Sara Kwasny
Sociology 022 – In the Facebook Age – Spring 2010 – Dhiraj Murthy

This week’s readings focused on the evolution and rise of the popular video Web site, YouTube.

Andrew Keen offered a good introduction to the rise of the site, describing the possibilities of Web 2.0 as a whole.  He compares Web 2.0 to the “monkey theorem”, claiming if you have an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters, one of the monkeys will create a “masterpiece”.  This is true with Web2.0 as well, but I think the odds are a lot higher than those of monkeys because the technology we are presented with is more advanced than typewriters, and we as humans are more advanced.  Keen then describes blogging and how our culture feels the need to constantly use it, with 500 million blogs expected by 2010.  Because of this, however, it is difficult to tell the difference between what is real and what is just information posted on the Internet.  As an example, Keen references Wikipedia, which we have talked about in class and learned about its development through documentaries.  While Keen discusses Wikipedia in a negative connotation, I believe it is in fact incredibly useful.  I was told early in schooling that the Web site was not to be used for research papers, but it was still a great place to start with initial information, helping me narrow down my searches.  The problem, however, is that random users can go onto the site to change the information posted there.  Keen continues to state problems with Web 2.0, including how Google searches rely solely on popularity of a site.  He discusses the decline of actual news on the Internet, citing examples like Reddit or Digg, both of which are sites that have “Top 20 stories” pertaining to celebrity gossip rather than breaking news.  Although I am not familiar with either of the sites, it reminded me a lot of Perezhilton.com, though there are others very similar.  Lastly, Keen shows how narcissistic YouTube, and the rest of Web 2.0 is, something we’ve discussed in detail with social networking sites like Twitter and Blippy.

Henry Jenkins examines the history and development of the site.  He originally argues that Web 2.0 is actually possible because of sites like YouTube and other sites that are developing.  Jenkins defines YouTube as ‘a normal, calm, established appropriation of speech” (110).  He goes into the evolution of the site, believing “do it yourself” practices date back to newspapers in the 19th century.  In the late 1990′s, Jenkins proves many predictions of the site as “garage cinema”, even though YouTube wasn’t started until 2005.  However, while sites like YouTube have been in the works for a long time, Jenkins argues that “YouTube exemplifies a convergence of culture” (113).  He believes that the site changes the way of distribution of videos, not the production, and that is what makes it different.  People are skeptical of the how the Web site is commercially owned because minorities and non-normal things will “drop out of the picture”.  I disagree with this, however, because there will always be opposition to majorities.  Though the voices will be smaller, the minorities will always post.  Jenkins then goes into the argument that YouTube is diversely motivated, and this diversity is encouraged by democracy on the Internet.  The site is “generative” because of this diversity, allowing for a variety of cultures to be heard.  It also allows for people within cultures to be “self-reflective”.  Jenkins continues to discuss the evolution of the site, concluding that the anonymity on the Internet before is the reason YouTube did not develop sooner, citing music remixes as an example.  Many people want to use YouTube as a non-profit channel, something I think can be easily done.  Jenkins uses the example of the Harry Potter Alliance, which can definitely be developed further into larger projects.  The owners recognize the potential for the site, despite the “Astroturf” Jenkins brings up.  The “Astroturf” blurs the lines between real and fiction.  Lastly, Jenkins further defines the digital divide when he discusses how the value of the site is not distributed equally.  Again something we’ve discussed in class and within other readings, there is a “participation gap” between those who use and those who do not use the site.  Therefore, the minorities that do not utilize the site will be pushed aside, ultimately widening the digital divide.

All three readings this week discussed Habermas’ understanding of the “public sphere”.

