internetsocietyclass-blog

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Article Analysis: Queer Youth, Facebook, and Faith: Facebook Methodologies and Online Identities

            It is argued that the internet provides a safe place for people with sexualities “outside the norm”. This article explores the complexities of “coming out” and questions how Facebook helped the movement. As far as the research study goes, the population is young adults (age 17 to 34) most of whom considered themselves to be White British. During the study, the participants were involved with interviews, writing diaries, and a mapping exercise. They were asked to mind map and thinking about multiple places and how comfortable they felt being there. Researchers and participants were “friends” on Facebook in order to deepen the bond between them since the study would be so emotional. It is repeated a few times in the article that using Facebook as a means of contact for work was inappropriate and felt uncomfortable. Once the research was done, the researcher simply “deleted” the participant as a friend. Research methods involving the internet in such ways are becoming increasingly more common when the subjects are youth. “The ‘new media’ in [the] research became an unforeseen platform for [the] participants, confirming that ‘everyday life’ for much of the world is becoming increasingly technologically mediated.” Facebook is identified as an important tool for identity construction. The “online embodiment” is key to construct an identity online and consists of religion, political views, preferences, sexual orientation, and relationship status. One of the girls in the study, Georgina, talked about how when she is making a profile her religion and sexuality will definitely go in there. But, so will her hair color and the fact that she is a woman. “There are not more important than each other,” Georgina simply states. On the other hand, some people, like Helen, only share that they are bisexual with a few select persons. This makes updating her Facebook to “Interested in: Men and Woman” is a major milestone for Helen that she would one day like to pass. While others, choose to not share that part of their life on Facebook – period. There is a strategy known as “showing without telling” that is constantly brought up; this is when – rather than spell out what you want to see – you simply elude to it or literally show it. For example, so-and-so never put that he was gay on his profile, but once he posted a picture of him with his boyfriend, everyone knew. Online spaces are seen as a gateway to new opportunities for negotiating queer religious identities for young people, whereas the “real life” is just a bit too oppressing and restrictive.     

            I chose this artifact because it shows a man “coming out” over Facebook. While the man’s faith is not brought into play, I feel that the other problem needed to be addressed and related enough to my article topic to use as an artifact. This man is trusting in the community (or network, if you will) that he has built around him – a “safe place”. After feeling comfortable in his community he decides to announce that he is gay and everyone takes it as a joke because of a stupid prank that went around on Facebook. It is a well-known and idiotic prank that when someone left their Facebook profile unattended, a friend would come by and “come out,” letting the owner of the profile deal with the turmoil after that. While the prank is not fully related to this article, I believe that the idea in which the man believed he was in a safe place to be himself and experienced such a rude awakening is clear enough. The main focus of the article is how Facebook is used among LGBTQ to form and find communities where people can be accepted as they are.

            Network applies to this article because by following a certain faith, the participants live in a specific religious network and that is one of the reasons it is so difficult for them to “come out”. By surrounding themselves with people from that network that think a certain way, these participants know how the other people in their network will react to them being gay/lesbian/bi/etc. Interactivity is evident in the article considering it is all about Facebook and how people interact with others which instantly or eventually leads to “coming out”. One vital detail is Manovich’s idea of interactivity being limited. In the article, Helen brings up the choice of being interested in (a) men and (b) women. She had the option to click both. But, what if, to someone else, there is more to the story? For instance, what if there is a man who is bisexual, but hetero-romantic. By clicking he is interested in both men and women isn’t exactly the whole story and could feel like a lie.

            I don’t know, but to me pressing “delete” on Facebook is an intense moment. I always feel bad about un-friending someone, even if I am doing it because we are no longer friends. By the click of a button it is done. And it doesn’t feel like there is any closure. The idea of online spaces being a gateway to new opportunities for LGBTQ (and all the other letters) is great and all, but now that that is done, shouldn’t we be working on making that a reality in the tangible world? I do agree that the internet, social media sites specifically, are a major part of daily life today, but that doesn’t mean that issues solved online will also be magically solved face-to-face. It feels weird to say this, but I think it works in this context: it is time to make the digital a reality.

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Anonymous (Information Activism)

         First off,an information activist is someone who makes information available to the public that otherwise would go unseen. An example of a large group that does this is Anonymous, known individually as an anon. Anons are labeled in the media as hackers, but define themselves as "average internet users". There original purpose was to protest scientology, which they continue to do today along with a number of other conquests. They are a leaderless organization fighting for the rights of the public: free speech, privacy, freedom from surveillance, and to share and innovate ideas.

