This has been one of the most interesting classes I’ve taken in college. I use the internet for hours every day, and yet I’ve never taken the time to really consider how much it impacts how I feel about myself and my interactions with others.

One of the most fascinating concepts was the idea of online communities and bridging and bonding capitol. The internet gives us so many resources, and I’m afraid I often see it as evil and negative (because of how little time people now spend face-to-face), without seeing the good it has provided. It was also interesting to think about the longevity of online communication. The thoughts that used to be bound up in journals hidden underneath our beds are now stored online, allowing people to know our teenage angst decades later.

On one hand, we show so much of our private lives online, but on the other hand we only reveal a small part of our identity. Things like virtual worlds and gaming make it so easy to craft a persona for ourselves that is entirely different than in real life. Once again, I used to view that idea as entirely negative, but reading about how gaming allows people to deal with real-life issues made me empathize and realize that I can’t cast things off just because they are different or misunderstood.

I think that the three main points of this class were well-instituted. The blogs and reading gave us a lot of opportunities to understand the concepts, and it was very easy to translate them into real life scenarios.

I feel like there have already been so many great studies done in online communication, but I would be very interested in learning more about how these new technologies are impacting girls’ self esteem and their susceptibility to falling for internet predators, etc. Since they can hide behind a Photoshopped persona online, does that make them less confident about themselves in real life? Also, I would love to learn more about whether or not the internet is making people more open-minded about religions, races, and other cultures.

As we’ve studied over this semester, online communication has a huge impact on how people interact with each other. People joke about how “young people” are glued to their iPhones, and they’re mostly right! The internet is “youth space,” and teenagers use it to interact with each other in the same way they used to hang out at the mall. They gossip, flirt, joke, and get to know each other- except that instead of the food court, they’re meeting in a chat room (boyd, 2009). People use online space to build popularity. For example, many teenagers will become obsessed with tweeting famous people, and will brag when they get tweeted back by Miley Cyrus or another celebrity (boyd, 2009).

This internet culture creates issues, and perhaps the biggest one is the longevity of online communication. Instead of just talking in person and having to gossip about what someone said, you can simply post their comment in cyberspace. People are going to be able to relive a job applicant’s entire teenage life through social media archives (boyd, 2009). Adults are afraid that the internet makes it easier for their children to be harmed physically; teenagers are merely afraid of the internet harming their social health. That may be why even teenagers often edit their Facebook privacy settings; they realize that unflattering images and posts about their ex-boyfriends may not help their social lives (boyd & Hargittai, 2010). Of course, we cannot forget the rising rate of smartphone owners. 35% of American adults own a smartphone, allowing them to access online communication sites anywhere This drastically alters the communication atmosphere. Now, applications like Vine and Instagram are encouraging people to stay online- even when they are with friends in person. 72% of smartphone users use their phones for entertainment when they’re bored with real life (Smith, 2011).

While it is hard for these writers to predict the exact problems that will arise in media in the next 5 or 20 years, Baym writes: “We all need to be savvy interpreters of the messages in popular media and interactions instead of taking them at face value” (2010, p. 150). Technology is constantly adapted to come out with something bigger and better, and many new applications and websites are created constantly to help with problems in our real lives. Baym strongly urges people to take a step back and evaluate the internet communication tools they use. While these tools can be very helpful, balance is key. People need to fully understand how to mix their real life relationships with their internet relationships, and know that it’s not “good vs. evil” – instead, these are all just unique ways to create communication in our busy society.

I have always used the internet as a great resource to get information and also spread my own information around cyberspace. Therefore, I was not surprised to read that (according to the Pew study) most Americans attribute the internet with improved communication abilities. People agree that it is now much easier to spread the word about causes, connect with groups, and organize activities, among other things.

Unfortunately, it was sad to see that young adults are most active in gaming communities, fan groups for shows/celebrities, and fan groups for products/brands. They were least active in community groups, support groups for people who are struggling, and political party organizations. They were also the least active in religious groups (even though the other article talked quite a bit about how being involved with a religion causes you to have more trust and faith in society). All together, I am saddened for our generation. There seems to be a lack of personal responsibility, and many people my age don’t care to “make something of themselves.” I can name so many people who graduated from college and are still living with their parents, not working or investing in anything other than Halo Reach. It’s interesting how technology seems to improve older people’s lives (because they are simply adding it into their day-to-day activities), and honestly seems to negatively impact younger people’s lives. Perhaps it is because younger people have always had technology, and their lives can revolve around it.

Civil engagement and social capitol are related because the more involved you are in your community, the more bridging capitol and bonding capitol you will build. The more people you know, the easier it is to find a job, spread the word about a good cause, or just get information. They go hand-in-hand, and I think it is very important to invest in our community and meet new people.

As we talked about in our last online chat, many students are heavily involved in social media sites. I am active on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, and I have gotten many positive things through connecting with people and finding new information. It was interesting to read about social capitol, and I really think that most of the benefits and drawbacks of SNS and online communities have to do with it.

