I thought the idea that a "public display of connection" was crucial to a SNS was sort of profound, if obvious when given a little thought. One of my first experiences with social networking was Myspace, and "Friends" there had a very important role. When I would have put someone in my "Top 8" but they didn't see me as someone who belonged in theirs, I got my (real world) feelings hurt. These days, someone knowing someone I know could be enough to "friend them" on facebook, if they give a little explanation of their request. And that's another thing. In the "real world," people don't ask to be your friend. And if they do, they don't ask to be your friend for no reason. Often on Facebook, I allow people to be my friend who I have no intention of ever speaking to.
I enjoyed reading the Boyd and Ellison piece on SNSs, partly because I'd really never thought about the origins of some of these sites until I started this class. I knew everyone was friends with Tom when I was on Myspace and they made a movie about how facebook started, but I've always just thought of it as a "some genius invented a website and made a bunch of money...and I'm glad they did" sort of thing. I was surprised to find that one of the initial reasons for a few of the sites was to connect friends-of-friends, for dating purposes and to simply make friends. I think of SNSs these days (that is, 10 years or so later) as a place to share things with people you know or to try to have some influence.
Under the "SNSs hit the mainstream" subtitle, Boyd and Ellison talk about Myspace, and I found it especially interesting knowing that I was one of the youngsters that got a Myspace. I had no idea that musicians and their fans had been such a huge part of the beginnings of Myspace.
Another thing that really hit me with this piece is the differences in popularity of sites in other countries and in the U.S. I generally think of these sites as "connecting the world," but it seems that just as B&E said that certain subgroups (educated, upper middle class; teenagers; old people, etc) tend to use the sites to segregate themselves, whole nationalities do the same thing. B&E mention at the beginning and throughout the piece that certain SNSs gain popularity in certain countries, something I had never considered. I think it would be intriguing to study what makes certain countries take hold of certain SNSs that completely fail in other countries.
A confession: I haven't seen the movie about facebook. I know, I know, it was an excellent film, but I haven't gotten a chance to see it yet. That being said, I had no idea that it's only been since 2004 that Facebook was created. Since then, college students, then business networks, and now anyone at all can join, and everyone DOES join. It's crazy to think that just six years after it was created to be used only by Harvard students, facebook is a necessity for running a big campaign, finding out about events on campus, staying connected to friends from high school, and on and on.
When discussing the idea of "impression management and friendship performance," the idea that people will push their online profiles to be more like who they want to be rather than who they are seems reasonable, but it hasn't been my experience. Personally, I think I could say things on pages where I have "Friends" or "followers" who know me in real life and get a few "LOL"s if I posted something or had pictures that didn't reflect who I am (or who I seem to be) in person. Also, if I say something that sounds off, I might get a message or two from concerned friends saying they're worried I've been hacked. Given, the research that B&E points to seems to mainly be from 2007, and as we've seen just from a few days in this class, three years has made a lot of difference.
I guess the big question is how these sites are changing our "real" lives. These days, I'm always saying, "the other day my friend was talking about," when I'm referring to something they posted online. Perhaps these sites aren't separate from our "real" lives at all.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Foursquare vs. Flickr
For our comparison project I've decided to engage in/study Foursquare and Flickr. They're both sites that I have never participated in that I've heard of and have seen linked to Twitter and Facebook, sites that I have been participating in.
I think, so far, that these sites allow users to project specific (and different) images of one's true self through their site. The use of pictures is shared, in different ways, between the two sites and there seems to be a sense of competition, too.
I've joined, and if you're on Foursquare, I need friends! On flickr, I'm flickr.com/jennaawhite.
I think, so far, that these sites allow users to project specific (and different) images of one's true self through their site. The use of pictures is shared, in different ways, between the two sites and there seems to be a sense of competition, too.
I've joined, and if you're on Foursquare, I need friends! On flickr, I'm flickr.com/jennaawhite.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Testing the waters - Where could collective intelligence get us?
"Collective Intelligence"...
I probably could have imagined what one would mean by the term - some way for people to collect their knowledge and share it with others, so that, if all the members in a group were a piece of a machine, the machine could do practically anything. Something like that.
When I said something like "could do anything," though, I would probably be considering things like solving scientific and human relations issues, connecting people from all parts of the world, and providing information like Wikipedia does, on any number of subjects, all at once. Something like I get the impression companies like IBM are doing. What I would not have seen, though, is this sort of "machine" working in ways that seem less important (Survivor spoiling) and much, much more important (translating to political power).
I'm going to go ahead and get this out of the way: Yes, I did just make a value judgment in using the term "important". No, I am not ashamed that I'm doing this. I watch the Bachelor. Every season. Occasionally I read forums that are similar to what Jenkins describes: they predict what the ending will be based on information that has been gathered and spoil the end of the show (he gives her a rose and she walks away, he calls his ex-girlfriend while he's on camera...and so on). While I acknowledge that the Bachelor is unimportant, I choose to spend my time on it.