          I used a French video message from anonymous (with the face of Guy Fawkes) to show that this is something international. Not just some extreme movement in one country like America, but an interactive organization that stretches across the globe.

          I think this entire group is incredibly intriguing. To be honest, before today I didn't even know that they existed. I must live under a rock. This video in particular that I chose to use seems a bit extreme and I do question if it is the real deal. All in all, Anonymous seems like it has certainly started in the right place, but I can't help but wonder when it will get out of control. Vengeance is a heavy calling and almost always runs out of control, especially when there are so many people involved in a group like Anonymous. 

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Documentary Analysis: United States of Secrets (Part Two)

            A “network of surveillance” is unraveled and discussed. In 2007, there were 9 internet companies that were cooperating with the NSA. The names are probably well-known to you: Google, YouTube, AOL, Verizon, Facebook, Skype, PalTalk, Yahoo, AT&T.  Obama tried to soften the blow of this discovery, attempting to downplay just how much the NSA was looking at. He lied. “Even if you’re not doing anything wrong, you are still being watched,” Edward Snowden said in an interview that was released to the public. General Hayden said that the public view matters. He just hopes that the public is informed when making their decisions. Well, how are we supposed to be informed when we are fed half-truths and lies? When you go to a website, it downloads a cookie onto your computer. This cookie interacts with every website you go to after that. It is what tells websites like Facebook and Google what you like and allows them to correspond appropriate ads when you return to their website. If you are going to let Google scan you emails, searches, financial records, etc. for commercialism then why won’t you let the government listen in for anti-terrorism? NSA quickly caught on to the trend of cookies and began riding Google’s cookies to watch Americans roam on their computers.    

            I chose this artifact because it represents the extreme (though totally understandable) concerns on the public after discovering the dabbling the government has done in their daily lives.

            As far as Information goes, this entire documentary focuses on information and how it travels between computers, how it is filtered, searched, and collected in order to “search for terrorists” and “identify suspicious activity”. With Archive, it is evident that all of this information that is being collected does not just poof! And disappear. NSA (and pretty much all websites) collect the information in archives. Websites generally use this for commercial purposes so that they can place the appropriate ads on your desktop and make even more money. Interactivity refers to the ways computers communicate with each other and share information. For instance, NSA’s giant computer that sifts through all of our information and collect in archives. Finally, Network is simply involved because of one the most well-known websites that was one of the first to put its archive of information on its users to advertise is… (drumroll, please) Facebook! Bet you didn’t see that coming.

            I’m not surprised by how much websites collect from where we go, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t get unsettled every time I watch a documentary about it. However, I am surprised that those 9 internet companies that I brought up earlier that worked with the NSA are still so vital to our daily internet life. I’m sure that this just goes to show how few people are still aware of who exactly was involved in the surveillance. It’s not just the government. And that, is what is so unsettling. I feel like I have to watch my back in my own backyard when I haven’t even done anything wrong.

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Documentary Analysis: United States of Secrets (Part One)

            It all started with an archive of information that Edward Snowden shared with a journalist/documentary maker. On 9/11, the question was asked, “What didn’t we detect that we should have detected?” And so, the war on terrorism commenced above ground, while the surveillance on Americans began below ground. It is definitely against the law to use the National Surveillance Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans. So let us get that straight now, because there is no way around it. Using surveillance programs, NSA was trying to find unknown conspirators, but to find them, they had to suspect everyone. George W. Bush knowingly okayed the illegal invasion of all of America’s privacy in 2001 when he signed the Patriot Act. Only a small handful of people were aware of this operation and just how deep it went. “Thinthread” was a program made before 9/11 that could eavesdrop on all of America, but was programmed for privacy among citizens. But NSA already had its own Thinthread, just minus the privacy control. “It was unethical, immoral, stupid, and unconstitutional…” (United States of Secrets). One of the speakers in the video stated that these actions are a blatant violation of the first amendment. When a small piece of information on the giant project was leaked, George W. Bush informed The New York Times that if they made the story public then the newspaper would be at fault for the death of many Americans if/when terrorists attacked next. In his running campaign, Obama said, “No more secrecy! That is a promise I make to you as a commandment…no more wiretapping…” And yet, after winning the election, Obama continued the surveillance at the strong suggestions of his advisors.   

