Rebecca Centanni
Sociology 022 – In the Facebook Age – Spring 2010 – Dhiraj Murthy

This week’s readings dealt with the concept of the digital divide that has emerged as technology has infiltrated the daily lives of many individuals. The study conducted by Witte and Mannon examines the variation in the use of the Internet between individuals of different gender, age, race, education, employment, and income, comparing statistics between 2000 and 2007. The study found that the number of adults online roughly doubled in the seven-year span, from 46% to 71%. Education and income were found to be the most significant factors in the inequality between users and non-users. Only 40% of individuals without a high school degree had ever been online whereas 90% of those with at least a bachelor’s degree were connected. Furthermore, this gap increased over the seven years, indicating that the educational discrepancies are growing. The difference between wealthy and poor classes using the Internet consistently grew by 14 points over the span.

The article by Norris also examines the digital divide, but breaks it down into three components. The global divide refers to the divergence of Internet access between industrialized and developing societies, the social divide explains the gap between rich and poor in terms of Internet use, and the democratic divide relates to the difference in individuals who either do or do not use the Internet to stay connected and take part in public life. The article further examines the effect of the divide on politics, the economy, and individual participation in the community. Also, it discusses the gap between developed and developing countries, raising the question of whether or not poorer countries could ever catch up to wealthier ones in terms of Internet use.

As Norris notes, “America has become all Internet, all the time” (274). But as Witte and Mannon explain, while “the Internet has undoubtedly become an important part of contemporary American life, it is not yet an important part of daily life for roughly half of all American adults” (27). Speaking in domestic terms, there is “a growing divide between the wealthiest and poorest in terms of consistent Internet use” (Witte and Mannon 36). This does not even begin to explore the divide that exists between developed and developing nations, as these poorer places are essentially becoming cut-off from modern society. According to Norris, the Internet age, itself, encourages inequalities on a global scale. There are “postindustrial economies at the core of the network and developing societies at the periphery”, indicating that those with less resources are bound to be left out in the long run.

What I find interesting is that the Internet, while it is the subject of the divide, may also be the best way to help narrow the divide. Despite all of the inequalities it creates, Norris notes “the Internet may foster new types of mobilization by transnational advocacy networks around the world” (276). The Internet is a hugely effective tool for businesses, as it “encourages market globalization [and allows companies] to deal directly with customers…irrespective of distance, the costs of advertising…” (Norris 275). If the issue of the digital divide were advertised online, it seems almost inevitable that most users would eventually see some sort of information on it. According to Witte and Mannon, the advertising has become so popular on the Internet that “even when users are not seeking product information or making an actual purchase, advertising infuses non-commercial sites with a commercial component” (42). Essentially, information advertised online appears everywhere online regardless of whether it is a commercial or non-commercial site.

I believe that the Internet provides the best resources for people in terms of connecting others to rally around a cause. The Internet increases the ease of becoming involved in community affairs for those who already have access. Blogging has become more popular as the number of people blogging between 2004 and 2006 doubled. Since these types of posts are available to anyone online, an individual could post about the digital divide with the hope of informing others about the issues, therefore gaining support for his/her cause. Additionally, information services online are booming. According to the study by Witte and Mannon, almost all of the top reasons why an individual goes online are related to obtaining information. With resources such as email, social networking, and instant messaging, it is easy for individuals to connect to one another and share information despite geographic boundaries.

Mixed media also provide users with the ability to take activism to a new level. Sites such as YouTube allow for people to post videos about anything, which can then be viewed by all others online. While Keen contests this point noting that YouTube is simply a manifestation of the narcissistic nature of our society, I disagree. After all, our dependence on the Internet as a whole is pretty selfish as we fail to consider the consequences for those who cannot keep up with all of the technological changes. Yes, there are videos of people searching for their fifteen minutes of fame. However, there are also plenty of activist videos working towards a cause. Jenkins recognizes the potential of YouTube, noting, “similarly for many nongovernmental advocacy organizations that are trying to engage a general public either with a single video or via a channel, YouTube is likely to be the first place that public will look” (121). The connectedness and conformity of the information society makes it relatively easy to guess where individuals will look for certain types of information, and YouTube is the place to find videos. Additionally, it is so easy to use that all users can become involved in the cause and participate.

And as more and more people are able to participate in a cause or learn more about one via the Internet, they can then share this information with others who might not be connected. The Internet makes it so easy to reach other connected users. Therefore, it seems that in order to spread information about the consequences of the digital divide (since you want to target other users), the Internet is the perfect solution. Witte and Mannon’s study shows that eighteen to forty-four year olds have the highest amount of online use. Coincidentally, they are the types of individuals that would be most effective in sharing information about the cause, whether it be through their schools or workplaces. By raising awareness of the digital divide between poor and rich nations through digital means, individuals may be most successful in mobilizing support to raise money and focus on narrowing this gap.

According to Castells, the network society in which we live can be broken down fairly easily into nine subcategories: the informational economy, the global economy, the network enterprise, the transformation of work and employment, social polarization, the culture of real virtuality, politics, timeless time, and the space of flows. While the characteristics of each of these categories are sometimes complex, the overall concept of the network society can be taken at face value as relatively simple. While the implications of such a society are extensive, they often go unnoticed because the networked lifestyle has become commonplace for us. However, Barbási and Watts both present examples of how the network society is not as straightforward as we believe. Barbási presents the case of MafiaBoy, a 15 year old who was able to completely rattle the online world. Watts describes the theory of the six degrees of separation between any two individuals resulting from the connectedness of society, raising questions of privacy and surveillance.

While the intertwined nature of society certainly has its benefits and downfalls, I think it is important to realize its exclusionary nature. The network society is created by and for the elite, which then has repercussions when one tries to extend the structure on a global scale.