According to Dahlberg, a public sphere is “a space free of state and corporate interests where private individuals can come together as a ‘public’ and rationally deliberate, ‘as if equals’ (bracketing out of inequalities), upon issues of common concern” (Dahlberg, 71).  There are certain things that define this public sphere: 1) it must be flexible, 2) opinions must be understood as plural, and 3) it must overlap internationally, nationally, and locally.  This ultimately allowed for “critical scrutiny”.  Dahlberg compares this to the European bourgeois, which was ultimately destroyed by the development of mass media.  He then goes into a more recent example of Al Gore’s argument that the Internet offers more democracy than mass media would because of the anonymity it offers.  However, this anonymity is not as “blind” as Dahlberg suggests because it can eventually be traced with new technology.  Therefore, this would make it less likely for people to post negative things about democracy as Habermas suggests.  Dahlberg then goes into an argument about how the public sphere will offer equality among users, a point a strongly disagree with.  Though it is discussed more in Papacharissi’s article, Dahlberg completely ignores the “digital divide” of those who do not have the luxury of computers, let alone Internet access.  These people, usually of the lower class, probably have more problems they would like addressed than those with access.  This creates an enormous problem with Habermas’ public sphere because there is automatic inequalities.  Next, Dahlberg discusses the three major developments of privatisation: 1) commodification, 2) convergence, and 3) commercialisation.  In terms of capitalism, he argues that the Internet offers the “perfect market place” because it is a place for direct advertising.  As the Internet continues to develop, it is clear that this is becoming increasingly true.  There are now ads in more places, including Facebook, YouTube, and extended ads on Hulu.  Dahlberg then quotes Apple founder Steve Jobs, who discussed the implications of the privatisation of the Internet, including: 1) corporate control and censorship, 2) access restrictions, and 3) privatisation of interactions.  However, it was conceded that privatisation is the reason the Internet is growing as quickly as it is.  As a result, cyberspace is becoming a commercially rented space, causing a need for censorship.  This eventually is causing new classes to develop, again indicating that there is indeed a “digital divide”, but not only between users with computers between those without.  Instead, there is also a divide between companies who can advertise and market online and those who cannot.  Eventually, Dahlberg states that the Internet will be increasingly seductive in that people will want to “maximize their individual pleasure”.  This will ultimately lead to more censorship and control of information on the Internet.

Erkki Karvonen sets up a better explanation of Habermas’ “public sphere” by setting up the historical background of democracy.  The author begins by developing the history of the pure democracy in ancient Greek.  Karvonen then discusses the development of how democracy has become privatized with the development of capitalism with public discussion in English salons.  However, this was still limited to those not in the bourgeois and those who were not considered to be in the lower class.  The author defines Habermas’ “public sphere” slightly differently saying there are three main features: 1) universal access, 2) rational debate, and 3) disregard for rank.  This definition is similar to Dahlberg’s.  Karvonen believes that there has been a “refuedalization” because of the digital divide within the Internet realm, however.  One part of Karvonen’s essay that I agree with is that “it is widely agreed that western democracies have problems in activating people to discuss, debate and even engage with their common business” (Karvonen, 347).  Because of the difficult way to vote, only a small portion of our country actually votes in presidential elections, and even less in mid-term elections.  However, Karvonen ultimately believes that “the internet will contribute to, or even be primarily responsible for, a new era of participatory democracy and a re-energizing of the public sphere” (Karvonen, 347).

Zizi Papacharissi continues the idea of Habermas’ public sphere, but believes that it cannot be revived because of the increasing digital divides.  She analyzes democracy in a different way than Karvonen in which she looks at the different views of different philosophers, including Tocqueville, Dewey, and Jones.  Papacharissi believes that there is a distinct difference in a public space and a public sphere.  She believes that the new Internet a public space, in which it offers a place for discussion.  However, a public sphere is different in that it provides a new form of democracy, which has yet to be developed.  She believes that the democratic tradition was corrupt because only the upper class had a say in what went on.  This has led to multiple unequal public spheres that the government cannot keep track of.  Therefore, collective opinions are being ignored.  Papacharissi reiterates Dahlberg’s idea that “privatizing forces of capitalism have created a mass commercial culture that has replaced the public sphere” (Papacharissi, 381).  She points out that the speed that information can be accessed will eventually lead to citizen activism.  However, I believe the opposite.  I think the Internet has offered a forum for political discussions, but if it was supposed to lead to citizen activism, we would have already seen it.  Instead, we have seen how lazy the Internet is making our generation.  This is reinforced in Papcharissi’s next section about information access.  An example of this laziness can be seen in the 2008 Presidential elections.  While both candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, were very prevalent on the Internet in order to gain support from a younger generation, I don’t think they did so effectively.  Obama had a popular video on YouTube (Yes We Can), and it helped him gain support from younger voters.  However, the video had nothing to do with his campaign and was simply a bunch of celebrities who supported him.  Therefore, neither candidate took advantage of the easy access to information younger voters had.  Papacharissi then discusses the digital divide in further detail, saying that “[the advantages] do not instantaneously guarentee a fair, representative, and egalitarian public sphere” (Papacharissi, 383).  The Internet is still also liberals versus conservatives, despite the effort to combine people of common beliefs.  Papacharissi also talks about white supremacist groups, which we have seen in detail in class.  This “certainly [does] not promote democractic ideals of equality” (Papacharissi, 383).  The author then goes on to examine the effects of different cultural backgrounds combining on the Internet.  However, this also may lead to miscommunications and may not make a difference.  Papacharissi then discusses the evolution of rapid information flow, from radios, to televisions, to the Internet.  Something I found surprising was that only six percent of the world has access to computers.  Lastly, the author looks at a virtual sphere and how “cyberspace extends our channels for communication” (Papacharissi, 388).