            I chose this artifact because it is a terrifying portrayal of how much the government sees looking at us so often. But, I also chose this picture because, being at that height, you aren’t able to catch a lot of details. I think this is key because while NSA does look at a good majority of our personal information, it is all skimming. They aren't looking to read about you. They are looking for particular cues that may elude to you being a terrorist. Yes, that doesn't sound so great. But I think it is important to understand the distinction, whether you agree with it or not.

            As far as Information goes, this entire documentary focuses on information and how it travels between computers, how it is filtered, searched, and collected in order to “search for terrorists” and “identify suspicious activity”. With Archive, it is evident that all of this information that is being collected does not just poof! And disappear. NSA (and pretty much all websites) collect the information in archives. Websites generally use this for commercial purposes so that they can place the appropriate ads on your desktop and make even more money.        

            Personally, I am not a criminal so I really don’t have anything to hide from the government and couldn’t really care less if they were snooping. That being said, I am not a criminal so there is no reason to snoop. I’m not going to go crazy and rant on this because plenty of people have already done that and I don’t have much to rant about, but I will say that there is this thing called “innocent until proven guilty” and it should be applied to our rights on the internet as well, considering it is just as much a part of our nation as the land we walk on.

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Article Analysis: Social Networking and Adjustments Among International Students

            Researchers have started to focus on how people use technology to manage their social networks in order to gain social capital and to adjust (socially and psychologically) to situations. Social network sites have received growing attention regarding their effects on social capital and psychological well-being. Websites like Facebook are used to maintain pre-existing relationships and to create new connections. But what about people who don’t have a permanent home or are away from home for an extended amount of time? Putnam has defined two types of social capital: bridging (“weak ties”) and bonding (strong ties). It is argued that the internet can provide and maintain various forms of social capital (meaning weak and strong ties). There is a strong relationship between the Facebook usage of a student and their bridging social capital. When international students travel to the US, those who exhibit more traits of horizontal collectivism may seek more connections with other international/domestic students compared to those who exhibit more traits of horizontal individualism, thus leading to more bridging social capital. On top of that, the former student will likely gain more emotional support from the students it befriends and in turn adjust better in the US. One idea is that introverts tend to use SNSs more in order to connect with others and increase their social capital. However, it is also suggested that extroverts use SNSs more and benefit from both the online and offline communication. The study focused on how Facebook usage has influenced international students’ social capitals and adjustments. There were several results that the data suggested. First, international students should be encouraged to employ SNSs like Facebook to expand and manage their social network because this could benefit their online bridging capital. Schools should also create groups on SNSs to facilitate the usage of SNSs among international students. Schools could use SNSs to create an online community for international students that would eventually lead to offline interactions. Means should be provided for more introverted students to SNSs to bridge to difference online networks and to have a greater sense of college adjustment.                                                                     

            I know that this is not the most exciting artifact, but there are not exactly a lot of visuals that represent the connectivity supplied by social network sites to international students. With that, my explanation is basically said. I chose this artifact because it visually shows how one person can interact with the entire world - now, pretend that person is an international student and they are using Facebook as there way of interacting.

            The concepts that I believe best fit with this article are Network and Interactivity. Obviously, with Interactivity it is the usage of sites like Facebook that relate it to this topic. This article is entirely focused on how people interact through sites like Facebook and what kind of relationships these lead to. In specific relation to international students, websites like Facebook allow students to broaden their Network which they socialize in. By adding people to Facebook after meeting them abroad, you can come back and continue to stay in touch with them. This means that you extend your own personal Network, rather than temporarily changing Networks for a while like you would do by traveling.

            To be honest, there were a lot of inconsistencies in the research of this article – which they later admitted in their reflection. However, the authors did hit home on a few ideas that, while they are relatively common sense, I agree with wholeheartedly. First off, you should know that I couple years back I was able to spend a summer abroad in Europe. I met many people, some of whom I stayed in contact with using a certain social network site. Can you guess which one? Yeah, it’s Facebook. During my entire trip I blogged at the end of each day to record what I saw/did/ate/spent/etc/ (another thing which I greatly encourage you do if you go abroad!) and I also made sure to add people on Facebook as I met in in Europe. Obviously, I made sure to form a decent relationship before sending my friend request though, because it is weird to get a friend request from a person you recall as “that one girl”. Anyway, to elaborate on what the article briefly touched on involving bridging/bonding, I believe that Facebook is ideal when creating bridging (“weak”) ties and maintaining bonding (“strong”) ties. But face-to-face conversation is the best way to make and keep friends for sure!