It seems that the network society is a product of the elite made for the elite due to the fact that it is based off of the idea that individuals use technology to share information with each other. While these series of networks connect a large number of individuals across geographic boundaries, they also leave out a large number of individuals as well. As Castells notes, the society “excludes probably a majority of the population. It is characterized by an extremely uneven geography” (140). He then speaks of the developing “fourth world”, which will eventually emerge as a result of the inability of poorer countries to participate in the networked connectedness of other ones. As we discussed in class, there are certain neighborhoods that even FedEx cannot deliver to due to the risk of danger there. In my mind, I feel that society should be worrying about these types of physical gaps before we try and create cyber connections. After all, these areas most likely do not have the resources to engage in online communication and are essentially becoming isolated from the rest of society.

This concept then relates back to Watts’ idea of the six degrees of separation. As he asserts, “I can get a message to anyone, even if they have absolutely nothing in common with me at all” (43). He is making his assumption off of the theory that any six individuals can be connected to others by a mere six degrees, which is made possible in part by the networked connectedness of the network society. However, he too fails to realize the elitist nature of this society. It’s less likely that his connections could bring him in contact with a member of some remote tribe in Africa, for example, since these people are not part of his cyber network. And from the experiment that we did in class, we are much more likely to be able to link ourselves to higher profile and celebrity individuals than common people in the Brunswick community. This again reflects the fact that the network society is created for the wealthier sectors of the population. They are the “haves”, and can take part in the network society. On the other hand, many lower class individuals cannot afford these technologies and therefore go unnoticed.

Additionally, the network society comes at the cost of financial stability for many individuals. As I mentioned in my previous post, the information economy reduces the need for white-collar work, therefore depriving many families of a steady income. Flexible workers are in need in the new economy, mainly in the form of self-employment and part-time work. However, this results in instability for many families. As Castells notes, “between 50 per cent at least and 90 per cent of new jobs…are of non-standard labor arrangement” (142). This uncertainty in the work world is not at all helping the growing digital divide, but instead making it more difficult for less-well-off families to catch up to wealthier ones. While more elite individuals thrive in the network society, others struggle as the “present powerful trends [push towards] increasing inequality” (143).

Another issue arising from this extreme connectedness is that of surveillance. Everyone is somehow related to others in the network society through intangible cyber-links. Consequently, it is much easier to target a group of individuals, as once an individual can bring one down, he can also target the entire group. Foucault compares an individual’s online vulnerability to Bentham’s Panopticon, by asserting that “[the individual] is the object of information, never a subject in communication” (303). Online, individuals have no idea that others are watching them, making it much easier for somebody to target somebody else. One example would be MafiaBoy, as described in Barbási’s article. Though MafiaBoy did not have the same levels of education, as did many executives working for the targeted corporations, he knew how to navigate a computer and consequently halted entire systems. However, “the attacks were not the work of a genius. They were executed suing tools available to anybody on various hacker Websites” (Barbási 2). Anybody could have executed the attack because all information was publicly available. In the network society, people have access to others information posted online. In turn, they can also be targeted. Identity theft from online credit cards is another example of the risks of posting such information online. Yet this becomes a much larger issue for lower-class families than for upper class ones. The “haves” on the lower end of the economic spectrum oftentimes cannot afford the waiting period that comes with identity theft, as they do not have extra credit cards to use in the meantime. However, the most well off members have multiple back-up cards and therefore can continue as if nothing happened until the theft issues are sorted out. Though everybody in the network society faces the same risks, the wealthier individuals have the resources to risk it while less-wealthy ones do not.

Despite all of the negative aspects associated with tight levels of connectedness, there are some benefits. One is the notion of real virtuality, in which offline events have online significance. Castells asserts, “virutality of this [online] text is in fact our reality, the symbol from which we live and communicate” (144). In other words, individuals have the power to use cyber technologies to satisfy concrete needs. On an emotional level, many sites such as Second Life and Cybercity can provide individuals with emotional support and help them sort out many offline issues (such as feeling self-conscious when interacting with others due to face-to-face contact). Additionally, the network society gives activist groups the potential to gain support from others across geographic boundaries. Since the network society is characterized by the “prevalence of the logic of the space of flowers over the space of places”, like-minded individuals can use the Internet to discuss their ideas (147). Cyberspaces override physical spaces creating the potential for online activism and increased participation.

While the network society certainly provides a multitude of opportunities for individuals, it is clear that even within the group of people with the resources to connect, those with more financial resources will benefit much more than those without.

Many individuals in my generation fail to recognize the extent to which modern society depends on technology, since it has been this way for much of what we can remember. However, the two readings this week remind us of the numerous transformations that occurred to create our modern society.

In Chapter 7 of The Information Society Reader, Bell describes the transition from a pre-industrial to industrial to post-industrial society and the implications that this shift has on working class society. The post-industrial society “is defined by the quality of life as measured by the service and amenities…now deemed desirable and possible for everyone” (87). However, while Bell concludes that this shift was beneficial as it created new market, that of services, he does not fail to comment on the multitude of social problems resulting from this, most notably the changes in the workforce.

In Chapter 8 of The Information Society Reader, Kumar looks further into societal transformation, focusing on the new information society. Kumar seeks to reveal how the growing number of information workers coincides with a loss of individuality for the information worker and the fact that machines are even beginning to gain more importance than the skilled worker. Ultimately, this transformation has resulted in a shift from dependence on services to dependence on the transmittance of information between members of the society.