Social capitol is known as relationship capitol; in other words, it is a way to measure how useful our relationships (one-on-one or group) can be. Bonding capitol is about close relationships, and has to do with emotional support and people’s willingness to lend you money or do other large favors. Bridging capitol is about acquaintances and casual friendships, and this can lead to “connections” such as new information or a job. Both types of capitol are very important for succeeding in life, and SNS and online communities allow us to easily meet people and maintain relationships with close friends. In fact, one article said that people who have diverse social circles can more easily get help finding a new job or learning important information. These are obviously huge benefits of being involved on social media sites! I did not find many drawbacks listed in this week’s articles, but obviously people can become so involved in social media that they neglect the “real-life” aspects of their relationships. Since people often post about the positivity in their lives (pretty food, achievement statuses, etc), it can be hard to really learn about people’s struggles and character. I also know many people who are so attached to Facebook on their phone that they can’t even focus on what’s happening right in front of them. On the other hand, I have benefited quite a bit from bridging capitol. I have met several people by first adding them on Facebook, and it’s interesting to see how the first level of networking (liking their posts, photos, etc) can lead to furthering the relationship and eventually working together. In moderation, SNS and online communities can be very useful.

Social networking has been such a huge part of my adolescence and college life. I created a Facebook profile right after the sophomore dance, and ever since then I have been finding people from when I was younger, and also connecting with people in my current life whom I don’t get to see very often. Therefore, it was very interesting to see how boyd and Ellison’s article disagreed with Beer’s article about the definition and usage of social media.

Ellison and boyd define social networking sites as “web-based services” that allow people to make a profile, make a list of other people who share a connection with them, and view that connection list and other people’s connections. Ellison and boyd chose not to use the word “networking” to describe social media because they view networking as a time when people approach others specifically to make relationships, instead of working with others whom they already know. Instead, the authors suggest that social media is merely used to reconnect with people who are already in their lives. On the other hand, Beer says that boyd and Ellison’s exclusion of networking in their social media definition is a “shame.” Unlike boyd and Ellison, Beer says that social media is often done with people whom they see all the time in real life (versus having people you only see in real life, or only see online). Beer says that boyd and Ellison’s definition is too broad, and that there needs to be smaller categories such as “mashups” and “wikis.”

I have to agree more with Beer’s article, because I use Facebook and other social media mostly for networking. There are so many “strangers” on my Facebook page who are wedding vendors in Memphis, and Facebook has helped me create many relationships with people who can be difficult to get a hold of. The other article is a little too closed-minded about how people use their social media profiles. I think social networking sites are similar to online communities, but that social networking relationships are not usually as close. In communities, people have a common interest, but on Facebook, I may have nothing in common with someone- we may have just met somewhere. Social networking allows people to meet up online, but I think that communities offer many more opportunities for bonding and close relationships.

As Baym discusses in Chapter 4, people hugely disagree about what an online community is defined as. Some people think a community is solely based on geography, and that online communities cannot really exist. Others believe that a group can only be a community if the members share resources and help each other. This can take place in a variety of ways; one example Baym posed was when a “mommy blogger” received over $20,000 in donations after her 17-month-old daughter unexpectedly passed away (p. 83-84). People can also form groups based upon what they have in common (ethnicity, fandom, etc.). However, as Howard Rheingold (who coined the phrase “virtual community”) pointed out, these online communities share such a strong bond that although people may have never met before, their relationships are very real.

The IRL documentary was very interesting, and it showed me how vitally important online communities can be to people. One man spoke about how he was able to get online and vent to people when no one would listen to him in real life. A woman said that the community helped her get back on track when she broke up with her boyfriend and became depressed. In fact, one woman said that describing the community as simply a group about Buffy barely scratched the surface, and that it was really a “family.” They would travel across the country for PBPs (Posting Board Parties), jump into cars with community members they had never met before to drive to Disney World, and go to members’ weddings. In fact, when the community died, the members were very sad and said they experienced a “loss.”

I have never been in an online community. I would always meet up online with people whom I already knew in real life. However, I can see that people can get a great deal of friendship and community from these online worlds. Especially when they are dealing with tragedy or a feeling of not belonging in their real life, people can use online communities to reinvent themselves and feel like someone cares.

I thought the study by Huffaker and Calvert was very interesting. They analyzed Facebook profiles to see exactly how different races and ethnicities use the social networking site. What they found is that African American, Latino, and Indian participants presented themselves as much more social and involved. Caucasian and Vietnamese participants presented themselves in the least social and involved way. Analyzing “about me” sections showed that African American profiles contained many quotes about racial injustice and religion, and Latino profiles often included untranslated Spanish quotes and statements about political change. The researchers said that these uses of racially driven quotes conveyed a sense of group belonging and color consciousness.

The other study looked at how people represent their gender online. They said that females tend to avoid conflict, and say things like “I *kinda* got angry” to diffuse strong emotions or opinions. Males are less concerned with being polite, and they are more direct. The authors studied blogs, and found that both genders use emotions equally. They also discovered that males were much more open about being gay.