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Article Analysis: Cartography: Maps 2.0

            The author, while looking at the current state of cartography, focuses on “the explosion of new spatial media” on the internet. While the topic goes by many names, cartography generally not being one of them, they all relate to the same thing: mapping. Specifically, mapping that is available to be manipulated by the public. Does the geoweb require renewed map literacy/education? It is crazy to recall the Google Earth and Google Maps (aka. “slippy maps”) were only introduced to the public in 2015. There are a few key characteristics involved to make the well-known apps: (1) naturalistically displayed data, (2) interactive display, (3) integrated data collected from different sources and layered, (4) incorporating time, and (5) production of such knowledge belongs to the public – not trained professionals. Google Earth has been known to track human rights violations and has partnered with the US Holocaust Museum in the past to map out Darfur atrocities. There are rip-offs that try to do their own version of Google Earth; these are called “map mashups”. A map mashup is a combination of geographic data and maps from two different sources that are used in an application programming interface. The fields of new spatial media are being split into two areas: FOSS geoweb and professional mapping expertise. Cartography is related to the “cult of amateur” and its deprofessionalization. Geoweb needs to be recognized in its own sense of professionalism in order to be understood. How? (1) “crowdsourced” as like Wikipedia, (2) open source tools and services, and (3) participation and syndication.                                                                    

            I chose to use this artifact to relate to cartography for obvious reasons. It’s comedic, but accurately represents the convenience interactive mapping devices and our reliance on them.

            The concepts related to cartography are Information, Archive, Simulation, and Interactivity. Information and Archive kind of go together for this analysis. To create maps, aq constant collection of information must be received. This information is used to build maps and these maps, as they become obsolete, go into an archive which are later referenced and used again in order to update current maps. Simulation references those handy dandy GPSs that come on your phone or stick to the windshield of your car while you drive. This technology blurs that line of “real” and “virtual” as it tells you where to go while you drive. This example directly correlates with the concept of Interactivity as well. As you can see, it is the interaction between human and machine. Machine tells human where to turn so that human can arrive to its destination on time. Technologies like GPSs also interact machine to machine, because it is constantly being given information from satellites so that it can tell human where to go.

            Cartography and “slippy maps” are used all of the time in today’s generation. These interactive maps are a part of the great Digital Divide between the current generation and the ones before us. With things like GPS and Google Maps, we are told where to go rather than learning where we need to go and remembering. However, let’s not forget the benefit of these technologies: there is no longer time wasted driving around because you “are pretty sure it is the next right”. And even better, you don’t need a passenger interpreting a map for you or trying to figure out the directions yourself while in the midst of driving to the destination.

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Article Analysis: “If You Had Been With Us”: Mainstream press and Citizen Journalists Jockey for Authority over the Collective Memory of Hurricane Katrina

              In this article, citizen journalists are defined as “those people who are making use of the tools available to them to participate in the information world as bloggers and forum contributors”. The public rely on journalism as a guideline to life (for their jobs, relationship advice, etc.) Online interactivity changes the dynamics of journalism because the press is no longer the only source to collect the news from. This is known as the “communication revolution,” in which citizens may collect their own stories in “citizen journalism.” This article compared the journalism of Hurricane Katrina’s anniversary in 2006 to the coverage of citizen journalists, who consider their words to be “transformative”. The citizen’s focused on individual experience and personal connection to the devastation. “Citizen journalists recast themselves in the news narrative with new roles that often contradicted and challenged their depictions in print.” The focus of the research was based on the role of the press and how it forms collective memory, which is “an agreed-upon version of a news event’s remembrance”. The way a journalist goes about describing a story is a long process and thought out properly before bringing it to print. There will be much discussion on what is being said and whether it will help heal the audience or just hurt them more. With that, professional journalism carries a filter that citizen journalism does not. This filter can be good (telling the audience what they need to hear) and it and be bad (telling the audience what they want them to hear). “Readers seek comfort in news stories.” In directly comparing views of Hurricane Katrina, mainstream journalists portrayed themselves as the “watchdog of society”, while online coverage was familiar and neighborly. One of the negative sides to citizen journalism is the people began to question the journalistic version of an official story by commenting on forums and blogs. These actions declared media coverage as misinformation.

