One drawback noted by Norris (2004), is the “normalization” that can occur by creating connections with people who have only the same views as you. Creating a sense of digital divide that is not solely based on race, gender, or other identity factors. The positives found in the study of the PEW life project determined that contact with online groups served both bridging and bonding but the experience in participating is slightly stronger in bonding verses bridging.
Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe (2011) focus on the SNS Facebook and raise questions of what “Friending” online really means, they found the that the relationships or “Friending” served as weaker ties and most of the users friends represent “in person” relationships. Also, the connections to in person friends show stronger connection in more of a maintaining relationships versus reaching out to new people which usually die quickly through SNS.
I tend to invite friends into my network that I have some sort of in person connection with: family, friends, school mates, co workers. I never friend people that I do not know on Facebook. However, for other sites such as instagram I like photos and follow people that I do not know, it is a less formal SNS to me so I am more open to having new faces in my instagram feeds. After all you don’t want to see 100 pictures of your family online, you should have that in your home!
According to the readings social capital is bringing different ethnicity’s together but targeting similar interests. Norris (20024) states,”Bridging social capital refers to social networks that bring together people of different sorts and bonding social capital bring together people of a similar sort.” Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe (2011) focus more on Facebook and conclude in their findings that emerging adults such as college students that are “experimenting” with various identities may benefit the larger more heterogeneous network that Facebook enables.
Overall, social capital is gauged by age and desire to explore new avenues. A draw back to SNS’s is normalcy having too much of the same type of people and views to narrow ones thinking. Positives can be gaining new information, keeping up to the minute information about one another, and support.
I’m suprised our readings haven’t talked more about photography and apps like Instagram. It could be that many of these studies were written before Instagram gained the popularity it has now.
Privacy issues aside, I like Instagram. I much prefer to document things I find interesting through photography rather than status updates. There are tons of weak ties in my network who have babies. They post status updates all day long regarding what the baby is doing. I’d much rather see a few photos here and there than hear about it. It’s quicker to look at photos, shows you more and keeps me from having to read everyone’s opinion about everything.
Evidenced by our readings, we are gaining a more complex understanding of what the digital divide can mean. When I first read about the concept, it was a very flat definition of those who couldn’t, wouldn’t, or didn’t want to access the internet. People held within the group ranged from those who couldn’t afford to own a computer or lived somewhere without an infrastructure to support household internet to older people within the community who were simply uninterested. Now we have an expanding understanding of the term. It can now encompass even those who use technology regularly.
Interesting idea of Instagram. SNS sites like twitter and now Instagram seem to been rapid competition to create something that makes a quick and simple connection to person or object. Even if the connection last for few seconds or minutes.