In the both the reading Turkle and Baym discuss the various notions on the use of online identity. Tukle uses a strong example of role playing to show how many people are taking advantage of online anonymity. As the study showed people are using their anonymity to relieve stress or understand somone better by “role playing” as that person. Turkle examines the physiological issues of online identity without exploring the social issues. Baym seems to agree with Turkle’s ideas raised about identity. She also adds the notion that self representation online is also contributed to the information about one’s self. If people want to know about some one they have the ability to search that persons name in a search engine. Both Tukle’s and Baym’s ideas of self identity fit well in regards to my blogger. The blogger i choice remains to be anonymous for the most and seems to do so in order to rant about or put various pop culture figures on blast. I dont think hipsterrunoff.com would exist without the cover up of a true identy. Also there have been people to contributed information about the blogger stating their short lived relationships or encounters with the blooger, which is an example of Baym idea of self information being online.
5 thoughts on “Online self Identity”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Watlher article mentioned that offline, environmental elements can influence or reduce the quality of dialectic communication. For instance, I know someone who is extremely quiet face-to-face. Yet this person will text night and day. You’d think they were the most talkative person alive. So do you think that Baym and Turkle would agree that CMC can reduce social anxiety, at least in some instances?
Since your blogger remains anonymous on purpose, do you think they will be a truer version of themselves with the freedom from judgement or is it license to be a completely “other” persona than their real self? I could see it going both ways but it seems with that type of blog that they would be more themselves (more honest) than they could be in their real life.
I think it’s so cool that you picked an anonymous blogger. I agree that it’s nearly impossible to have really blatant opinions when you are in the public eye. And, as Meagan brings up, I think being anonymous allows us to be more honest about our opinions (especially when they are unpopular or offensive). However, being anonymous allows people to be unnecessarily cruel as well. I remember that the Commercial Appeal used to allow anonymous comments, but they got so offensive that now people are required to sign in.
I agree with Turkle in that several people can easily take advantage of online identity-changes. This could allow for them to easily persuade other people that they are worthy of their trust. At times, the person proves to be legitimate and everything goes relatively smoothly when the individuals meet face-to-face. Unfortunately, this is not always the way it happens. It could just as easily result in something happening to an innocent civilian that affect him or her for the rest of his or her life, and that’s merely a best-case scenario compared to the possibility of death, abduction, or rape.
does not knowing who you are blogging about kind of crazy? I would want to know who is talking about events and things going on iside that blog? Remaining anonymous can be good for those who truly feel the need to cover up their lives, but if someone would write something positive about the blog wouldn’t they want to receive proper credit? Besides the anonymous blogger, I do agree with online-identity being taken advantage of due to identity theft and stalker issues. People feel that online chatting is more convenient and easier than face to face conversations. Which is more relaxed verses akward?