            I chose the two artifacts above to represent the two contrasting arguments of citizen journalism. On one hand, it allows us to collect from a more personal perspective without letting the government try to hide their actions (this is based off of extreme views). On the other hand, anyone can choose what important “news” is and therefore this can lead to a lot of pointless journalism when there are real stories out there to be heard.

            Interactivity is a major characteristic of citizen journalism. As said earlier in the summary of the article, it is the availability of online interactivity that gave birth to citizen journalism. With social networks (like Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr), such advances – or losses, depending on how you look at it – would not have been possible in the journalism world.

            The main question needing an answer: does citizen journalism really help up or does it hinder us? I have listed several pros and cons to the topic, but ultimately which do you feel is an appropriate answer? Giving everyone the right to share their version of the news is nice, and it falls under freedom of speech. But I am sure everyone would agree when I say that there are just some people who don’t need to share their opinion on certain topics. That said, I do think that seeing every opinion, no matter how lacking in facts or biased it may be, is vital and truly 

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Social Determinism

            Technological determinism is the theory that a society’s technology is what shapes the current cultural and societal values, unlike social determinism which is the theory that social interactions are what shape individual character. These two determinisms, if properly coordinated could avoid the normalization frame, which is the idea that new media will revolutionize news/politics.

            I chose this comic as my artifact because I think it shows how social and technological determinism both occur among normal household families. Yes, this comic is an exaggeration, but the blend of the two determinisms still happens in lesser ways.

            The applicable concepts for Social Determinism are Interactivity, Network (small community), Information (social vs. technological). For Interactivity, the idea here is that both determinisms are about the interaction amongst one another — be it human/human (social) or human/machine (technological). Network comes into play when people interact with each and create these networks amongst each other when they are searching for certain things, like advice, friendship, comfort, etc. Finally, within a network and interacting with people/machines leads to the transfer of information. Both determinisms are all about the shaping of individual’s character and the transformation of cultural/societal values. The only difference between the two determinisms is what source is affecting the object. Is the information coming from other people or is it coming from technology?

            How much of what you learn and experience is from social determinism and how much of it is from technological determinism, do you think? “Ask your parents” has turned into “Just Google it”. “You could always buy a _____ to help” became “There’s an app for that”. With websites that help you self-diagnose medical problems and give advice on how you should be living your life, there aren’t a lot of ways to socially gain this information. I think, with the current generation, most of social determinism is experienced during youth when we only know to rely on parents and adults. As we get older we become aware of the entire virtual world all around us. While, it is not necessarily a bad thing to be seeking answers from the internet, some may say we have lost something by leaving social determinism behind in exchange for technology. Like that direct human contact that feeds our motivation to continually look for questions and their answers.

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Remix Inc.

            Before understanding Remix Inc., it is important to know what it means to remix. This is when someone combines and edits materials to produce a new product. Remix Inc. is when large industries do this.

           I use Kill Bill as my artifact because the creators of the film were greatly influenced by a number of scenes from other movies. At the end of this post is a link to a video made by Kerby Ferugson that can show you these connections. The main idea is that "creation requires influence" (Everything is a Remix). One can only have so many "original" thoughts, before they start to connect them to previous points in history. 

            The concepts applied to this topic include Interface, Archive, and Interactivity. A remix is the compilation of different pieces of many materials, and it is all of these pieces interacting with one another that create a totally new piece. Interactivity and the way these different sources interact with one another is a major part of Remix Inc. and how more movies and music are being made without us running into identical projects. With Archive, really the only idea I had here is that without that archive of all of the previous movies/sounds/art made, there is no way to continue to make new things that are influenced by the previous masterpieces. With that definition, my sense of Archive is a bit more abstract for this topic. And finally, Interface calls into question the boundaries between human and machine, With the ability to remix, the boundaries become more vague as technology continuously allows humans to find new ways to apply old ideas and constantly express themselves in different forms.

