In chapter three there were a lot of interesting points that caught my eye. “Media with fewer social cues often trigger hopes that people will become more equal and more valued for their minds than their social identities, but also raise fears that interactions, identities, and relationships will become increasingly shallow, untrustworthy, and inadequate,” (Bayum, 50-51). This is completely opposite in 2013. Media itself places people in a hierarchal position. The person with the most followers is the leader of the pack and the person with least amount is seen as the person who is least credible. Relationships are becoming stronger and stronger both business and personal. Businesses are able to build relationships with people across the world based off of trust and now people who are in long distance relationships can Skype, video message, chat, and tango thousands of miles apart. Not to mention the online dating “success stories.” I also found it interesting that the people who were surveyed favored face to face communication most, phone conversations were not intimate enough, and people felt the internet was not personal enough but always available (Bayum, 50). I understood why face to face would be the most favored. Face to face communication is one of the richest forms of communication but personally it is not the most effective way to communicate. After watching the class first chat session I felt more informed about the topics presented more so than the things discussed in the class I took afterwards.
I found it interesting that Gerrand researched web presence, but did not seem to take into consideration the countries/languages that do not have the luxury to communicate online, because the outcome could have been differently.
I have not had any non-English speaking encounters online. People speaking different languages online will not be a problem mainly because most people prefer English simply to ensure their message is perceived correctly.
I think what Baym was saying about CMC allowing people to be valued for their minds is true even in your example of Twitter followers. As long as one can get an enabled device and an Internet connection, a person’s social class does not dictate how many followers they are able to gain if the content they produce garners the attention of other users. In that way CMC has lowered the barrier to an individual’s outreach. Without CMC and the network of the Internet, an individual from a lower social or socio-economic class would not be able to connect with so many others.
Good point made about being the leader of the pack! I am a mother of a 14 year old who is heavily online and I am her friend, follower, and instagram buddie. I find that it is easier for me to keep as much of an eye out by being online with her than to demand her not to have one in today’s social structure.
My point to this is that my daughter is on instagram and has 2500 followers… How in the world can I manage that massive amount of traffic? The funny part is she only follows 38 people which are primarily family and friends. It is a phenomenon how hierarchal position has taken over some social outlets.
But it’s the world of media reach is the key to getting your name out there in the lime light. CMC has really put us in a new arena in the hierarchal system.
Thank you for the post.
I can agree that face to face communication is not always effective. When people are face to face, people sometimes have the tendency to talk over others. They are usually so focused on getting their point across and being heard that they often forget to listen to the other person. When people are communicating via technology such as email or text, they have to read and understand what the person typed before they can respond.
I personally do not think it is a surprise that people prefer face to face communication. People still have to interact face to face for certain interactions such as establishing peace or business. People like body language and social cues.