I’m going to be honest and openly admit that I don’t understand the point of Twitter.  I found myself not “tweeting” nearly as much as everybody else in the class because I truly did not see a point in informing the Twitter community about my daily occurrences.  In addition to this, I had a hard time posting some of the things I wanted to tweet about using my iTouch.  For example, I posted the Web site to the Orient article about our seminar, but did not know how to copy and paste the link.  I ended up using Twitter as a place to advertise as well; the Orient was conducting a survey and I posted the link on my Twitter.  I also tweeted about sports I watched, like the Red Sox and Bruins, rather than activities I was doing.  I don’t think that’s what you’re supposed to use Twitter for, but like I said, I’m still not really sure what the point of the Web site is.

When reflecting upon surveillance and privacy, I found that Twitter has very little privacy, making it incredibly easy to survey random strangers.  Even entering twitter.com, you are shown random people’s tweets whether you are a user or not.  This, in my opinion, is a huge invasion of privacy.  However, I did not change my privacy settings because I was simply uninformed on how to do so and did not have the patience to look through the settings.  I wasn’t overly concerned because I wasn’t posting important information about myself through my tweets.  When I was talking to Toph tonight at the Orient meeting, he informed me that he had seen that I posted both the article and the blog, even though he was not one of my “followers” at the time.  I honestly had no idea the site was so open with its users, and I was surprised by his comment.

I’m definitely going to let my account die after this assignment is over.  I’m incredibly sketched out by the idea of Twitter and the features it offers.  I don’t like people knowing my constant updates about my life, and I don’t feel the need to constantly update people about random things like coming home from a meeting.

Facebook: Threats to Privacy-Jones and Soltren

This article examines the privacy risks users take when initially entering the Facebook realm.  However, the article was published in 2005, and I found that a lot of the information could be updated.  For example, the authors identify Facebook as a Web site available only to university students.  However, it is clear that this is no longer true, and Facebook has extended to middle schoolers with an e-mail account.  I think if the authors revisited this topic, they would find that more information is shared now then when they originally did this research.  The authors goals included: 1) analyzing the extent of data disclosure by using a “spider crawl” method, 2) how the system protects data, and 3) the “threat model” of Facebook.  Jones and Soltren argue that Facebook is a popular commodity, and up to 80 percent of freshmen enter the site before even coming on campus.  This is evident even today, shown with the various groups college classes create upon their acceptance to the school.  According to the author’s, Facebook’s main goal is to “allow users to interact with each other online”.  Again, this is more evident today, as Facebook continues to add features to the site to enhance this goal.  For example, Facebook chat was added as an instant message type system to allow users to talk to each other at a quicker pace than simply writing on each other’s walls.  What surprised me most about this article was the author’s claim that after a user logs in, their information is very apparent in the URL used.  I think it is more encoded now, however, because the URL they used as an example did not appear when I tried to login.  Instead, the URL ended with loginattempt=1 (or something of that sort).  Last week’s article argued that the younger generation is more likely to share information readily on the Internet.  This article almost supported that fact, showing that the younger a college class, the more information they are willing to share.  Jones and Soltren believe that more data is going to become available as Facebook continues to develop.  I agree with this statement.  This is shown with the new networks created as Facebook has evolved.  For example, I can be in the Bowdoin network, but also in the Philadelphia, PA network.  If I chose to do this, anybody in this network can also see my information, unless I protect it carefully.  This supports the author’s claim that information will be more available.  Lastly, the authors claim that 26 percent of users are not familiar with the “My Privacy” settings.  However, I argued this point last week because most users are not on the “My Privacy” part of their Facebook as often as they use the other features on the site.  This percent is probably less as Facebook continues to complicate this feature.  This is also an issue because, as the statistics in my and Becca’s social networking site presentation show, younger users are more likely to friend complete strangers.  In the beginning of the article, Jones and Soltren suggest that Facebook should educate their users are their privacy settings.  I agree with this, especially if a user indicates a younger age on their profile.