            We are all familiar with Remix Inc. Disney is a well-known production company that has taken many older stories (Cinderells, Snow White, Bearuty and the Beast, Alice in Wonderland...Shall I go on?) and out their own take on it. Movies based off books, movies based off video games, video games based off movies, music based off movies, art based off music... It's a constant loop that isn't just involved in the arts. Inventors used the ideas and outlines of previous inventors to create new things every day. It's just human nature to build off of what we have. And the more we build, the higher up we go.

Everything is a Remix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-HuenDPZw0

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Cult of Amateur

            The idea behind the Cult of Amateur is that technology has allowed anyone to independently produce music. This is called the flattening effect, when digital technologies have given musicians the freedom to be "truly independent.” This has opened the music market on a global scale allowing just about anyone who is willing to work produce their own music. This is the Cult of Amateur.

            For my artifact, I uploaded a song that I paid for via Google Play. This song was created and produced by Jon Cozart, a popular YouTuber who has quite a few of his own songs available on iTunes and Google Play. This is an example of someone within the Cult of Amateur, someone who was not necessarily trained and is not an expert in music production, but has been given the technology and basic skills to do so.

            A long list of familiar products that tend to fall under the Cult of Amateur are as follows: covers (when someone sings their own version of a song that is not originally their's), knock-offs (when someone use the same "sound" or style as another known artist), graffiti, and the very well-known Wikipedia. With the technology the amateur music producers use, a form of Interactivity is present between human and machine. Without any special training, anyone can use the technology and shared their music with anyone who cares to listen - yet another form of Interactivity. Also, the idea of "information materialism," where the dominant technologies of the day control all understandings." Right now, that is what music is. You don't have to have a label and it is completely changing the way music has been regarded up until now.

            There are positives and negatives to this newly found freedom. "On one hand, everyone can produce their own music, but on the other hand, everyone can produce their own music." To the purists, this is the greatest crime that could be committed. But to the dreamers, this technology finally helps the dream turn into a reality.

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Commodified Sexual Freedom

            “…I believe such a kind of intensely commodified sexual freedom interferes with the capacity of men and women to forge intense, all-involving, meaningful bonds, which provide one with knowledge of the kind of persons one cares about” (Illouz). Basically, Illouz states that the sexual freedom we are giving through the use of internet is stunting our social lives, making us incapable of forming meaningful relationships.  

            I used this artifact because it seemed to best represent what Illouz is trying to state. That the internet will only lead to casual encounters, so meaningless that one does not even bother to learn the true name of whom they are talking to.

            “If the second wave of feminism opened the gates of sexual constriction and repression, it is now time we reexamine the state of estrangement and alienation created by the interaction and intersection of emotions, sexual freedom, and economics” (Illouz). While I will agree that the internet has led to “bodies in bubbles,” it does not mean that we are alienated from community. Quite the contrary, I believe that is why we have such addiction to these social network sites, because it fuels our need for daily socializing with people we truly want to talk to, rather than who is available to talk at the time. True, there is nothing better than sitting face-to-face with a cup of coffee and catching up, but as Americans we live busy lives. We are always on the go and always working. So why should the way we socialize not be allowed to adapt to the way we live our lives?

            With all that said, the concepts most applicable to this term are: interactivity, addiction, and the affective turn. Interactivity, because this is all about interactions and how we are evolving in the way we socialize thanks to the internet. It all started with word by mouth, then written letters, phone calls, emails, texting, and now we have numerous social networks at our fingertips. Addiction is when you feel you need something and you start to hurt when you can’t have it. Well, as people we actually do need to socialize – we go crazy if we don’t. So, while we are addicted to social media, I find it to be an understandable addiction. Finally, the affective turn, which describes the “bodies in bubbles” that I talked about earlier, but also this idea that technology alters what the body is. It is this technology, the internet, which fuels our ever-constant craving for attention and simultaneously provides us with numerous ways to sate this hunger  

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Article Analysis: Sexual Use of the Internet: Perceived Impact on MSM’s View of Self and Others