While I feel that many of these changes have been extremely beneficial to our society, allowing individuals to become more connected to the world around them and giving them the ability to feel connected to events occurring beyond geographic boundaries, there are many social implications of this shift. In my opinion, the two most prominent issues faced as a result of the transformation to the information society are the magnification of social stratification and the loss of individualism.

One problem with operating on an information-based society is that knowledge accentuates current social hierarchy. This is true both internationally and domestically. In order for an information society to function, countries need to accurately transmit information between citizens and other countries. Consequently, technological advances are necessary to the success of these countries. Yet, not all countries have equivalent resources to expend in such endeavors. Developing nations, unable to produce much of the necessary technology to begin with, will fall behind the developed nations at a much higher rate than before. Originally, these nations struggled to provide their citizens with the tools to have a comfortable lifestyle more similar to that of citizens in developed counties. Now, poorer nations have also fallen behind in terms of the distribution of information as well. Yet, these countries should be focusing their resources on achieving a higher quality of life for their citizens before they worry about technological advancement, automatically putting them at a disadvantage in the information society.

Social stratification is also occurring within countries. Contrary to the post-industrial society of the past, the information society is one in which “monopoly capitalism…is now to a good extent ‘information capitalism’ (Kumar 108). Technology has become the most important asset in society, as success is defined through intangible means, rather than by the amount of physical product produced. While Bell asserts that the post-industrial society can be characterized by an increase in the number of white-collar workers due to the fact that they produce the services integral to the society, “Taylorism” is the main characteristic of the information society. Taylorism is the “de-skilling of most middle level managers, [and]…the loss…of overall comprehension and control of their work” (Kumar 110). The white-collar workers that were so important in the past are now becoming obsolete. They are being overrun by machines, as technology is just as capable of doing their tasks but with an increased efficiency. In modern society, there is no need to pay multiple individuals to do the same task that can be completed with a single machine. As white-collar workers are becoming unnecessary in the work-environment, they are also falling behind in the information society. Without a stable job, these individuals cannot purchase the newest technologies. Without these technologies, they will fail to follow the trend of the information society, and may even become inactive members of the society in which they live.

While white-collar workers are losing their spot in society, educated individuals are finding themselves in an even better position than they previously held. Technology and information transmittance are the two main concerns of countries in the information society, therefore giving technology-producing companies an important position. However, these companies cannot compete fast enough to create more advanced gadgets to cater to the growing technological dependence of the people. Consequently, the educated class is in greater demand than ever to share their creative skill. These people will receive the most important jobs, and therefore will be most able to buy the necessary technologies to keep up with information transfer. While the educated class had always been seen as “higher” in comparison to white-collar workers, this stratification is magnified. Instead of just being socially inferior in the minds of many individuals, white-collar workers are actually facing threats of not being able to keep up with society.

While magnified social stratification is one result of the information society, a loss of individualism is another. In his article, Hassan notes, “it is unarguable that the information society is a world where collective and personal autonomy…have been gradually diminishing” (31). However, he also asserts that the connectedness of the society “can allow us to express our individuality” (2). After analyzing this week’s readings, I find myself disagreeing with Hassan. Bell explicitly states that in a post-industrial society, “the social unit is the community rather than the individual” (88). While the post-industrial society is not the same as the information society, it preceded the information society and consequently has many of the same characteristics. Bell also argues “participation becomes a condition of community”; yet this ideal is challenged by the fact that many individuals in the community cannot participate due to stratification and the inability to stay up-to-date.

As technology has been able to replace skilled individuals, the need for individuality (or individual distinction in terms of ability) has vanished. Yes, educated workers are needed for their skill and unique creativity, but the loss of an entire class of workers potentially counters this shift. Individuals desire distinction in terms of their job, most notably through titles that connote social superiority. However, the information society blurs much of the distinction between titles, for example with the term “engineer”. An engineer of the past had technological and mathematical skills but modern society has made this definition much broader. An engineer could be a physicist or a trash collector.

In addition to the loss of individuality within the workforce, citizens are also becoming one in a mass. The information society is truly a communal one, as information sharing depends on the interconnectedness of individuals. Yes, technology has allowed community to extend far beyond geographic boundaries, however it still promotes conformity. Gadgets allow for the transmittance of information between individuals; by default everybody needs to use the same types of tools. And since there is a race between companies to see who can produce the most efficient and newest products, no individual wants to have a brand different from those of others. Everybody will want the newest brand, thus creating a mass of people hooked onto the same device. These devices oftentimes allow little time for personalization as they mainly focus on information transfer.

With the development of the Internet, individuality has been further diminished. People can anonymously go online and leave comments on forums, never informing their readers of their true identities. Additionally, people are beginning to resort to text and instant message conversations rather than face-to-face contact. This shift is resulting in a loss of expression, as small mannerisms and even physical appearance, which used to define an individual, are ignored. Instead, everybody is made the same through simple text.

While the shift to an information society has certainly had many advantages, it has also produced multiple social problems. And unless these problems begin to be addressed, they will only intensify until individuals become technological robots, glued to their technology and ignorant of those who cannot keep up.

People like themselves. And people like to watch others make a fool of themselves. So why shouldn’t we like sites such as YouTube?

The two readings this week discussed the emergence of sites such as YouTube, and while they did discuss both its pros and cons, I feel like neither of the authors gave YouTube the credit it deserves. Keen was very clear that he generally does not think positively of the site, comparing YouTube users to “monkeys”, completely clueless but eventually able to make something legitimate because of luck. He notes that we are creating an “endless digital forest of mediocrity” that has somehow managed to gain worldwide popularity (3). And while he does not explicitly state it, it seems as though he almost thinks less of the human race because of its avid support of the site.