Webster readings

Introduction into surveillance-Blom
In this introduction, Blom discusses the effects of technology on increasing surveillance.  He argues that the more technology society is introduced to, the more surveillance there will be, especially by “Big Brother”, or the government.  However, I believe that there is increased surveillance simply because there is more to be watched over.  The Internet offers an entire extra realm where people can communicate with each other.  Therefore, this increased surveillance may be necessary to a certain extent.  For example, it’s absolutely necessary for the government to monitor terrorist Web sites, but it is wrong to monitor things like my Facebook wall.  This is a tough distinction to make, however, and one the government consistently struggles with.  It was interesting that Blom brought up the point that it is necessary to have surveillance in order to gain access to simple liberties, like voting.  I disagree with his example of the companies using surveillance in order to figure out how many products to make.  Isn’t that simply observation, not surveillance?  In the remainder of the introduction, Blom summarizes the articles found within the chapter, which made it a lot easier to understand Chapter 20.

Panopticism-Foucault
This article examines Bentham’s “panopticon”, and the development of surveillance as time has passed.  Bentham’s panopticon is a prison-type society where the goals are “to enclose, to deprive of light, and to hide” (Webster, 302).  It is a place where one is always watched without being watched and contact with others is impossible.  Bentham’s definition of power is that it “should be visible and unverifiable” (Webster, 303).  It’s easy to see this with power today.  There are figure heads, the president of the United States, that are visible to people.  However, we are all unaware if our phones are being tapped or if our e-mails are being monitored.  The Panopticon’s goal is “to strengthen the social forces – to increase production, to develop the economy, spread education, raise the level of public morality; to increase and multiply” (Webster, 305).  However, Foucault continues to describe the Panopticon and how it centers around discipline, hoping to form a generalization.  One key thing that Foucault brings up is that “our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance” (Webster, 306).  This was proven in the introduction by Blom where he proves that we cannot be given our liberties and freedoms without surveillance.  Foucault proceeds to explain six “important results” of the justice system, of which a few I agree with.  First, he argues that we are headed towards more surveillance in order to inflict more punishment.  While I think this may have slowed down, he makes a good point when he points out the change from the classical period to a more present period.  Next, Foucault claims that delinquents are born and there is no way to avoid them going to prison.  This is seen today in the nature vs. nurture argument.  Foucault also believes that the power to punish is natural in this system, and that there are numerous ways to punish people, whether it be prison or rehabilitation.  He then moves to the argument that it is difficult for someone to pass judgement on another, but “insertion, distribution, surveillance, observation, has been the greatest support, in modern society, of the normalizing power” (Webster, 311).  This argues that these means are necessary in maintaining power in modern society.  Foucault also argues that the carceral system has made “human sciences possible.”  I find this argument, along with his last argument, the two hardest to believe.

The two readings this week offered contrasting views of people’s expression on the Internet.  While Smith portrays it in a positive note, Livingstone looks at the negative shallowness associated with younger teenager’s use of the Internet.

Web hit touches a chord with anorexics-D. Smith

This article describes the effect of a latent song that was rejuvenated by YouTube.  The song was put to a series of still pictures of an anorexic girl, and it had an incredible impact on many anorexics on the Internet.  I enjoyed reading this article because it was different from what we have been reading so far in that it was much less formal and told a story rather than concepts and theories.  It was interesting that Smith described that anorexics used the blog for the video as a diary.  However, it is understandable that these users would open up because the Internet offers anonymity.  This anonymity allows people to state their feelings without a face behind the comment, and therefore avoiding all judgements.  Smith describes this site, however, as more powerful than a normal blog, which again I believe is because of the anonymity offered.  Overall, I think this article shows a positive view of the support the Internet can provide.  The support shown for anorexics reminds me a lot of the House episode we watched in class, where the blogger needed to post and gain approval for the type of surgery she was considering before she made and decisions.

Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy privacy and self-expression-S. Livingstone

Livingstone’s essay discusses trends as to why younger teens use the Internet, what they choose to share, and what their privacy settings are.  The studies were done in London, which is easy to see.  And although the essay was published in 2008, it is clearly outdated when it discusses MySpace as the most popular Web site, along with Facebook and Bebo.  Facebook is now the most prevalent social networking site.  To be honest, I’ve never even heard of Bebo, so I didn’t understand the references Livingstone made in his article.  One thing I found that is still true today is the age difference between MySpace users and Facebook users.  I usually see younger users, like middle schoolers, on MySpace, and high schoolers moving to Facebook.  This was one aspect of the article I could easily agree with.  While I found that Livingstone took a mostly cynical view towards social networking sites, he does concede that they may help with literacy skills, but I disagree with this statement.  I find that younger users tend to use more abbreviations when typing online, like lol and sup, which ultimately will hurt the users when they have to start writing papers.  Besides this, Livingstone was very negative about younger users on social networking sites, claiming that our generation has no sense of privacy.  However, I think this is true for the younger side of our generation, but it is something that they grow out of.  While I agree that adults may consider some of what children are doing online to be risky, I think it’s part of the immature behavior exhibited by the users Livingstone interviewed.  You can tell the users are immature by the language they use in their interviews, using “like” in almost every quote in between thoughts.  The one point I think Livingstone makes is that younger users on social networking sites use these sites for the wrong reasons.  They are using them, as Livingstone says, to talk to their local contacts and maintain a certain online social status.  The users claim that they only comment on their friends pages if the friend comments first, hoping to be “popular” online.  This reflects the age group interviewed, however.  In middle school, it was always more important to seem “cool”, and the development of social networking sites is just another place that teenagers need to prove their social status.  The users claim the need to keep “constant connections”, but these connections are fake and shallow and add to the personality they want their pages to show.  In relation to privacy, Livingstone makes it clear that the teens he interviewed did not know how to change the privacy settings on social networking sites.  However, I’ve been using Facebook since my freshman year in high school, and I have no idea how to work the privacy settings.  It’s not something that requires daily attention, and therefore, users will not be as acclimated with the settings.  It’s the kind of thing you sit down one day to figure out and leave it be.  Overall, I think Livingstone completely ignored the positive aspects of social networking sites that we have discussed in class.

This week’s readings focused on virtual ethnicity.  Because I had never heard this discussed before, I found the readings confusing, but they discuss the idea of racism online, but also how language barriers can affect one’s online experience.

McLelland’s article was interesting in that it approached what he described as a more homogeneous Internet than the Internet of the other major Internet languages, which were English, Chinese, and Spanish.  It was not surprising to me that McLelland proved that the English language online is declining while the other languages are rising because it is also being done in other industries, not just the Internet.  Within the article, the author attributes the racism that can be found online to the Internet’s origins.  However, McLelland’s article focused mostly on Japanese Internet, something that he mentions is rarely studied.  While he says that there are definitely different classes in Japan, McLelland claims that “there is no clear ‘majority’vs ‘minority’ split in internet use in Japan along racial lines,and consequently the advent of a distinctive Japanese cyberspace has not led to the disappearance of racial difference (as is arguably the case in Japanese commercial media),but rather to increased visibility and activism around issues of ‘race’” (McLelland, 817).  Earlier in the article he makes the claim that Anglophone Internet is incredibly “white”, and that minorities within the country do not have as much access to the Internet.  Therefore, the “whiteness” he describes can be attributed to the fact that these minorities are not online as much and cannot spread the ideas as easily.  However, Japanese racism comes more from one’s blood, rather than actual race.  McLelland also discusses that because that the Japanese language is so different than the other previously mentioned languages used on the Internet, the Internet within the country is a “closed system impermeable to non-Japanese perspectives” (McLelland, 826).  A majority of McLelland’s article focuses on the website 2-Channeru, which openly discriminates against people within Japan.  The website makes it easier to anonymously post your opinions, which explains why it is so popular.  A similar example we analyzed in class was the website StormFront, which an organized form of racism within America.  As discussed within the article as well, the website is connecting the country by creating a global village of racism.  Overall, McLelland shows the negative impact the Internet has had within a country by showing the racism behind it.