            A majority of online communication is for relationships and sex – no matter one’s gender or sexual orientation. Gay men still witness a lot of social stigma when looking for partners online, so websites that offer anonymity are helpful. In response to the health concerns of STDs, men-seeking-men on the internet has been studied extensively (an idiotic waste of time, if you ask me). The authors question whether spending a considerable amount of time seeking/interacting (sexually and non-sexually) on the internet with other men has changed their perceptions of themselves or of others. It seems the argument is that if identities are made via social exchange then it is expected that the contact made through dating websites will impact identity construction and therefore lead to change. There are claims that state internet broadens our interactions and there are claims that state the internet simply stunts our social interactions. The big question: Did sex happen on the internet (meaning the internet is just another tool for sexuality), or did the internet happen upon sex (meaning the internet influences such behavior)? Many participants in a study claimed to have increased acceptance of their sexual orientation after being on the internet. “While the internet reinforces tradition norms associated with intimacy, it can alter the nature of relationships by creating new rules and opportunities.” The authors investigated two aspects within their study: perceived self-change and altered perceptions of others. The answer: that many of the men did indeed claim to have a different perception of themselves and of others. It is possible that the men in the study thought of changes in perceptions that never occurred, simply because they were asked to come up with it. The data was a convenience sample collected from only one dating website and is therefore not entirely representative of all MSMs.

            I actually had to create this image (you can tell because it's so fancy and perfect) because it is incredibly difficult to find something in relation to this topic. Anyway, The reason I chose to use this is because one of the main points this article stated was that dating websites on the internet, while perhaps taking away the traditional organic way of meeting, created a safe place for men to meet other men. This helped build the confidence of many individuals on these websites.

            Interactivity, I think, is the concept at large in this article. This piece is all about the interactions between men online and how it has change the perceptions of themselves, but also the way sex in general is perceived. Network applies in the lone fact that these websites that the MSMs use are social networks and without that facet, this study would have never happened to being with. Simulation is another concept that may be applied, due to the variety of social networks some require the user to create an avatar or character and meet other people using that. The Affective Turn is also strongly related to this article. One of the theories of this study is that internet influences our bodies and incites physical desire by allowing access to these dating websites. The concept of the Affective Turn is that is challenges the boundaries of the body through the use of technology.

            How does the internet fuel such primal behavior? Is it that, by giving people access, they are unable to resist the urge and bend to their desires? (Not like that is a bad thing) More importantly, after giving someone access and allowing them to experience the influence, what would happen if you take that access away from them? And, by “acting on urges” and talking about “desires,” I am not only implying sexual contact but just social contact in general. These are just a few questions that came to mind during the reading. 

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

The Celebritization of Everyday Life

            Everyone on Facebook is a “micro celebrity.” Social media is the stage and any user can stand beneath the spotlight, but with the audience's focus come both admiration and despise. People use there Facebook profile as a way of shouting about their life so that everyone hears it. This attention gives the user social and cultural value. This attention gives the user power. Most often these users, these “micro celebrities,” are teenagers.

            I chose this photo to represent the topic of celebritization because one of the most common ways to celebritize daily life is by sharing one's fights and problems with the world. To everyone not involved in the turmoil on Facebook, they are the audience to an ongoing drama.

             Starring Your Best Friend! Costarring Your Best Friend's                                                  Boyfriend! Produced by Facebook!

            Other very common examples of celebritization of everyday life are YouTube celebrities. They coin their fame by talking about relatable topics. It is their personalities that keep people interested.

            The New Melodramatic Imagination (NWI) is a puzzle piece concept that fits snuggly with this topic. Users exaggerate and stir up drama on Facebook, more people see it and retell the stories until they spiral out of control. The story starts out as a girlfriend cheating on her boyfriend and is consistently retold until the final version is that girlfriend cheated on her boyfriend with his best friend and then they ran away together to Australia because the boyfriend vowed to take their unborn child conceived through infidelity. YouTubers also use NWI when telling everyday stories, by exaggerating certain traits of the story it makes it more entertaining.

          Foucault's idea of confession, also coined by Bauman although different in definition, is that  of being socially prohibited from discussing sexuality and using confession as a means of relieving the need to discuss it. More often than not, the drama on Facebook originates from personal relationships’ problems made public.

