Taken as a whole, these readings continue to dispel the myth that computer-mediated communication is the doom of our society. Rosen, Lafontaine and Hendrickson said that “rather than changing society, the internet has simply provided us a new way of doing old things” (p. 984).
Going back to the over-arching theories we discussed earlier this semester, I think there is a middle ground to all of this, and there are good and bad byproducts that have resulted from the evolution of new media. I would argue that an increasing lack of attention span is a negative consequence of the inundation of the web, cell phones, etc in our lives. Conversely, lots of good things have emerged. Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe referenced Granovetter’s research, which found that users are more likely to get the information they need if they have wider networks of weak ties. Many times critics will argue against the need for having hundreds of pseudo friends on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites. But these connections can pay off if you need information. For instance, if you’re taking a trip, you can ask a question on Facebook and chances are that a weak tie from your network (or multiple weak ties) will have relevant feedback that you might not have received from your close group of friends.
The Rosen, Lafontaine and Hendrickson study highlighted the CouchSurfing network, which is essentially a channel for strangers to connect with each other while travelling. Not only does this site support the case I made above about weak ties, but it also illustrates how strangers or weak ties can potentially become strong connections because of connections afforded by SNS and other forms of CMC. In addition to soliciting information, users of social network sites can also look up information on their own about other people. I’m sure most of us are familiar with the term Facebook stalking. Stalking, in this sense, is a bit of a hyperbole. When we say Facebook stalk, it usually means leveraging social media to look up a person’s profile (a stranger or a weak tie). Sometimes this leads to offline connections, sometimes it doesn’t. But the potential is there.
The point to be taken away from these readings as well as the other papers we’ve looked at during the course of the semester is that computer-mediated communication isn’t in and of itself good or bad. It’s a part of the never-ending cycle of technological innovation and change. Rather than focusing on all things negative, we should instead understand how it is being used to communicate.
I’ve enjoyed the dooms day myth dispelling this semester also. While I’m aware that manners and social norms are changing, and not always in a positive way as a result of our adoption of CMC, I think much of that will normalize after awhile. I think people are still really fascinated by their smartphones and tablets and they let that overtake their better judgement when it comes to manners. I acknowledge that I check my phone too often, but I have a feeling that will wear off in a few years when the devices have lost their novelty and become a more normalized part of our lives.
I think you are spot on in your closing statement that CMC is not “good” or “bad” it’s the users that use the tool for communication in positive or negative ways.