaining followers, what might the consequences be for innocent civilians? YouTube is so universal that it can connect almost anyone, but there are some people that should not be connected.

Issue #2: Ownership does not exist on YouTube
Evidence: “The minute we put our vids online, we expose ourselves to the world…We can’t stop people from sharing our vids without our consent or even our knowledge. We can’t control the distribution of our own work in a viral medium” (Jenkins 2009, p. 118)
After reading this quote, I started thinking about how many times I’ve posted random YouTube videos on my friends’ Facebook walls or shared them in messages. I never cited who made the video, when it was released, or who owns the copyright; I usually just told them to “Watch!”. Since YouTube is a free, public website accessible by anyone, it is assumed that all of the content on there can be taken and used by viewers. The people that put time and effort into making these videos get nothing in return. I’m not going to start attributing videos to their posters now, but I will send a mental “thank you” to the person who decided to create said masterpiece.

Issue #3: Social media and video portal sites have infiltrated our society
Evidence: “They post publicly and promote themselves enthusiastically, and why not? That’s what everybody does on the Internet, form the AMV creators to machinima-makers to Brokeback Mountain parodists to political remixers” (Jenkins 2009, p. 118)
In order to successfully promote a movie, its trailer must be easily accessible online (on YouTube or iTunes) and it must have its own website and pages on Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter. This is very different from seeing a preview in the movie theater and making a mental note to save the date. Everyone wants to keep up with the competition, and the competition is racing to be known on as many websites and databases as possible. Commercials now include the line “and visit our website at www.blahblah.com”, which takes up a few seconds of precious air time. Instead of trying to promote the content of a movie or product, our society has turned to promoting its image.

Issue #4: Have we no shame?
Evidence: “We are blogging with monkeylike shamelessness about our private lives, our sex lives, our dream lives, our lack of lives, our Second Lives” (Keen 2007, p. 3)
“YouTube eclipses even the blogs in the inanity and absurdity of its content” (Keen 2007, p. 5)
Does anyone actually care about this blog entry I’m writing? (Besides you Professor Murthy). Probably not. I’m a first year college student in Maine- I don’t think the general public is dying to hear my thoughts on YouTube’s effect on culture, although I’m happy to share them. At least I haven’t uploaded a video of myself lip syncing along to my favorite Lady Gaga song or dancing like a maniac then “accidentally” falling over in an amusing way. It’s nice feeling self-important – I have my own blog! My thoughts have been published in the public sphere! Everyone can watch me doing something silly on YouTube! – but one person’s blog or video is just as special as the next. Having your own blog or YouTube channel is not a big accomplishment because anyone can do it. To try and be noticed, people turn off their filter- that’s when they start blogging about their sex lives and posting provocative videos. We just want to feel special again.

Issue #5: How do we know what we know?
Evidence: “For these Generation Y utopians, every posting is just another person’s version of the truth; every fiction if just another person’s version of the facts” (Keen 2007, p. 3)
“Then there is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia where anyone with opposable thumbs and a fifth grade education can publish anything on any topic…more than fifteen thousand contributors have created nearly three million entries in over a hundred different languages- none of them edited or vetted for accuracy” (Keen 2007, p. 4)
It’s not possible to create a fake news story or videotape a fake disaster and have millions of people believe that it is real. I myself have (sort-of) experimented with this: I was feeling sad one day, so a friend of mine decided to cheer me up by editing the Wikipedia page of one of my favorite childhood songs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_You_(Martina_McBride_song). He added a line into the introductory paragraph that I knew was directed at me. I didn’t shut my computer down for three days because I didn’t know how long it would take for someone at Wikipedia to realize the false information had been planted. Sure enough, when I finally did re-start my browser, my friend’s addition was gone. There are some vetters and editors out there, but for some time it is possible to get away with creating lies.

