My selected readings are:
- Galston, William A. (2000). Does the Internet Strengthen Community? National Civic Review 89(3), 193-202.
- Weeks, Linton (2009). Social Responsibility and the Web: A Drama Unfolds. 8 January 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99094257
- Albrechtslund, Anders (2008). Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance. First Monday 13(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2142/1949
- Rosen, Christine (2007). Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism. The New Atlantis 17, 15-31.http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/virtual-friendship-and-the-new-narcissim
- Bigge, Ryan (2006). The Cost of (Anti-) Social Networks: Identity, Agency and Neo-Luddites" First Monday 11(12). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1421/1339
While I was reading those articles, I found some similar concepts and connections within them and some contradictions as well.
Virtual Community as Actual Community
While Galston noted that ‘the Internet’s virtual communities are not communities’, Weeks’s article quoted Evans, ‘unlikely to change core human concepts of friendship and community’. Albrechtslund also says that there is a reciprocal action between online and offline and online social networking is not distinct from offline networking. From my experiences of participating on online communities, it’s hard to define what an online community is that is really separate from offline communities. I’m not sure if this is just because most of the online communities that I had joined were merely ‘offline’ gathering communities. Because of this I didn’t think there was a big difference between virtual communities and real life communities. The following is an example of one of online communities that I have joined. It is online community for fans of a specific Japanese band. It is a certainly a group by ‘a fascination with a narrowly defined topic’, so in J.Snyder’s view from Galston, this online community is not a community. However, I continued to use my pseudonym at offline meetings of this community, and we all called each other by our pseudonyms. The members of this online community were bound by not only a perception of self-interest, which is that of the Japanese band, but also by affective ties as well because ‘we’ became ‘friends’ who had the same interests . Whether the ties are as strong as those of purely offline communities or not is different story, however.
Online Social Networks as a Tool for ‘Managing’ Friendship
Rosen indicated many people take advantage of one of the virtues social networking website, which is to maintain their relationships with their offline acquaintances or friends who haven’t kept in touch for a long time. Albrechtslund also noted that many teens use online social networking to maintain friendships with a large circle of friends. They find it easier to keep in touch with them online and to update their information on these websites, rather than face to face. I have friends, friends who are considered acquaintances, and “friends” who are almost acquaintances from all over the world – Japan to Argentina. Of course I can use email to contact them, or to update my personal info, but by having them connected on my social networking site – Facebook it is much more convenient to ‘just’ keep in touch with them by commenting “Happy Birthday” or simply “poking” once in a while. Also, I can easily just let them know about changes in my personal information, like graduation, going on a business trip to Tokyo, a family member’s illness, without having to individually call or email all of my ‘friends’.
Voluntary Community vs. Enforced Volunteerism
Galston pointed out that online groups are typical examples of voluntary community. There is low barrier to entrance and low exit online communities. Despite of its lack of obligation and a certain reinforcement to join ‘majority’ communities, online groups are still considered as voluntary communities which can fulfill our emotional needs.
Bigge claims that we, who live in web2.0 era, have no choice- whether join up online social networking website or not. If we don’t have online identity it means we don’t exist. It is an interesting comparison to say that social networks work as a ‘guest list’ in club culture or to say that social networks can be used as tools of exclusion. Under this social (at least online social) pressure, we need to join the online social networking to have an online identity, to be, to exist. So this is not exactly ‘voluntarily’ being a member of an online community. Although there is not a requirement to join, still there is pressure. One of reasons why I signed up for Myspace and Facebook is because most of my friends have at least one of them, and they consistently asked me to join. Finally I realized that I had to have one when friends of mine had conversations, excluding me, about photos they posted or ‘quizzes’ like ‘what’s your color?’ from Facebook, and I had no idea what they were talking about.
Quantity > Quality
Both Rosen and Bigge indicated number of friends as social status. How many online ‘friends’ you have shows your online social status, so people compete with others who have more ‘friends’ and race to see how quickly they can get more friends, and some are even anxious about it. In this case, who are your real friends or how we define ‘friends’ doesn’t matter anymore. Only ‘how many’ is all that matters. I am reminded of one of my friends who is on my Facebook list. It was a couple of days after I ‘invited’ him to add me as his friend. In a few days, I noticed he had over 800 ‘friends’! The only thing in my mind was ‘is he insane?’ Why, and what makes him, who is a super popular guy in the offline world, that obsessed with his ‘friends’ count?
Question Raised:
Weeks article leads me to ask one question: according to Fogg in Weeks article, “people use Facebook as a ‘call for help’. Facebook, blogs, or tweets are actually based on interaction with revealed identities, at least the identity of the one who establishes the message. In other word, we know who is screaming for help. Then, what about using random online communities as an anonymous ‘call for help’? Will readers of the message still feel responsible for responding to the message?
I selected a huge online community as called ‘MissyUSA’ which is a community for Korean-American ladies who live in the USA. Members who use this community share their information about all sort of things related with Ms’s, such as where are good SAT prep schools, what is the best cleansing cream, etc. I did not need to use my pseudonym to post my comments, instead my comments appeared under my partial IP address. This means it is almost impossible for other members to identify who I am. I posted to say I’m so sick and I have a pain whenever I take antibiotic pills. Please excuse that the post is in Korean (as I mentioned, the community is for Korean Americans, so most posts are in Korean).