Poster’s article examines ethnicity by challenging past definitions of the term and applying them to today’s digital world.  He first looks at language and questions whether or not language can alter experience.  Poster ultimately agrees with what we have said many times in class: “that the virtual is not real” (Poster, 191).  I found his take on this view interesting, however, especially the quote “everything is always already virtual so although it is everywhere, it is also nowhere” (Poster, 192).  I disagree with this statement because he fails to recognize the digital divide, which consists of those without the Internet.  We have discussed “black holes” in class, which are places with no access to being connected.  Because of places like this, the Internet is not universal, and this quote is false.  Poster then goes into the history of ethnicity and attempts to relate it to “electronically mediated communications”.  He argues that ethnicity is no longer “true” because it has moved from “face-to-face, to print and finally to electronic communications” (Poster, 195-6).  I agree with this argument that we are losing certain parts of cultures through the continuing use of the Internet because we are no longer required to have the face-to-face interactions.  Poster then carries this argument to tribes and examines the technological effect on them.  He finds that “viritualization” is a phenomenon that “enables subjects and objects increasingly to appear in configurations of space and time, mind and body, human and machine that disaggregate the real or actual into constellations of indeterminate-not amorphous-complexity” (Poster, 203).  However, he later claims that the Internet has made some ethnic groups closer, using Jews as an example.  He discusses “cyber Sedar”, which I have personally seen.  Many of my friends cannot make it home for the Jewish holidays and actually iChat with their families during Sedar for important holidays, like Passover.  They are still keeping the traditions that they normally kept with their family, but are able to attend a Sedar they normally would not be able to experience.  In this case, the Internet is actually helping people maintain their ethnicity.  Poster supports this argument further by examining how Jews are becoming more and more linked through the use of the Internet.  Overall, Poster shows both a positive and negative impact of virtual ethnicity with the continuing development of the Internet.

The Digital Divide-Pippa Norris:

In this essay, author Pippa Norris discusses the three main aspects of the “digital divide”: the global divide, the social divide, and the democratic divide.  Norris that technology has played a key role in the development of countries’ economies, making up one third of the US economic growth alone.  She emphasizes the point that the Internet alone as taken over America, along with other major countries like Canada, Sweden, and Australia.  ”Within a decade of its launch, America has become all Internet, all the time” (274).  While I agree with Norris’s point that there are countries that are more advanced than others, I think she missed a few of the major competitors in this field, namely Japan.  The ones that are not as advanced are the 4th world countries we have previously discussed in class, and Norris suggests that these countries “may join the digital world decades later and, in the long term, may ultimately fail to catch up” (274).  Norris clearly is an advocate for expanding Internet use because it gives users access to information, increases communication, strengthens democratization, helps with poverty, can possibly help coalitions spread their voices, and aid in the mobility of political decisions.  She believes it would be incredibly beneficial to encourage an expansion of the Internet because it would also help increase education, which would ultimately improve research.  The problem, however, would be getting the Internet there and teaching people the skills required to use it.  Norris then goes to explain the rapidly evolving technology we are experiencing, stating that “every eighteen months, you can get twice as much power for the same cost” (276).  She later discusses the original computers, which reminded me of the video we watched in class of the first computer that took up an entire room.  When discussing the social stratification within countries, I immediately was reminded of the “black holes” that we previously mentioned in class, especially when Norris stated that “certain groups are systematically excluded [from technology]” (278).  I agree with her argument that these gaps may be a “short term phenomenon”, like the development of televisions.  When they first came out, it was rare to have a television, but now you can buy one for twenty dollars at Best Buy.  I believe that computers are on the same path as televisions.  Of course there will always be the newer television that is better than the twenty dollar one (like the new one I saw a commercial for that is in 3-d…), but at least the majority of society has a television in their households.  The only difference I see in using computers and Internet besides past technological advances is that it does require some sort of skill set to utilize, whereas televisions do not.  Lastly, the democratic divide seemed to be most important to be fixed immediately.  It is obvious that “Internet politics will disproportionately benefit the elite” (279), but Norris’s essay is slightly out of date.  She discusses the political arena emerging into the Internet, stating that “the Internet has failed to have a dramatic impact on the practical reality of ‘politics as usual’” (280).  In the 2008 presidential election, I found that a good majority of the candidates’ campaigning was done through the Internet, whether it was on Facebook, a video on YouTube, or their homepage.  However, I believe that Norris’s statement that “it seems improbable that digital politics will reach the disengaged, the apathetic and the uninterested” (280) is still true.  This extends to other things, not just politics.  My roommate is completely uninterested in sports, and therefore will spend no time on espn.com, even if the information is available to her.