Issue #6: The Great Media Shift has begun
Evidence: “Old media is facing extinction. But if so, what will take its place? Apparently it will be Silicon Valley’s hot new search engines, social media sites, and video portals” (Keen 2007, p. 9)
I am interested in newspaper and magazine publishing, so I am aware of the crisis that old media is experiencing. This shift has become evident in my personal life: if I want to find out about breaking news, do I turn on the television (now even the television is considered old media)? No, I Google what I want to know and immediately have my answer. If I want to watch a music video, do I turn on MTV? No, I go to YouTube. The list of changes goes on and on- Wikipedia has replaced actual encyclopedias or even visits to official websites, Perez Hilton has replaced celebrity magazines, online news sites have replaced newspapers. Old media are doing what they can to try and keep up and are developing their own websites, iPhone apps, and YouTube channels. I wonder if the day will come when Old media is forced to completely transition into the world of New media. Will my children or grandchildren not remember what it’s like to fold a newspaper or look up a word in a printed dictionary? Only time will tell.

This week’s reading marked both a transition to a new idea and a return to a previous one. Both the Dahlberg and Papacharissi articles were about the realities of democratic participation in the public space on the Internet. Before this week, we have been discussing how users try to maintain their privacy on the Internet, but now we are moving on to a topic that is inherently public. We are also returning to a theme that has been discussed in great lengths: digital divides. There are a range of opinions as to whether democratic participation online is bridging divides or creating new ones, and both articles took a stance on the issue. The Dahlberg and Papacharissi articles demonstrated that the Internet has a lot of potential as a democratic space, but the nature of the Internet does prevent the translation of traditional aspects of democracy.

The Dahlberg article covered the opinions of “net enthusiasts” who strongly believe in the benefits of the Internet. One important point they have made is that the Internet has allowed information to become more readily available: “The enormous information storage and dissemination capacity of computer networks is seen by net enthusiasts as enabling the development of a more informed citizenry. Public bodies such as governments, city councils, libraries and universities are beginning to move public information into cyberspace” (Dahlberg 1998, p.73). I know that I have certainly become a more informed citizen thanks to the Internet. If I have a question about government branch or political process, I can immediately Google it and get my answer. I would never consider tracking down an Encyclopedia and searching for the answer there. The convenience of the Internet allows a greater percentage of the population to educate themselves about politics and take part in political discussions.
I can see why a person’s pride in having a good foundation of political knowledge would encourage them to join these discussions, but I am a bit skeptical. From what I have seen, politics is a very divisive subject: you’re either on “my” side, or you’re the enemy. Political discussions can easily turn into shouting matches that may temporarily or permanently alter a relationship. Tocqueville believes that individual’s gain a sense of existence and self-respect by participating in democracy (Papacharissi 2002, p. 380), but I think a person can also wind up feeling alienated and defeated.

The Internet has paved the way for all sorts of new inventions and applications, but its most important accomplishment is providing another way for users to express themselves. People like to have options, and the Internet has its own communication faults and benefits. Papacharissi states that “cyberspace extends our channels for communication, without radically afflicting the nature of communication itself” (2002, p. 388). I agree that cyberspace extends our channels, but I don’t agree that the nature of communication is not radically affected. If you look at forum posts or comments on blogs or videos, it seems like people are using a whole different language. Their sentences are filled with grammatical mistakes, misspelled words, creative capitalization and crude slang. The Internet allows for a certain amount of laziness because of its informality. If one were having a face-to-face or even more formal e-mail discussion, he or she would be more conscious of not wanting to sound like an idiot. The Internet allows more people to join group discussions on a variety of subjects, but it does not always encourage them to act intelligently.