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Article Analysis: Media Refusal and Conspicuous Non-Consumption: The Performative and Political Dimensions of Facebook Abstention

              The author, Laura Portwood-Stacer, looks at Facebook abstention as a lifestyle, calling it “media refusal.” Other examples of media refusal include not watching TV and refusing to own a mobile phone. Refusal is more than just not using something – it’s a conscious social/political decision. The author speaks in high regard to these who choose to quit media, especially if they are younger. Abstaining from Facebook is often and easily seen as “superiority” over the mainstream, or even the friends they leave behind. Looking at this study can bring to light the objections people have to particular media technologies and their discomfort with media and consumer culture at large. The author argues specifically that “Facebook rejection works as a proxy through which broader critiques are concentrated and meaningfully performed.” Media non-consumption and its conscious rejection as an expression of dissatisfaction “may expose the ideological discord simmering beneath the surface of mainstream consumer culture.” Through participation in Facebook’s network, individuals become consumers of commodities and are incited to create the very content that keeps people interested in Facebook. “By resisting the subject position of consumer, one resists the role of exploited laborer as well.” This article sheds light on the limitations of performative tactics of resistance. For example, when an individual expresses a difference in consumption to the norm, it may be seen as elitism, even if it is for more personal or political reasons.

            The artifact I found to represent this article is simple. It’s one of the many milder reactions I would expect to hear from someone who has experienced a friend of family member that has quitting Facebook. This social networking site is something many of us have grown used to and taken advantage of. Perhaps that is one of the things that can be taken away from this article, even if you choose to hold onto your Facebook profile (which I most certainly do). Yes, it is convenient but don’t spend all day on it and try to find other ways to socialize with the people that you really want to.

            The concept of network directly applies, since the focus of the article is on Facebook (a social network) and how it changes the dynamic of society. A new network is also created by those who reject Facebook. The information that is plugged into Facebook is what keeps people coming. More than that, it has access to other websites’ information and places the appropriate ads on one’s Facebook profile. As far as archive goes, Facebook is a personal book of life records for each of its users. The interactivity of Facebook is rather obvious, since the initial focus of the network is to keep people connected. With algorithms, these likely come into play with “people you may know” type of suggestions. For simulation, there is constant argument on “real” versus “virtual” relationships on the internet, Facebook specifically. One of the reasons people quit Facebook is to interact with friends and meet new people in “real life.” Facebook acts as the Father in the confessional box for the Confessional Society of its users. However, different from a standard confessional, individuals share what they want to share. New Melodramatic Imagination is a telephone game often played and easily witnessed through posts on Facebook; rumors and news grow into an exaggerated size until they no longer resemble the true, original story. This also applies to those who reject Facebook, for some people choose rather extreme reasons to quit or are presented as choosing elitist reasons for rejecting the social network. 

            Personally, after hearing people explain why they quit Facebook, I am more interested in learning how people would defend holding onto their Facebook profile. I also wonder is Facebook has attempted “fixing” some things that the quitters have complained about in the last few years since this article first came out. Another thought: have the Facebook-haters made (or tried to make) any of their own social networking sites that fit their preferences better? I will say that the author seemed somewhat neutral, showing both sides of the Facebook quitters, by first describing admirable reasons of why they would leave Facebook, then cheap, elitist reasons that people often jump to.

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

Interactivity

            Interactivity is the analysis of relationships, which can be applied to the connections between human-human, human-machine, and machine-machine. Interactivity can be social, psychological, or technical. It allows us to mold media to suit our preferences, like making public profiles customizable for users (one very old example would by MySpace). But, Manovich describes interactivity as limiting, which is what the screenshot above represents.

             Manovich states that interactivity is merely a “limited number of pre-programmed options that structure our usage”. I used the app Tinder as my example, though likely any dating site would do. The user’s profile is made customizable in the aspect that one may choose to state they are looking for (a) males, (b) females, or (c) both by simply checking boxes. This demonstrates the interactivity of the app by allowing the user to choose their preference, but also limits the user to other possible options that are not being made available. 

[internetsocietyclass-blog]

The Confessional Society

            People’s private lives are reflected online and in turn become public. Bauman describes The Confessional Society as those who are willing to participate in making their privacy public and moving forward, while those who refuse get left behind and socially excluded. It is important to note that people do not broadcast everything, and can choose what they wish to share. Bauman states that this is done mostly to capture attention and to gain approval through the game of socializing.

            As this video demonstrates, the guy in it blatantly lies about his downwardly spiraling life, but convinces his audience otherwise through his posts and photos. I chose to share this video because the entire point of it was that the main guy was using his facebook posts as a means of gaining other’s approval and in turn convincing himself that his life is better than it actually is.

            Through the video, it is shown how many people today fight for attention on the internet, whether they mean to or not. They seek a sense of importance, but even more so, they seek the power that comes from knowing that people have heard their words and “like” them.