Jenkins looks more at the consequences of using the site. While he does compare the emergence of YouTube to DIY media of the past, he notes that they are not directly correlated. When discussing YouTube specifically, he looks at the sites inability to produce alternative politics, the risk of uncontrollable distribution, and the ability to decontextualize a video posted online.

Everything in life is going to have some positive qualities and some negative ones. Tons of pages could be written on the consequences of using the Internet as a whole, however I would never want it to disappear from my life. The Internet is something that I have been brought up on, and the same is true for YouTube. I cannot remember when YouTube actually emerged, and while I know it was relatively recently that it became such a huge phenomenon, I cannot remember the Internet without it. While there are certain aspects of YouTube that make it seem like a negative aspect, I do not at all feel that it reflects badly on society as a whole. It simply mirrors many of the likes and dislikes of contemporary society, especially that of a network society.

In my opinion, today’s society is extremely narcissistic. Those with money enjoy spending their earnings on luxury items, and advertising has exploded both online and offline. With people spending so much time marketing their products and themselves in the physical world, it only seems natural that a site would emerge where people could market themselves online. As Keen notes, at one point in time YouTube was the world’s fastest growing site (5). This statistic suggests that it must be doing something right, and in my opinion it has been so successful because it mirrors the desires of a large portion of society.

Celebrity culture is huge in this country- people of all ages want to stay up-to-date with their favorite celebrities’ lives. And as Jenkins notes, sites such as YouTube “celebrate the everyday person in a world of celebrity” (112). By simply posting a video online, individuals have the potential of gaining worldwide recognition. All it takes to become “famous” (in cyberspace, at least) is to create a video that somehow gains worldwide attention. Relating back to Livingstone’s argument in the “Taking Risky Opportunities” article, individuals want to display information about themselves to everybody who happens to be online (393). While this is certainly a blanket statement, I feel that it is a generally accurate description of many individuals (or at least those who use YouTube religiously to post videos of themselves). Additionally, she notes that individual identity created online is constricted by the ability to post certain information on any given site. However, with the introduction of mixed media into society, individuals have the ability to create more personalized representations of themselves (394).

I feel that this principle certainly relates back to the rapid growth in popularity of YouTube, as actual video footage can capture the side of an individual that words cannot capture, from home environment to even physical appearance. Keen notes the ability to personalize as a contributing factor to the growth of social networking sites, saying “they exist so that we can advertise ourselves: everything from our favorite books…drunken exploits” (7). And while not everybody will use SNS for the purpose of promoting him or herself, there is certainly a population of users with that goal. YouTube seems to be the perfect companion to an online SNS profile for such users, as it allows for users to be “more self-reflective and critical of [their] culture, thus enabling them to become more self-reflective participants” (Jenkins 116). Not only does it provide a means of self-promotion, but it also allows self-advertisers to interact with others, creating a community of individuals wanting to share themselves with others.

Keen makes a valid point when he asserts that such sites are “ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste meets mob rule” (1). I fully support the assertion that much of what ends up on YouTube is uninteresting for any individual unfamiliar with the poster (at least for videos that are simply an individual promoting him/herself). However, there are certain videos that I cannot help but laugh at because they are either genuinely funny or far beyond ridiculous. Either way, despite their questionable quality, these videos have the potential to become hugely popular and bring an unsuspecting poster (at least temporary) fame. And while one could spend all day criticizing these self-promoters, their videos could not become popular without the support of the general public.

YouTube success depends fully on the public’s acceptance of certain videos. As Jenkins proposes, the site “alters the contexts of circulation and reception…works now reach a much larger public via its channels of distribution” (113). In short, a site that provides users with the ability to share whatever random media they choose, combined with the extensive power of cyberspace, allows for the rapid and expansive distribution of such media to a wide variety of audiences far beyond geographic barriers.

Ignoring the fame-seeking users, this important quality of YouTube can also be translated into political and activist productions as well. As Jenkins notes, “participatory culture is not necessarily a diverse culture” (124). The web will certainly be dominated by the same types of individuals that control many other aspects of society- those with adequate resources to be spending time online. However, YouTube provides individuals the ability to post videos to inform other users about various causes (political, social, etc.) much more effectively than they could otherwise. The site has the potential to bring a huge viewership to a single video, which would certainly help the individuals trying to enforce the cause.

Additionally, sites such as YouTube allow younger individuals to become much more involved than they would have previously been, due to their lack of age restrictions and equalizing force when it comes to what can be posted. Age is a non-issue; technically speaking the quality of video only depends on the type of technology that an individual uses. And as this article from boston.com proves, young individuals do have the power to gain publicity from their postings.

Despite YouTube’s flaws and demonstration of narcissism at its finest, it is actually a pretty accurate representation of our society. Not only does it give some individuals the ability to express themselves and gain attention, but also it gives others the power to rally for a cause. And as Castells asserts in his description of the network society, the media shapes public opinion (144). In order to personalize a cause and gain viewership, one should use an image, as it is the most intimate form of media. Therefore, YouTube seems to be the perfect solution once you can look past the painfully embarrassing attempts at public attention.

The readings this week discuss the democratic potential of the Internet and its effects on the future of politics. The article by Papacharissi first examines the concept of the public sphere. The author notes that the Internet has created a new public space, but “a new public space is not synonymous with a new public sphere” (380). While the Internet functions as a public space in that it provides users a place to actively discuss, it does not directly enhance democracy, a key characteristic of public spheres. The author then looks at the issue of the digital divide in relation to the ability to access information, the possibility for miscommunication, and the commercialization of the Net to further support the idea that the Internet is not yet a public sphere.