Theoretically, anyone can join a discussion on the Internet and express their opinions. This is one of the opinions mentioned in the Dahlberg article: “Net enthusiasts also argue that cyberspace enables all citizens to be heard and treated equally. Social hierarchies and power relations are said to be undercut by the ‘blindness’ of cyberspace to identify, allowing people to interact as if they were equals” (1998, p. 72). However, this opinion is proved flawed by the Papacharissi article. The author mentions the important point that those with an opportunity don’t always take it: “Those who do have access to the internet do not necessarily pursue political discussion, and online discussion are frequently dominated by a few” (2002, p. 384). The Internet is not so equal after all: you must gain a reputation as a political correspondent in order to be taken seriously in online political discussion groups. The opinion mentioned in the Dahlberg article is also unrealistic because of the types of discussions commonly held on the Internet. The Internet is an informal place, and users are not always willing to dive deep into their intellect and share that with the world: “Often, online communication is about venting emotion and expressing…’hasty opinions’, rather than rational and focused discourse” (Papacharissi 2002, p. 385). If users would rather join a discussion to rant about what they deem is the greatest failure of this country, then nothing will be democratically accomplished. The Internet is all about oneself, and users are not always willing to form a bridge and try to interact in a goal-oriented way.

The Internet definitely have some political ambitions: it provides a political education and keeps the public informed, and it allows those who do want to have serious political discussions to find like-minded participants. However, it does not always weed out those who are searching for something meaningful from those who just want to get attention, and as always there are divides between education levels, Internet accessibility and political leanings. The Internet is continuously becoming more and more engrained in our culture, so I am looking forward to observing how online democracy and politics change later on.

Before this assignment, my public opinion of Twitter was that it was pretty pointless. Who really wants to receive constant updates about someone’s menial daily activities? I just didn’t think Twitter had much of a point. However, I could also tell that Twitter was becoming a large feature of the online world. Many of the websites I visited suggested that I follow them on Facebook- or Twitter. Out of curiosity, I would sometimes visit their Twitter pages (or the Twitter pages of celebrities…) just to see what all the hype was about. I’ll admit it was fun reading about the happenings of celebrities, but I didn’t think that interest would translate to an average person. This assignment gave me the chance to test that theory.

I enthusiastically dove into the task of creating my Twitter: I used my full name as my username in case I want to continue using my account after this assignment, started following websites and celebrities as well as my classmates, and tweeted almost every day. I found that I actually enjoyed checking my Twitter- I liked seeing real-time updates from news sites and magazines. I also enjoyed reading what my classmates posted. Following someone on Twitter is much different than being his/her friend on Facebook. The point of Twitter is to post status updates, so I wound up learning a lot more about what my classmates think about or what kind of activities I do. As a Facebook friend, Peter or Carl or Liza might not update their status that often or add to their profile, so I wouldn’t be learning anything more about any of them.

I found that Twitter is a great tool to use for surveillance. I checked my Twitter a few times a day so I was constantly in touch with what was happening with people. I am following 40 people on Twitter, so there were always new tweets being posted. I could easily find out what was happening with a classmate or a celebrity with one quick click.

I’ll admit that I haven’t thought too much about my privacy. I did use my full name as my username and gave my location as Brunswick, ME. I don’t think my tweets revealed too much about me- they showed what activities I liked, who I’m friendly with, and what times of day I dislike. My tweets are also public. I’m more lax about my privacy controls on Twitter than on Facebook for a few reasons. First, there are no pictures on my Twitter except for my profile picture. I don’t have to worry about family members or potential employers seeing an embarrassing or risqué photo. Second, the only “real” people I’m following/that are following me are my classmates. I don’t think any of them are going to post inappropriate messages that I wouldn’t want other people seeing. One privacy concern I did have is that random people could be looking at my profile. I did get two notifications that strangers were following me. I blocked them, so I’m grateful that Twitter notifies users when someone is following them.

I’ve had a positive experience with Twitter and will be continuing to use my account. My enthusiasm may wane once my classmates stop posting because much of the reason that I like Twitter is because I like getting to know them better. Hopefully more of my friends will join!

