Posting 2

TOPIC: When you push normal human longing for interaction and self-expression through the wild infrastructure of social computing, what you get is...this session's readings…

CONNECTIONS
Gaston (1999) looks back at the 1950s front stoop society in Chicago and the changes that occurred after households all had televisions and air conditioners provides an important reminder that advances in technology change us and our society in ways that may be unexpected. This word picture was certainly something that I was able to connect to and understand. There were second- and third-level consequences to the technological advancements back in the 1950s, just as there will be changes in our society as we all become more consistent users of the new technological advances (such as social computing) available to us now. It’s interesting to imagine where this new technology and new way of gaining and maintaining social relationships will take us.
In my experience, Gaston’s assertion that there are two principal forces at work in the American culture: the high value attached to individual choice and the longing for community are two very powerful motivators behind our social behavior. With the recent affluence of our society and lack of constraints such as Depression Era expectations of working from sun-up to sun-down, people came to feel that questions of how to live and with whom to live were a matter of individual choice not predetermined or based on society’s expectations and norms. As a nation, we came to experience the bonds to marriage, family, children, job, community, and country as constraints that were no longer necessary. However, the longing for connectedness, being important to other people, engaging in reciprocal and meaningful social interaction is the second equally important force. Thus the idea of voluntarily joining a community as a choice, rather than based upon the confines of a physical location is an understandable outgrowth of both of these values.

Another connection for me was the idea that the whole range of human tendencies will be a part of the social relationships in online communities as well as in the physical world. When Thedora expressed frustration about her three year old, as described in the article by Weeks (2009), the responses encompassed a full array of human tendencies — constructive, destructive, pro-social, anti-social, conservative and risky expressed just as there are in any other arenas of social life.

The whole range of human tendencies includes depression. The article by LaRose, Eastin & Gregg (2001) provided a fascinating analysis of the correlation between internet use and depression. Stemming from an earlier study which found a causal link between internet use and depression, these authors studied the relationship between internet use, social support and depression. They used Bandura’s social cognitive theory as a framework and investigated the influence of self-efficacy, internet-related stress, and perceived social support on depression. Their research showed a link between internet use and depression, but one mediated by self-efficacy and the expectation of encountering stressful situations on the internet. They also found that internet use decreased depression through the use of e-mail exchanges with known associates to obtain social support and with increased experience and comfort with the internet. I thought that this was an interesting application of Bandura’s theories and a very well thought-out research project.

Hague’s (2006) article initially brought up the issue of mediocrity and the concept of flooding the “marketplace” with blogs. When Seth said “bloggers blog too much” and “they’re littering an attention commons” I wondered, too, are there too many blogs? From my very limited experience these past weeks in exploring online options, I wonder if many online sites are competing for consumers’ attention in the same way that strip malls compete for our dollars?

I loved Rosen’s analogy of online profiles, comparing them to portraits of wealthy or influential people in the past. She said, “Today, our self-portraits are democratic and digital; they are crafted from pixels rather than paints…Like painters constantly retouching their work, we alter, update, and tweak our online self-portraits; but as digital objects they are far more ephemeral than oil on canvas. Vital statistics, glimpses of bare flesh, lists of favorite bands and favorite poems all clamor for our attention—and it is the timeless human desire for attention that emerges as the dominant theme of these vast virtual galleries. There’s nothing I can add to that! What a great way of thinking about it!

MISMATCHES
One issue that was a mismatch for me, in terms of developing a rich online community experience, is the idea that online communities have low barriers to enter and low barriers to exit. While all groups and communities undergo a change in membership, Gaston (1999) notes that participants in online communities often exit the community rather than make an effort to alter the character of the existing organization. If we can easily set aside the bonds of community, “unfriend” our friends, why even bother in the first place? To me friendship and membership in a community involves commitment, looking out for the other person while they look out for you, willingly sharing your time and resources. Becoming part of a community means becoming interdependent. You’re there, for good, bad or ugly. Hopefully, over time you will be positively influenced by others and they will be positively influenced by you. You don’t opt out when your feathers get ruffled.

Another mismatch for me was the idea proposed by Weeks (2009) that online connections flatten relationships. Although I agree with BJ Fogg, director of Stanford University's Persuasive Technology Lab as quoted by Weeks, “text is an impoverished medium for communicating emotion, intent, real meaning”, it can provide the “speaker” an opportunity to think more deeply about an idea, review and revise it before it is sent to the recipient. The communicative partners can, if they’re willing, can enter into a very deep, meaningful and significant conversation which can strengthen and vitalize relationships.

Speaking of the Weeks’ article, another mismatch for me is the whole idea of the Twitter site. The description as a ditzy, microblogging sort of say-whatever-pops-in-your-head site does absolutely nothing to interest me in this sort of social computing. As Weeks points out, it is like thinking aloud in front of strangers. It is a marketing tool and a me-me-me medium. I do not understand its draw.

Albrechtslund (2008) did not convince me that surveillance is not a creepy thing. He argues that online social networking introduces a participatory approach to surveillance, which can empower, and not necessarily violate, the user. Simply using the term “surveillance” brings up negative connotations in every context I can think of. Even though most social networking sites ask their users to provide personal data in the profile, and participants willingly do that, using this information for any self serving reason, whether it is marketing, targeting, apprehending or other benign or nefarious reasons does not in any way create a positive spin on this. Albrechtslund’s article finishes with the thought that online social networking appears to be a “snoop’s dream”. It left me shaking my head.

For me, Bigge’s whole article was somewhat of a mismatch. It appeared to be a series of relatively unconnected quotes. The quotes, while thought provoking individually, I though that overall this article seemed disconnected, leaving me to wonder, “What is your point?” From this article I learned about the idea that Ludies, or conscious objectors, abstain from social network sites despite social pressures to participate. Apparently, Bigge believes that participants are conscripted to work to gain social credits while being mined by marketers.

A QUESTION THAT REMAINS UNANSWERED
As Rosen asks in Virtual Friendship and the new Narcissism, “Perhaps the question we should be asking isn’t how closely are we connected, but rather what kinds of communities and friendships are we creating?”

REFERENCES:
Galston, William A. (1999). Does the Internet Strengthen Community? In Elaine Ciulla Kamarck and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (eds.), Democracy.com? Governance in a Networked World. Hollis, NH: Hollis Publishing Co.
http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/fall1999/internet_community.htm

Weeks, Linton (2009). Social Responsibility and the Web: A Drama Unfolds. 8 January 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99094257

LaRose, R., M.S. Eastin and J. Gregg (2001). Reformulating the Internet Paradox: Social Cognitive Explanations of Internet Use and Depression. Journal of Online Behavior 1(2). http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.html

Hague, Umair (2006). Usefulness and The Banality of Business. (Bubblegeneration Strategy Lab blog post). http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2006/03/usefulness-and-banality-of-business.cfm

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-narcissism

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