I honestly have not considered the race of the people in this class. It never seems like a big thing to consider, and I also know that people’s names can be misleading (my married last name is Egyptian- and yes, we have been discriminated against many times since it is has Middle Eastern roots). I think gender is usually easy to figure out, even if we can’t see people’s names. I think that the men in this class tend to write shorter posts, and the women enjoy using stories and real life scenarios to explain their points.

While I have never really been involved in role playing games, I have always been fascinated by the concept. Turkle writes that role playing games are so much more than just “playing a game”; they allow people to walk a fine line between reality and the un-real (p. 188). She mentions several stories about how people were able to deal with their real-life emotions and problems through their characters online. One girl had a lot of problems with her mother, and through playing as a mother online she was able to work through her concerns (p. 187). A college student would go online before a big test and get into virtual fights with people, allowing him to release his anger and anxiety without actually doing something in real life.

Baym seems to mostly agree with Turkle, and writes that “Digital media seem to separate selves from bodies, leading to disembodied identities that exist only in actions and words” (p. 105). She also writes that knowing a person in real life is key to knowing who they really are (p. 107).

In examining how people use social media and technology, I have to agree with both of these authors. Creating an online profile or world allows you to cultivate an alternative reality based upon whatever you want yourself to be. Even on Facebook, where most friends actually know you in real life, you can choose what statuses and pictures to post, causing people to see you in a certain light. Having people follow your blog is a huge opportunity for influence, since many people have no idea who the author really is (beyond the screen). While Turkle is writing about role playing games, the blog I am following is focused on the life of a pastor’s wife. People visit her page not to pick fights or get virtually married, but to gain wisdom and insight into dealing with some really difficult situations. Within that context, the author has to be really careful about presenting herself in a mature and respectable light. There’s nothing wrong with posting a meme or even venting about something that happened, but this author cannot use her platform as simply a personal profile. She needs to be seen as serious, trustworthy, and as a resource to visit frequently.

This semester has been very interesting, and has caused me to think a lot about the effects of technology. Overall, I think that this week’s readings, and most of the readings we’ve done throughout the course, indicate that technology allows people to communicate more easily and more often, but that the quality and depth of communication goes down.

I would definitely define myself as a “networked individual,” because technology has allowed me to keep in contact with a great deal of people. In fact, I would agree with Rainie and Wellman that networked individualism gives us “new ways to solve problems and meet social needs” (p. 9). I am in many Facebook groups to glean knowledge about varying parts of business and photography, but I rarely contribute with my own knowledge. I am so busy that my participation in any community is rushed. Networked individualists have a variety of resources at their fingertips, but they have a hard time being in a close community because of their time binds (Rainie and Wellman, p. 125). I thought that their inclusion of the Pope’s quote was very interesting as well- he echoes my thoughts that technology is good, but that people need to take a step back and experience people in real life (p. 127).

Two other areas I found specifically interesting were the teenage texting study and Baym and Hall’s thoughts on mobile maintenance. Baym and Hall wrote that as we text and call a friend more, we are expected to keep up that communication (326). I never would have thought that there was a specific expectation attached to that. If anything, I would have assumed that the more I text someone and contact them, the more I expect them to contact me and reach out to me. The statistics about teenagers texting and driving were very scary. Every single one of my closest high school friends caused an accident in the first few years of their driving, and many of them were irresponsible behind the wheel. It’s amazing how texting is so much more important than not only other people’s lives, but their own personal safety. I think that shows a lot about how high of a priority we place on technology.

Every time I log into Facebook, I see so many people who are trying to be witty through their statuses. I’ve always found it humorous (and not in the way they are aiming for). So, I thought it was very interesting how Baron analyzed away messages on instant messengers. I definitely remember trying to be funny on my AIM profile, and saying that I was “away” just so I could talk to my closest friends without having to respond to anyone else.

Social media gives teenagers such a great tool to mold their appearance to the world, and as Baron writes, away messages provide “a platform for self-expression” (78). I think people often use humor to try and stand out from their peers, and to cover up their inadequacies. And at the same time, humor is a safety net for people to avoid talking about serious matters. Baron writes, “Several [teenagers] felt they had to justify themselves when their away messages were not funny or creative, typically explaining that they lacked time or energy to craft amusing postings” (79). One AIM member even posted a long list of away message tips, saying that “humor is the only way to go- i’m not looking for a deeper understand of life, or a little tug on the heart strings from my instant messenger” (Baron 80).

Davison’s essay about internet memes was also interesting, and made me think about how easy it is to be funny online. Davison writes that humor is passed along online at an “incredible” speed, and that nearly everyone in the world has access to the memes that are posted on public sites (123). Instead of having to tell a joke in person, someone can publish a meme or a funny Facebook status, and they get instant gratification through comments and shares. This makes humor easier and more accessible, but it also puts a greater pressure on people to be as funny as those around them.