My favorite television show of all time is Veronica Mars. In every episode, a pint-sized, delicate-featured blond high-schooler takes on bike gangs and powerful men in order to solve a crime. She doesn’t have any futuristic gadgets, apart from a taser and some tracking devices, but she always figures out who did it (why, oh why was this show cancelled- curse you CW). For Veronica, the key to solving a crime is using her surveillance skills to uncover to perfect piece of evidence.

She's just so cool.

Surveillance has become much easier thanks to the Internet and its ability to track you. Well, the Internet itself does not follow you around, but there is an array of websites and tools that announce a user’s location, purchase history, or destination. The website Foursquare allows you to instantaneously publish your location on a city map- and find your friends’ locations. The site Blippy proclaims that it is “a fun and easy way to see and discuss what everyone is buying.” In other words, Blippy publishes your credit card purchase history. And, of course, Twitter allows the user to tweet their schedule for the day, down to the minute. All of these tools are “transactional information” (Blom 2004, p. 297) and make it significantly easier to find out where the bad guy has been.
Once Veronica has caught the bad guy, she wants to be sure that he will be locked up in prison. This comfort level could be achieved by Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, a prison model described in detail in the Michel Foucault article. Betham designed a prison that would allow the guards to view all of the inmates and not be seen themselves. The inmates would not be able to see anyone else. The benefits of this arrangement are obvious: “If the inmates are convicts, there is no danger of a plot, an attempt at collective escape, the planning of new crimes of the future, bad reciprocal influences” (Foucault 1979, p. 303). The inmates are in jail for a reason, so the more surveillance, the better.

I’m sure there’s a saying that captures this more eloquently, but there’s an old idea that perfectly connects surveillance and privacy: If you’re doing something bad, then your privacy does not need to be respected and surveillance is justifiable. If you’re not doing anything wrong then you can still try to have some degree of privacy, but surveillance shouldn’t matter because you don’t have anything to hide, right? The Jones and Soltren article explores the privacy preferences of college students on Facebook and determines that students are very easy to surveil.

First of all, Jones and Soltren were able to download information from the majority of four university’s Facebook pages. Even though they didn’t do anything with them, they were still presented with screen names and mobile phone numbers for complete strangers (Jones and Soltren 2005, p. 9). If Veronica needed to get this information for one of her cases, it is clear that it would have been fairly easy to do.
Some of the conclusions that this study came to include that “A substantial proportion of students share identifiable information” and “The most active users disclose the most” (Jones and Soltren 2005, p. 16). Not all students published their mobile phone numbers, but most had their real name, high school, and interests or activities. This seemingly harmless information is enough to identify and locate a person. Facebook users may think that choosing some privacy options is sufficient, but truthfully, any online profile holds valuable and accessible information.

Veronica, along with other private detectives, relies on her suspect’s forgetfulness in order to catch them. She can assume that even if they didn’t drop their driver’s license at the crime scene, some clue will turn up that will lead her to them. This clue might be found from their Facebook page, or their daily tweets, or, if they’re a really naive criminal, their Blippy account. The inherent lack of privacy on the Internet makes surveillance easier than tailing someone in a car. Veronica may appreciate these features, but users must keep in mind who could be looking at them.

She might be.

Crying sorority girl

Man teaches alpaca to surf

Llamas with Hats

Midd Kid Rap

I found this week’s readings very relatable. As an 18 year old, I have experienced the transition from young teenager to older teenager, and I can also compare my current habits to my 13 year old sister’s. I agreed with the findings of the Livingstone study: that older and younger teenagers are looking for different things in regard to their online profiles, that teens are more aware of privacy issues that adults give them credit for, and that having an active online social life isn’t always such a bad thing.