The second article by Dahlberg discusses Habermas’ idea of the idealized public sphere to be found on the Internet, which allows fractional deliberation by individuals and is free of state and corporate interests. However, the author then presents three potential aspects that could undermine the democratic Net; corporate control and censorship, access restrictions, and the privatization of interactions. While he notes many positive attributes of the Net in relation to a democratized environment, he also notes that many interactions and services online are created with the priority of maximizing profits rather than enhancing democracy. Additionally, he proposes that the services provided by the Internet in relation to politics really only reach a small percentage of individuals, and therefore are only aiding those who have traditionally benefited by political and economic programs.

While I do understand and agree with most of the arguments presented by the authors, I feel that they fail to acknowledge three implications of the Internet as a form of virtual democracy: the ability of the Net to bring a group of individuals together, the impact it has had on youth culture, and the fact that the “digital divide” is theoretically not a new concept in politics.

As stated by Papacharissi, the Internet has the ability to “bring individuals together and help them overcome geographical and other boundaries” (381). However, the author then counters the previous point by noting that online discourse oftentimes ends in miscommunication, with certain individuals using free speech without a second thought due to the anonymous nature of online communications. Many individuals simply post hasty opinions rather than well-developed thoughts (385). This idea made me think of the articles we read a few weeks ago about virtual ethnicity, and the implications of the existence of sites strictly dominated by one ethnic group. However, in this case, it is political rather than ethnic groups that oftentimes dominate threads. In the article by McLelland, the author addresses 2-channeru and the implications of having such an exclusive, and oftentimes derogatory, site. Individuals who identify as native Japanese use the site in such a way that is offensive to other users, especially Koreans. And while this type of virtual identification can become hostile, I believe that it certainly helps the Japanese users further their sense of identity. I feel like the same pattern is visible in online political spaces. In doing a simple Google search of either conservative or democratic political forums, I was presented with a multitude of sites strictly dedicated towards one political party, allowing users to comment on recent news stories or even discuss past elections. I feel that these types of sites are definitely beneficial to the political user, allowing him/her to interact with others with similar beliefs while finding a place to express his/her opinions. Especially if the individual is, politically speaking, a minority in his/her geographic area, he/she has the ability to connect with others across physical boundaries who share common ideas. And while Papacharissi is correct in proposing that while political discussion has the capability of being transferred online it is not always going to do so, I feel that she doesn’t give enough credit to the Internet in its ability to facilitate discussion. The Internet can be used for a huge variety of tasks, however not all of them will ever be used simultaneously by all users. Instead, they choose what they want to do in their time online, and those who are politically minded may choose to use the easily accessible spaces set up online.
Two sites I found in doing my Google search:

Democratic Political Forum

Conservative Political Forum

Another aspect of the Internet as a democratic space that I find important is the effect that it has on younger individuals. My generation has been brought up on technology, and therefore the Internet is taken as part of our daily lives. It only seems natural, then, that politics become part of our online world. While I do not think that it is something to be proud of, I very rarely read the newspaper or watch the news at school. However, since so much political information is available online, I feel that it is the most convenient way for me to stay up-to-date with the latest happenings. I have my homepage set to a news site and therefore am updated on current events every time that I go online. And though I am not actively discussing politics, I still feel somewhat involved. Both articles discuss the increased commercialization of the Net and the ways in which that interferes with true democratic intentions. As Dahlberg notes, “the virtual environment is now marketed and metered out to network consumers” (74). While this is certainly evident of the capitalistic components of our society, I feel that it supports the idea that the Net has many components geared towards younger individuals. I think this is especially evident in the ways in which younger individuals take an interest in celebrity culture. Young adults pay attention to celebrities and want to buy many of the same brands that they endorse. Many celebrities now use their Twitter and Facebook accounts to share their political viewpoints and support certain candidates. And when individuals see their favorite celebrities supporting a candidate, they will most likely want to at least learn about that candidate’s viewpoint. Additionally, both Obama and McCain took advantage of such sites, allowing them to reach out to younger citizens while promoting their platforms.

Finally, while the two articles cite the digital divide as a reason why the Internet cannot be seen as a democratic sphere, they fail to recognize that this divide is not very different from what normally occurs in politics. As Dahlberg notes, the “commercial, privatized Net adds weight to fears that new classes are developing, based upon inequalities in the distribution of information and communications resources, that reinforce the structural inequalities of global capitalism” (76). And while both sources note that the emergence of politics on the Internet can lead to domination by the elite, this is not necessarily very different from what normally occurs in everyday life. While there certainly are exceptions, I feel that many of the individuals who do not have access to the Internet also do not have the time or resources to stay actively involved in politics. Therefore, they would not be very involved in political events regardless of whether or not they are connected. The Internet serves as a convenient method for many individuals who are already actively involved in political occurrences. Papacharissi notes, “the virtual sphere is politically divided in a manner that echoes traditional politics” (383). While the Internet is not necessarily going to radically change the way in which individuals interact with politics, it is still serving a purpose and providing a useful service for many involved individuals.

The Internet is rapidly becoming more and more prevalent in the lives of many individuals. And as Norris notes in the article about the digital divide, the cost of technology is staying the same while technological capabilities are rapidly improving. While these changes could certainly lead to an increased digital divide, they could also provide more opportunities for political interaction in cyberspace, possibly changing the ways in which individuals view and interact with politics.

This exercise confirmed my dislike of Twitter. I feel that a large portion of Twitter users use the site in order to post play-by-plays of their daily lives which I have no interest in doing. Originally I used a fake name in my account because I was unfamiliar with the privacy settings and uncomfortable with sharing personal information with anyone online. However, I ended up changing my name to “Becca C” because it felt unnatural posting about my life under a different identity. That being said, I still tried to keep my posts as ambiguous as possible. My Facebook account is set to private, and since I was not fully informed about all of Twitter’s settings, I tried to be cautious when posting.