The first response was posted two minutes after my complaining. It’s not really a helpful comment, and it says that “in my case, I have diarrhea when I take antibiotics” But soon after the first response, rapidly other sympathetic, and yet helpful advice and comments followed. I omit translation on all comments since it’s about how to deal with my symptom.
The point is, although it’s not a life threatening situation, nor an actual ‘cry for help’ (I even didn’t ask about what I should do for this, nor did I use the word ‘help’ in the subject), a total of ten people responded immediately. Is this because of the users’ gender – which tends to be feminine, or did it captured the users’ attention because of its extravagancy (not a typical subject in this community)? Unless I investigate more with other online communities, I cannot be sure what motivates this response. However, I got an answer for my question – people still feel responsibility in reading online comments even it’s anonymous. Like Weeks noted Fogg’s statement – “people will respond to people who sound like they are in trouble – online or off” and I’m glad I find there is normal human behavior exercised even online, despite of all of the negative aspects of a virtual community.
Wow, it is interesting how you and other members of the on-line community continued to call each other by pseudo-names off-line. I wonder if this happens with many communities that meet on-line first and then face-to-face thereafter. This makes me consider the opposite; do people who meet off-line first use real names on-line even if pseudo-names exist.
ReplyDeleteI also found Bigge’s thoughts about not having an on-line identity to be interesting. In this day and age, I am wondering how important it is to have an on-line presence. Does no on-line identity mean no identity? When considering on-line identities and how they may prevent someone from getting a job (Albrechtslund, 2008), I am wondering how employers feel about people without an on-line presence. They may see it as a positive because there is no negative information about you or even a negative due to a lack of information. In this sense, I am also beginning to wonder what employers think about people who post false information about themselves on-line (or do employers that Google potential employees take information at face value).
> I got an answer for my question – people still feel responsibility in reading online comments even it’s anonymous.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your finding regarding people's responses for “help calls” in online communities. Even without knowing much about the person, people still feel responsible for responding to these “help calls”. I think when people response to these messages, what matters to them is not the identity of the person who in trouble, it is the fact there is a real person out there that's in trouble and need help. In other words, if people have no doubts that the message is posted by a real person, then they would tend to response and help. This is the case in your experiment. Even through people don't know much about you, from the tone and your online behavior they are certain that it's a real person out there rather than some kind of robot trying to flood the forum.
> it is interesting how you and other members of the on-line community continued to call each other by pseudo-names off-line. I wonder if this happens with many communities that meet on-line first and then face-to-face thereafter. This makes me consider the opposite; do people who meet off-line first use real names on-line even if pseudo-names exist.
Em, in my experience people still prefer to use pseudo-names when they know each other in real life. Calling someone with his real name in online communities is like telling everybody this information without first asking for a permission from this person.
At the earlier stages of communication online, people tend to use "nick name" on join the community online. The use of nick-name at that time was not in the purpose of protecting privacy, but more likely to differentiate the real-life with the online one. I remembered very well at the time I was in high school, chatting using MIRC and ICQ were so popular. My friends at that time like to exchange nick-name and use the nick-name as a topic for daily conversation. While in the online chat they talk about their daily life. I also remember that when created an email account, people at that time did not use their name, but used nick-name. Now, when the privacy of going online become a hot topic, in fact most of people that frequently use email or go online tend to use their real-name rather than use nick-name.
ReplyDeletembco,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment (you were the only one who left a commnet until I finally got a second one, which is Susu's!)
It's up to each individual to be more 'open' with their identity to others, for instance, to 'reveal' their real names. Once their relationship gets closer, they share more, and become more like an off-line relationship. As far as my experience goes, I still used 'pseudonyms' unless it's a real small group of those who became 'more like off-line relationship'.
I think that is natural to still call each other by pseudonyms off-line, otherwise how we can identify ourselves?
For example, if we meet in person, you will probably introduce yourself as the poster ’mbco’ so that I can connect you to your blog. Even after you let me know your real name, I should still call you ‘mbco’ on this blog otherwise it may bring confusion to other members, unless all the other members already know your real name. It could also violate your privacy for me to use your real name on these blogs.
I just had something to add about my take about the topic of real name vs. online nickname. I can understand why people may tend to use the online name even after they learn the user's real name. When first meeting each other, the nickname is how people associate with one another. After becoming comfortable associating with one another, more personal details may surface, including real names. However, it can be strange to suddenly go from calling a person by one name to calling that person by another name, so for familiarity's sake, it is often more comfortable to stick with what is known instead of venturing into the unknown. That's my interpretation of why pseudo-names stick. The point of privacy is also a good one.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, the reason I use my real name for these blogs is because it feels more comfortable to me, since this is for a class. Most times, my pseudonyms are random and impersonal, and I felt that they would be out of place.
On your topic of someone rapidly acquiring 800 friends, I also question why people do that. I suppose it works as a status symbol, but I still scratch my head as to what the practical point of it is.
This is a good example of the difference between different types of authority we'll be exploring later in the course. People want one kind of advice and interaction, for example with medical experts, but something different and arguably more valuable from communities of people who have been through a similar situation themselves, whether medical or not.
ReplyDelete