In the introduction to her article, Livingstone states that “While younger teenagers relish the opportunities to recreate continuously a highly-decorated, stylistically-elaborate identity, older teenagers favour a plain aesthetic that foregrounds their links to others, thus expressing a notion of identity lived through authentic relationships” (2008, p. 393). When I compare my sister’s Facebook page to my own, I can see this difference clearly. Ryan’s wall is full of messages from the different applications she uses stating that she has reached a new high score or unlocked the next level. She does have plenty of wall posts from friends, but their comments use lots of abbreviations, add extra levels, and feature plenty of exclamation points and hearts. She never deletes the record of her activities, so there’s a long list stating that she liked this person’s photo, wrote on that person’s wall, etc. When I look at my wall, I notice that I don’t have any messages from applications, and I’m conscious to delete most of my activities. The wall posts I’ve received are not necessarily in perfect English, but they do feature more words spelled correctly and proper punctuation. From my observations, I’ve deduced that while I primarily use my Facebook to casually keep in touch with friends, my younger sister uses her Facebook to showcase her every activity.

While this might also depend on age, teens are concerned about the amount of privacy they can apply to their online profiles. Livingstone found that teenagers apply the lessons they’ve learned about privacy for the real world to their online lives. One of her interview subjects, Sophie, stated that “I don’t give stuff away that I’m not willing to share” (2008, p. 404). Teens are aware that posting their home address or even cell phone number might not be such a good idea and try to privatize their profiles as much as possible. They also look for ways to create custom privacy settings: interview subject Nina was “frustrated that her site [did] not allow her to discriminate between who knows what about her within her 300 or so ‘friends” (Livingstone 2008, p. 405). Nina, as well as other teens, knows that not all of her “friends” are actually her friends. Luckily, now Facebook has introduced updated privacy settings so that users can choose how much access to give specific “friends”. Concerns about privacy online will never disappear, but teens are doing more to keep themselves safe than people realize.

There is a lot of publicity about the harm caused by sites like Facebook and Myspace, including cyberbullying and worries about the prevalence of pedophiles. However, there are everyday benefits that stem from having an online profile. One of the teenagers that Livingstone interviewed, Elena, said that she liked when people wrote encouraging messages on her profile: “It’s like quite nice, I think, when people say you’re pretty…I like it when they comment me because, like, it shows they care” (2008, p. 399). When the owner of a Facebook page is visually presented with demonstrations of support, his or her self-esteem rises. Everyone likes being complimented on their profile picture or receiving a wall post saying “Just thinking about you!”. Even if you’ve had a bad day, a message from a far-away friend on Facebook can cheer you up.

Online user-driven sites provide resources that can go beyond the support of an average friendship. The Smith article told the story of the song “Sophie”, which went from being completely unknown to an anthem for those suffering from anorexia. The song’s lyrics touched some listeners so deeply that they were inspired to seek help for their disorder or continue fighting it. The author of the song has received comments on her MySpace page saying “I’m struggling tonight and I happened upon your page. It must be a God thing, and I felt the need to thank you for ‘Sophie” and “I am now going to go and get help for my eating disorder instead of continually trying to convince myself and the counsellors I don’t have a problem” (Smith 2009). It would have been more difficult for listeners to both hear the song and express their gratitude for it without the benefits of social networking sites.

The online world is not perfect. Livingstone acknowledges that online profiles can turn into unhealthy and obsessive demonstrations of status and popularity and, as in the offline world as well, online “friends” can sometimes be cruel (2008, p. 403). However, I do think that online profiles can be helpful for teenagers’ social development. They learn their own preferences, whether it be the colorful, snazzy world of MySpace or the more streamlined style of Facebook. They make decisions regarding their own stance on how much privacy is appropriate and (eventually) learn how to control that. Most importantly, they can form their own supportive community, whether it be based around day-to-day friendships or struggles with hardships. These sites allow teenagers to grow up and chart their own evolution.

Both the McLelland and Poster readings discussed the phenomenon of virtual ethnicity. The mobility of Internet portals allows members of ethnic groups from around the world to re-connect based on their shared heritage. These new opportunities do make it possible for those with common ancestry to find each other, but they also allow for organized attacks against certain ethnicities.