Internet use among American adults-Witte and Mannon Chapter 2:

Witte and Mannon examined the increasing trend of Internet use among different ages, races, etc. in America.  They noted that “growth tends to be concentrated among certain groups” (24).  While they found that adults went online daily, I believe that if it was measured now, the percentages would have increased dramatically because of the new technology that has been created.  They also studied that older people do not use the Internet as much, but they are using it at an increasing rate.  Something I can personally see is the increased usage of the Internet among those who are more educated.  ”These results indicate that America’s colleges provide important educational and social experiences that promote Internet use” (31).  This is clear because many colleges require students to be more technologically savvy to get through the education.  For example, most of my classes require me to use the Internet to access my assigned readings.  Therefore, this gap in Internet usage makes complete sense.  Another statistic I believe would be different if it were measured today would be the amount of time adults spend on the Internet on the weekends.  Witte and Mannon found that adults spend more time online during the week, probably using it at work.  However, I have found that many of my parents and their friends are using the Internet more for leisure, and they have more leisure time on the weekends.  While I don’t think the gap would be completely removed, I think it would shrink if it were measured today.  The results of the difference in income and usage is just another example of the social class gap associated with technology previously discusses in Norris’s essay.  The statistic I found to be most interesting was the difference between non-hispanics and hispanics, however, Witte and Mannon did not offer any explanation as to why this is true.  I think the demographics of online activities would be completely different now because of the rapid expansion of social networking sites like Facebook.  Even if the study was based on adults, a good portion of the older population is now using Facebook, as we have discussed in class.  Lastly, I think the statement the authors make about advertising is also wrong today.  Advertising has expanded in the Internet.  For example, you now need to watch an ad before you watch any video on Hulu or YouTube.  Lastly, Witte and Mannon’s discussion of the digital divide seems to coincide with what we have discussed in class.

-I agree that the man has a reason to be upset that the woman is basically posting an online diary.  Though it probably doesn’t get much traffic, personal thoughts should not be posted for the entire online community to read.

-The doctor staff later makes the point that people leave small towns because everybody knows everything.  The internet is making the entire world a smaller place, especially because of social networking sites.  I’ve heard my roommate tell me many times that “Facebook is boring today”, meaning she is bored by everything that is on her mini feed.  This is just evidence that her connections are getting smaller and smaller, having the same small town effect.

-The patient has an obvious addiction to the Internet, something that we’ve discussed in regard to virtual communities.  What she writes online is not okay because she does not say it out loud.  She can’t write that she believes her doctor is condescending just because she doesn’t think he will read her blog.  This type of thing could probably be considered slander to a person’s reputation.

-It’s incredible how quickly the patient’s blog reached places like Singapore.  It just proves the small town theory in that everybody knows everything about everybody.  Also, it shows that people can make friends around the world just be blogging.  However, I still think it’s creepy that people know everything about people they have never met before.  The patient affirms one of the points made by one of the authors in that she is more open in chat rooms then with her real life boyfriend.  She goes too far when she puts a question of her life to those who read her blog rather than with her boyfriend.  She has issues if she can’t be honest when simply speaking.

-The patient has created a “digital self” in that she cares only about how many hits her blog gets.  It seems like she is more concerned with her digital reputation than her relationships in the real world.  This is shown when she won’t talk about how she’s feeling with one of her friends in the room who has to figure out how she feels through her blog.  Like I’ve said, she’s definitely taken it too far when she is constantly updating about her condition in the hospital, especially when she won’t talk to her boyfriend about it.  It’s bad when she says she doesn’t know what he’s thinking about just because he doesn’t have a blog.

The benefits of social capital were discussed in both of this week’s readings.  However, the authors used different examples of where social capital can be found: organizations and social networking sites.  One is a place where social capital may not necessarily develop, whereas the latter is designed to help enhance one’s social capital.