The default setting on Twitter is to have a completely public profile- even more open than Facebook, which only allows for your network to view all of your information. Additionally, the search function picks up on both usernames and tweet topics, making it extremely easy to locate a person even when not intentionally searching for them. Last night I posted a tweet about doing my calc homework and when I logged on again, CalcABProfessor was suddenly following me. This profile had a ton of followers, and I find it unlikely that it was actually an individual person’s profile. That being said, I find it extremely unsettling that a Twitter user could simply catch the word “calc” in my Tweet, find my profile, and then be able to follow me. Another feature that I feel uncomfortable with is the “Top Tweets” feature. Without even having a profile, a person on the Internet could go to the website and see a random feed of tweets, and therefore see profiles (granted the individual does not have his/her profile set to private).

What I did not realize is that my Twitter account would show up on a Google search of somebody I was following. Once again, a random individual was directed to my profile even though he/she was not intentionally searching for me.
In addition to my discomfort with the default privacy settings, I really found no use for my Twitter account. In doing my required tweets, I found it difficult to find things that I actually wanted to share. When I use my Facebook account, I rarely update my status. For this assignment I had to provide 15 status updates in a 6-day period, but I found that most of my tweets were very forced. I feel like my daily life is nothing worth sharing with everyone. However, I did enjoy being able to have a conversation and respond to other tweets of my classmates.

In my opinion Twitter is perfect for celebrities, many of whom do update their profiles religiously. It provides a way for them to let their curious fans know what they’re doing without having to deal with uploading pictures and having friends. People can follow their favorite celebrities’ profiles without the celebrity having to follow them (i.e. the celebrity does not have to be the equivalent of a “Facebook friend”). In that sense, the interaction is much more one-sided and therefore less indicative of a true friend (in comparison to Facebook). Personally, I much prefer the ability to live chat with my friends, which cannot be accomplished through Twitter.

While I am not a huge fan of Twitter, I still found myself becoming slightly addicted to it (just like Facebook all over again). I would go online at least once an hour just to see what my other classmates were up to and to read the latest tweets. I suppose this is just part of the curiosity factor that brings individuals onto social networking sties to begin with. And despite all of my concerns with surveillance, I’m not sure if I’m going to end up deleting my account. I’m fairly certain I will not continue to update my page, but I might still log in just to see what everybody else is up to.

I personally find the issue of Internet surveillance very important, and am always cautious in what I post online. The readings this week all provided different viewpoints on the topic of privacy in cyberspace and the possible implications of personal information being exposed. The introduction by Blom argues that while Internet surveillance does indeed occur, it is a necessary aspect for modern-day individuality. In order for companies to produce the type and quantity of goods desired by consumers, they must be able to constantly survey the population to get a sense of current interests. Additionally, he argues that watching is a characteristic of human action: it is natural for people to monitor each other and subsequently learn from their actions, an ability that separates human beings from other animals. While I agree with the author on the economic benefits of cyber-surveillance, I’m still uncomfortable with the idea that complete strangers could somehow gain access to my online accounts.

In the article by Foucault, Bentham’s Panopticon is used as a metaphor for the surveillance that occurs on a daily basis. In fact, the obstruction of online privacy is almost an implied condition of the Internet- it is a public space, and therefore open to anyone who has the ability and the desire to explore. Foucault notes that individuals online are very similar to those within the panopticon- they are trapped within perfect visibility. People who are online are metaphorically in a very similar situation as they are constantly being monitored and are the object of information but are unable to interact with those watching them. The fact that this ability to survey, and therefore hold power, is public (meaning anyone online has the ability to access the information of others) makes the effects of Internet surveillance seem less intense.

What I found most unsettling about the study by Jones and Soltren is that they were able to download information from the profiles of many college students without even being in the network. Traditionally, Facebook profiles are open to an individual’s friends and others within his/her network unless the privacy settings are changed from their default position. However, simply by noting a pattern in the URLs of profiles for different schools, Jones and Soltren were able to download multiple profiles, indicating that any individual could do the same without the consent of the page’s “owner” (assuming we can even define the concept of ownership in cyberspace). I have two comments about the study. On the one hand, I think the data received is slightly skewed as they study only looked at large universities. I feel that in a smaller school environment, where personal connections can be made more easily and an individual can have more of them, one would be less likely to post as much personal information. Additionally, the conductors of the study judged the extent of use of Facebook by an individual by his/her number of friends. I feel that this is neglecting the fact that some individuals only use their profiles for a small group of intimate friends, and therefore numbers do not really hold importance.

Despite my uneasiness with the lack of security online, I have never considered stopping my Internet use or deleting my Facebook account. I feel that this sentiment is common for many members of my generation as well as younger individuals as we have almost been brought up on the Internet.

As children, our parents taught us to never talk to strangers. While that is still important advice, I feel like it now needs to extend to online-strangers as well. And with that comes “never share personal information online”. Online surveillance is such a large issue in contemporary society due to the fact that a growing percentage of online individuals are children, and they are starting to go online at earlier and earlier ages. While Facebook was originally created for college students, it has now expanded to the younger (and older) age groups, allowing people to join high school and geographically defined networks without having a college email address. What many people, especially children, fail to realize is that the Internet is a public place. As Foucault notes, the individual “is the object of information, never a subject in communication” (303). Since people never physically interact with those who are able to access their information, they oftentimes forget that they can be seen until it is too late. And as the article that I posted below asserts, the Internet is becoming a major source of information, consequently lessening the importance of traditional group activities. As a result, younger and younger individuals will continue to look to the Internet as a means to pass time.