Poster explored the possibility of re-connecting with and delving deeper into one’s heritage through an online resource. He joined a messaging system controlled by someone called “CyberJew” who sent out messages relating to the role of Jewish customs on the Internet. Although Poster is not religious, he still considers himself Jewish because of his childhood experience with Judaism: “The smells of food, intonations of voice, bodily gestures and ways of touching…these ‘micropractices’ of everyday life made me Jewish and these are, I believe, the factories of ethnicity” (Poster 1998, p.205). Poster considers himself Jewish because of the small details that he remembers from his childhood. These details can be translated over the Internet. Subscribing to a  messaging system that raises thought-provoking ideas about Jewish life, looking up a website with ideas for Passover-appropriate recipes, or even checking a box on Facebook that declares you to be Jewish can help you feel more connected to your ethnicity. The Internet offers up many possibilities for people to become more dedicated to their ethnicity.

However, the virtual world also allows those with a common ethnicity to join forces against traditional enemies. The McLelland article explored the intricacies of Japanese societal hierarchies and how these translated to the Internet. In Japan, the zainichi kankokujin, or Korean residents in Japan, are considered the lowest of the low. The treatment towards this ethnicity by the Japanese government has been abominable. Japan “refuses to allow dual nationality for its citizens”, “are not automatically granted citizenship and are treated as permanent residents with fewer rights than Japanese citizens”, and “are still excluded from public housing and the civil service” (McLelland 2008, p. 819). (Side note- this seems strangely reminiscent of the Japanese internment camps during World War II in the United States…is this sort of discrimination a vicious cycle?). The zainichi face many hardships in their public life, and these are now being carried over to the Internet. McLelland studied a thread on the popular Japanese website 2-channeru titled “Who do you hate more, Chinese or Koreans?” While both Koreans and Chinese were given as answers, posters were more quick to accuse a Korean of writing a response that denounced the theme of the thread. Online resources have allowed ethnic groups like the Japanese to band together to insult and attack other groups, like the Koreans.

I do not think there is a clear distinction that virtual ethnicities are good or bad. As in most cases, there are both benefits and consequences. Exploring one’s ethnicity online does allow a person to privately decide whether to embrace one’s heritage, but this exploration can be taken too far when used to hurt other people. I believe virtual ethnicities will continue to develop, and it is up to Internet users themselves to decide whether to declare an ethnicity and use it for good or bad purposes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/fashion/weddings/28vows.html?scp=2&sq=vows&st=cse

This article from Sunday’s New York Times tells the story of how Arundathi Jayatilleke and Michael Gelfand met. They met at Yale and became friends through their shared interest in carillon playing. They were both too shy to take their relationship to the next level, but Jayatilleke sensed that there was something there. She IMed her friend and described her situation with Gelfand- and sent it to him by accident. She realized her mistake and IMed the same friend to ask how to fix it- and sent it to Gelfand again. Gelfand and Jayatilleke met up, fell in love and are now married. Will this situation become a common “How did you meet?” answer in the 21st century?

WHAT IS A FACEBOOK INDEX?
The Facebook Index (commonly referred to as “FI”, “Findex” or simply, “The Index”) is the only formula to determine one’s level of coolness.

WHO CAME UP WITH IT?
The formula has been driven by Willie Candell and Aaron Newman.

SO, HOW CAN I FIND MINE?
The formula is as follows:
FE = Pictures + .9(Videos) + .85(Wall Posts) + .32(Friends) + .09(Bumper Stickers)

WHAT’S A “GOOD INDEX?”
The average Facebook Index (nationally) is about 1155, so if you have anything higher than that you’re doing great!

I’M NOT HAPPY WITH MY INDEX. WHAT SHOULD I DO?
You can always improve it! Take more pictures/videos, friend more people, and write on more people’s walls!