What I found even more interesting than the ability to make these fun, unimportant parts of our life more entertaining, if we enjoy spoiling the ending and sticking it to the man, so to speak, was that theorists consider how this could mean political power for those involved. The ability to "push back" can be interpreted in any number of ways, but what fascinates me about the idea is that this means politics might not really be so personal as we often think. Now, no one really debates that unions and big companies can exert a lot of power, but we generally think of their people as an extension of the money that they're willing to spend.
These groups of collective intelligence, knowledge communities, are formed of members who choose, with nothing other than their personal pleasure and satisfaction as payment, to remain pieces of the group.
Political power seems like a really good reason to want to be in a group like this, but the questions then would be to what extent the group could maintain its power, how only those who contribute to the knowledge of the community would have that power, and on and on.
But back to what I was trying to get to with this altering how we think of politics. I feel like I've rambled a little, but I think I may have a point.
When we vote, we value the ability to have a secret ballot. We want to have as much direct access to our representatives as possible, and we really do, especially at the state and local levels. If our representatives don't listen, we can raise money and run against them or find someone else who can. We put up yard signs, wear buttons, and put bumper stickers on our cars. Unless we start considering how much our vote really fits into the nationwide popular vote or something like that, we generally can see our individual impact on politics. Every once in a while this is reinforced when we have a State Rep. win an election by twelve votes, like Rep. Howard did last November.
The idea that we can do a lot together isn't new. But the idea that some of these things, based on a combination of knowledge, can be swayed by a group seems sort of profound. PACs and parties could be examples of political groups with common ideologies, but I think the idea of knowledge communities is a little more than that. I'm not sure exactly what this means, going forward, if anything, for our political system, but it sure seems like it would change things. Any ideas?
I probably could have imagined what one would mean by the term - some way for people to collect their knowledge and share it with others, so that, if all the members in a group were a piece of a machine, the machine could do practically anything. Something like that.
When I said something like "could do anything," though, I would probably be considering things like solving scientific and human relations issues, connecting people from all parts of the world, and providing information like Wikipedia does, on any number of subjects, all at once. Something like I get the impression companies like IBM are doing. What I would not have seen, though, is this sort of "machine" working in ways that seem less important (Survivor spoiling) and much, much more important (translating to political power).
I'm going to go ahead and get this out of the way: Yes, I did just make a value judgment in using the term "important". No, I am not ashamed that I'm doing this. I watch the Bachelor. Every season. Occasionally I read forums that are similar to what Jenkins describes: they predict what the ending will be based on information that has been gathered and spoil the end of the show (he gives her a rose and she walks away, he calls his ex-girlfriend while he's on camera...and so on). While I acknowledge that the Bachelor is unimportant, I choose to spend my time on it.
What I found even more interesting than the ability to make these fun, unimportant parts of our life more entertaining, if we enjoy spoiling the ending and sticking it to the man, so to speak, was that theorists consider how this could mean political power for those involved. The ability to "push back" can be interpreted in any number of ways, but what fascinates me about the idea is that this means politics might not really be so personal as we often think. Now, no one really debates that unions and big companies can exert a lot of power, but we generally think of their people as an extension of the money that they're willing to spend.
These groups of collective intelligence, knowledge communities, are formed of members who choose, with nothing other than their personal pleasure and satisfaction as payment, to remain pieces of the group.
Political power seems like a really good reason to want to be in a group like this, but the questions then would be to what extent the group could maintain its power, how only those who contribute to the knowledge of the community would have that power, and on and on.
But back to what I was trying to get to with this altering how we think of politics. I feel like I've rambled a little, but I think I may have a point.
When we vote, we value the ability to have a secret ballot. We want to have as much direct access to our representatives as possible, and we really do, especially at the state and local levels. If our representatives don't listen, we can raise money and run against them or find someone else who can. We put up yard signs, wear buttons, and put bumper stickers on our cars. Unless we start considering how much our vote really fits into the nationwide popular vote or something like that, we generally can see our individual impact on politics. Every once in a while this is reinforced when we have a State Rep. win an election by twelve votes, like Rep. Howard did last November.
The idea that we can do a lot together isn't new. But the idea that some of these things, based on a combination of knowledge, can be swayed by a group seems sort of profound. PACs and parties could be examples of political groups with common ideologies, but I think the idea of knowledge communities is a little more than that. I'm not sure exactly what this means, going forward, if anything, for our political system, but it sure seems like it would change things. Any ideas?
Thursday, January 20, 2011
"Hello World!"
I like "Hello World" as a place to begin. It's the first thing I forced a computer to say when I "learned" Java in high school Computer Science. system.out.println("Hello World")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)