Also, relating back to Livingstone’s article, younger individuals choose social networking sites that will best allow them to personalize their pages. While Facebook tends to be for the more mature audience, MySpace users are generally younger, and choose the site because it allows them to fully customize their pages. These kids are not thinking ahead to the consequences of sharing the information that they post online. Instead, they are merely focusing on bedazzling their own profiles and the ways in which their classmates will view their pages. And since the Internet has such little centralized control and widespread use, it’s hard to uphold the usage restrictions. Many SNS have minimum age requirements, but there is nobody to actually regulate the age of individual users. I know a bunch of my younger neighbors who have MySpace and Facebook accounts, and when I’ve casually mentioned it in conversation with my mom, she was quick to reply that their parents had no idea that they had one. As kids are using the Internet without their parents’ consent, it is much more likely that they will take unnecessary risks, as they do not understand the potential consequences of their actions.

While it is inevitable that posting online can lead to the public display of an individual’s information, there are ways in which this “invasion of privacy” can be controlled. Simply put, people need to be smarter about what the post online. As Livingstone noted in her article, many individuals had a difficult time managing their privacy settings on Facebook and made multiple mistakes. She asserts, “these difficulties in managing privacy via privacy settings reflect broader Internet literacy issues” (406). Essentially, individuals need to learn to be literate in technology before going online. Many of the problems arise because people do not take the time to read about the default settings in many social networking sites before actually posting personal information. As Jones and Soltren explain, an individual can post as much or as little information as he/she would like on a profile, but he/she still has to submit such things such as their name and email address to even open the account. And my people who are not fully literate in this technology (myself included) never consider the implications of submitting this data.

I did a Google search on Facebook privacy settings and found this information, supported by the information in the study. According to Facebook’s privacy policy:

Site activity information. We keep track of the actions you take on Facebook, such as adding a friend, becoming a fan of a Facebook Page, joining a group or an event, creating a photo album, sending a gift, poking another user, indicating you “like” a post, attending an event, or authorizing an application. In some cases you are also taking an action when you provide information or content to us. For example, if you share a video, in addition to storing the actual content you uploaded, we might log the fact you shared it.



Access Device and Browser Information. When you access Facebook from a computer, mobile phone, or other device, we may collect information from that device about your browser type, location, and IP address, as well as the pages you visit.


Essentially, every move that an individual makes while on his/her Facebook account is recorded, and even if the profile has strict privacy settings, a hacker still could still manage to gain access to the activities of a user. While I closely monitor my Facebook settings to make sure my profile is private, I honestly had never come across this page before and did not know about most of the information posted. Additionally, as the study notes, “ a user can request Facebook to not share information with third parties though the method of specifying this is not located on the privacy settings page” (6). The fact that this crucial privacy information is not even located on the basic privacy settings page proves the importance of online literacy to protect the identities of individuals. Such a large population of young adults (as well as younger children and adults) are inviting SNS into all aspects of their lives, but are not actually considering the nature of the space in which they are posting and the consequences that could arise.

Despite the fact that there are so many risks associated with interactions online, I do not at all feel that individuals should stop using the Internet. In reality, there are also many risks to privacy offline as well. I feel that cyber-surveillance has become such a talked-about topic because of the fact that individuals do not know how to correctly display information online. All that is needed is to educate people about the risks of cyberspace and the ways in which they can help to protect their privacy to the best of their ability.

This article from NYT.com discusses Internet use in China. It argues that for many residents of China, the cyberspace is becoming the main source of entertainment. The fact that individuals find it more satisfying to spend time online than interacting with other individuals is just one consequence of our growing dependence on cyber-technologies.

This article on comcast.net homepage is the story of how a 16 year old is suing his mother for going onto his facebook page, changing some of his wall posts, and resetting his password. The fact that the teen is taking legal action demonstrates how much certain people value their pages and they truly believe the pages to be a method of self-expression.

This week’s readings looked at the use of the Internet by teenagers and young adults. The article “Web hit touches a chord with anorexics” describes the impact that the song “Sophie” had on many individuals struggling with eating disorders. A short film called “My Story”, which showcased an individual’s struggle with anorexia, used the song as background music to the pictures, adding a new emotional dimension to the clip. The popularity of the song online is indicative of the power that comes with the ability to use multimedia sources in a virtual production. The video would not have had its emotional depth without the inclusion of the song. The combination of lyrics, music, and visuals came together to evoke a strong emotional response in the viewer, reflecting much of the pain that comes with an eating disorder. The powerful capability of the Internet to create works that leave a lasting impression on their audiences is becoming more and more commonplace in today’s society as individuals rely on multimedia sources for both professional and recreational productions.

The article by Livingstone looks at the use of social networking sites by teenagers and young adults, noting the shift that occurs in usage style as the teenagers mature. Profile pages on SNS are another example of the way in which multimedia sources can combine to create a unique experience for a viewer. The study showed that younger individuals are keener on creating fancy and constantly changing profile pages with excessive decorations whereas more mature users prefer streamlined profile pages. As Livingstone proposes, individuals tend to shift from using MySpace to using sites such as Facebook as they mature, allowing them to better create the image that they want to project. The study focused on individuals in the London area, and did not include any users from the United States. However, the study cites a statistic stating that the UK has about 6.5 million MySpace users (the most popular SNS in the UK) while the United States has 38.4 million. This discrepancy in popularities may hint at differences in the ways in which residents of both countries use the sites.. It seems that many more Americans use SNS than British, indicating that residents of the US may be more reliant on cyber communications whereas British teens still base much of their interactions off of concrete experiences. Additionally, the study concludes that many individuals change the type of site they use as they mature, however this data seems inconsistent with the usage patterns of the sample of teenagers studied. While the general trend seemed to apply for female users, most male users continued to use MySpace even as they matured. I feel that this difference in usage patterns between genders should be analyzed more closely to provide insight into the ways that SNS are used by different genders.