Bowling Online: Social Networking and Social Capital within the Organization-

This article discusses social capital specifically within a large corporation, IBM.  The authors suggest that researchers have yet to analyze the effect that social networking sites have on helping expand social capital, and they attempt to do so.  They claim that there is a link between the “use of the service and students’ ‘social capital’” which is “likely to support other critical organizational processes, such as knowledge-sharing” (Steinfield, 245).  The authors define social capital as neither a public or private good, but as an individual good.  This is because individuals have differing amounts of social capital, but still give back to the network, a reciprocal-like relationship.  Furthermore, the authors differentiate two types of social capital: “bridging social capital”, which are weak ties among connections, and “bonding social capital”, which are more likely to give emotional support to users.  They believe that social networking sites “facilitate knowledge exchange” and it “enables individuals to locate useful information and also draw on resources and make contributions to the network” (Steinfield, 246).  The authors researched the effect of a specific social networking site, Beehive, on employees at IBM.  While Beehive is not as interactive as other popular social networking sites, like Facebook, it had about 15 percent of IBM’s workers signed up.  Beehive was also found to be used less for “social browsing”, like Facebook is often used for.  However, the authors research found that Beehive had a significant impact on the work place.  ”[Social networking sites] can reinforce and potentially reshape social ties at work to enhance bonding and bridging social capital” (Steinfield, 247).  The authors found that Beehive attracted older users rather than younger users that use Facebook, indicating that their studies offered a good sample population.  Overall, it was found that workers “[had] a greater interest in making new contacts at the company in general” and [had] closer ties with their immediate network…a higher sense of citizenship…and greater access to both new people and expertise within the company” (Steinfield, 252).  They urge companies to use social networking sites to increase social capital and company relations.  I personally think that while social networking sites in the work place can be a positive thing because it does increase social capital, I also believe there are ramifications behind them that the authors ignore completely.  People will eventually post inappropriate things on their pages, which will lead to controversy within a work place causing more drama than before the social networking sites.  For example, in class we discussed the employee who got fired for posting that her job was boring on her Facebook.  Though I think this is an invasion of privacy, a social networking site like Beehive that is associated with a company will not be as private to a company like IBM.  Therefore, users would need to be incredibly cautious upon utilizing the site, which will eventually cause people to shy away from the site in general.  While social networking sites may increase knowledge and help facilitate relationships within a work place, I don’t think they are appropriate because of things that it may lead to, like inappropriate postings.  The relationships formed on a social networking site can be also be formed in other ways, making the websites unnecessary in a work atmosphere.

The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites-

The authors discuss the problem with previous social networking site research in that it suggests people use these sites to turn offline relationships into online ones.  However, they claim that “the directionality was online to offline–online connections resulted in face-to-face meetings” (Ellison, 1144).  The authors then discuss the mostly positive and occasionally negative uses of social capital.  For example, as we’ve discussed and debated in class, the Internet has reduced face-to-face interaction.  However, the authors say that “online interactions may supplement or replace in-person interactions, mitigating any loss from time spent online” (Ellison, 1146).  They also believe that the connections formed online, even weak ties, simply expand ones social circle, and as a result, expand one’s social capital.  The authors have four main hypothesis: 1) Facebook helps bridge social capital.  This was also defined in the previous reading as the weak ties formed through social networking sites.  2) Facebook helps users with bonding social capital, claiming that the Internet helps connect people that wouldn’t have otherwise necessarily been connected.  3) The ability of bridging and bonding social capital will depend on a user’s self esteem and satisfaction of life.  4) Facebook use will help maintain social capital, claiming that the Internet has helped maintain long-distance relationships, something I have personally experienced, especially being at college.  The authors found that Facebook does indeed help maintain relationships.  I agree with their findings because I have been able to maintain friendships with people clear across the country for years by simply using Facebook.  I personally fall into their study findings.  If you were to look at my Facebook wall currently, there are posting from people who I went to high school with, people I met at summer programs, and a few people from Bowdoin.  I rarely use Facebook to maintain a close relationship, like those with my best friends or roommates.  However, I also use Facebook to bridge social capital as the authors suggest.  Facebook’s feature the “Mini Feed” definitely helps do it.  It’s almost unavoidable to continuously gain social capital from “weak ties” when their status updates, new groups, new friends, etc. show up on your main page.  I can kind of see the connection between high self esteem and high usage of Facebook that the authors found.  People who do not have high enough self esteem to talk to someone in person would probably not have enough self esteem to post on the same person’s wall.  However, as we’ve discussed in class, people can create “digital selves”.  A person can change their real-life image by becoming more social online, creating a false persona called a “digital self”.  I think this is most common with those who are more shy in real life rather than those who are more outgoing.  Overall, I found their research on social capital much more convincing then the research in the author’s previous paper.

I unfriended a random stranger from my friends list. I may have met him somewhere, but I actually don’t remember. It wasn’t hard to find someone to unfriend, and I could probably find more people to unfriend…probably 10-20 people.