The idea of self-expression as discussed in the readings is interesting, especially regarding the ways in which individual expression is shaped by technology, and they ways in which online users then affect the capabilities of future technologies. As Livingstone notes, “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” (393). MySpace is notoriously popular among younger teenagers as it allows its users to fully personalize their profile pages. Everything from custom-designed backgrounds to “favorite music” applications can be added to one’s profile to give it a sense of individualized personality. While I never had my own MySpace page, a few of my friends did in middle school. Whenever my friends and I would hang out, a large portion of time would be spent on each other’s MySpace accounts, looking at the latest posts and constantly changing the personalized features of the page. And despite the fact that we were spending a huge amount of time on a page that only belonged to one of us, we all enjoyed the thrill of being able to add tons of personal elements to the page that would then be seen by a large portion of our classmates.

My personal experience also supports the idea of a shift to Facebook as individuals mature. I much prefer Facebook to MySpace for the fact that it is so streamlined and has very generic-looking profile page layouts. I find no need to add all the glitz that can accompany a MySpace profile but prefer to have my page reflect the maturity of my current age. Yes, I do upload pictures to help personalize my page a bit, but even my information sections such as “Interests” and “Music” are fairly compact. I feel no need to list every little thing I have ever been remotely interested or involved in because my target audience is my current friend base. They know about me already, and though my profile is set to private, I still find it unnecessary to add excessive personal information. However, I feel that Facebook is beginning to adopt more and more characteristics typical to a MySpace-like site as an increasing number of younger users is entering the site. Originally aimed at college students, Facebook has expanded its user base in both directions, attracting teens as young as middle school as well as middle aged adults. While older users will probably stick to the features aimed at the college students, the younger users are discovering a multitude of features available to personalize their pages. My sister is a freshman in high school and has had a Facebook page for about a year. Though we are only four years apart, I can definitely see a difference in they way we present ourselves through our pages. She and her friends are very into adding applications for the sake of adding them. She is a “fan” of about 90 different Facebook pages, ranging from our high school to “Standing alone awkwardly in public when you’re waiting for a friend”. I personally have never been keen on the “fan” application and don’t really use it much however just yesterday I pointed out to her that the number of pages she was a fan of was a bit excessive. She agreed and told me she would clean up, only to drop the page count down from 93 to 85. When I asked her why she is a fan of such random pages, she said that she likes them, and that all of her friends are fans as well.

I think that the availability of multimedia sources on the Internet has a large influence on the ways in which individuals differ in online self-expression though social networking sites. In general, younger individuals are much more molded by the media than are older ones, especially younger girls. They want to dress like their favorite celebrities and embrace the Hollywood socialite culture. As a result, they turn to pages such as MySpace, which allow them to feature a background layout of their favorite celebrity or a popular brand-name item. And as cyberspace makes it even easier for the media to infiltrate the everyday lives of individuals, young teens find it more and more important to associate their projected appearance with things that are seen as “cool”. I feel that this desire to project and appearance that is consistent with pop-culture is part of the reason why becoming a fan of pages is so popular amongst teens on Facebook. The feature allows them to make the same type of outward associations that they would with a background on a MySpace page. Even beyond SNS profiles, the “My Story” film shows the ability of multimedia sources to be used to project an image and attract the attention of outside individuals.

As Livingstone notes, individual identity online is strongly mediated by what an individual is capable of displaying on his/her personal page. The identity that is displayed to cyberspace is really a representation of “the self embedded in the peer group” (400). Thus, the site an individual uses for self-expression and the creation of an online identity is important to the final product. Individuals are seen as a member of their greater friend community, and therefore to make themselves appear popular, they want to choose a site that many of their friends are involved in as well. While identity comes from borrowed media for younger teens, older individuals look to establish themselves in the context of their social groups. As Livingstone notes, the formation of an online identity depends on “the choice of site (one must select that already used by one’s friends) and mode of address (most say they put on their profile the content that hey consider their friends would enjoy)” (407). Consequently, self-expression online is both limited and expanded due to the resources of cyberspace. As I mentioned above, the ability to use multimedia sources greatly expands an individual’s expressive capabilities when sharing representations of him/herself online. However, users of SNS do not want to display every little detail about their lives- instead they pick and choose details to best make them fit in with their target audience as well as the other users of the site.

After reading the articles I searched online for different social networking sites, and found it interesting to view the differences in the image projected by the sites based on their target users. Habbo.com is geared towards younger teens. It consists of a variety of hotels and public spaces where avatars can play games and engage in various discussion boards. The site is clearly geared towards tweens, using cartoon-like animation, bubble letter fonts, and bright colors. At the other extreme is a site called Decayenne.com, which is a SNS designed for the elite. The site is only open to users who have received an invitation, and focuses on connecting cosmopolitan individuals who live extravagant lifestyles and believe that they embody a prestigious spirit. The high-status target audience is overwhelmingly evident in just the style of the site itself, as it incorporates fancy script letters with pictures of extravagant locations and dark, mature colors.

A user of either of these sites could also have an account on another SNS such as Facebook or MySpace, but I would assume that their two profiles would be drastically different due to the different target audiences of both of the sites. The average Facebook user is not necessarily cosmopolitan and into “all things elite”, so a user who also has a Decayenne account would probably make him/herself appear more “average.” While the Internet does provide an easy means of self-expression, as well as a fairly simple way to share one’s identity with others, the type of media sources used greatly impact both how an individual presents him/herself as well as how he/she is perceived by others.

Decayenne

Habbo