Communication on the Internet has been an interesting journey of discovery. It was surprising to discover that a media we use so frequently could still hold hidden so many secrets. It was a pleasure observing the amazing changes that have happened since the invention of the internet and later the establishment of social networking sites. The new technology of computer mediated communication has transformed society in meaningful ways. All this new technology that has made the world a smaller place, allow us to do things we never thought possible, is the same technology that threatens our privacy. In spite of the inherent challenges, I welcome the journey ahead.

The most interesting things I have learned, with respect to these main course objectives, are how people use the internet to develop and maintain relationships, why groups are popular, and how we define ourselves based on our interactions with others through internet communication and also through expressing ourselves through different media outlets.

My understanding of how we use the internet has changed from thinking everyone used the internet for Facebook and Twitter to realizing that people use it to join groups, to express themselves through blogs, and to enter imaginary worlds. My understanding of how we use new technologies to communicate in our everyday lives has changed from thinking that only young adults use text messaging to realizing that majority of people, both older and younger, use text messaging quite heavily.

From my perspective as a user of these technologies, the questions scientist and government agencies need to continue to investigate are the following:  How will our privacy be affected? Where is our posted information being archived to? And, what steps are being taken to prevent this archived information from being exposed?

With regards to communication on the internet and new technologies, these reading suggest that the issues society will face deal with privacy, archived personal information, and trust. These issues will be significantly affected by how individuals define private information and how they feel about personal information online. As technology advances and online communication becomes more prevalent and accepted in society, more people are concerned about its effect on privacy and on their lives.

Older adults and young people have different definitions of what constitutes private information and the importance of keeping certain information private. For older adults identifying personal information such as your name, address, phone number, etc. should be kept private. However, young adults see no harm in sharing personal information. Young adults are more concerned with their online image and how they will be perceived by other online users.

Along with the fear of sharing personally identifying information is the concern that the information will be permanently accessible. The fear of people being able to go back and gain access to this archived information makes some people uncomfortable. Although it is common for people to grow and change, they might be held accountable in their adult years for information put on the internet earlier in their lives. Yet, advances and use of technology such as cell and smart phones are creating a requirement for archived personal information. Is it possible to trust that these archives will not hurt rather than help?

I believe we will see these same problems and fears in the next 5 and 20 years. However, due to growing privacy concerns, we will see the development of more sophisticated technology to protect individual private information and, at the same time, more effectively and discriminately able to share information with selected recipients. Although the above issues pose problems, the opportunities associated with them can prove beneficial. The use of the archived information can shed light into internet use and about how to improve upon its current functions.

The results of a research completed by Rainie, Purcell and Smith and another by Jansen agree on the positive effect of the internet on group life and voluntary participation in the United States. This is true for both civic and social groups as well as the religious community.

Rainie, Purcell, and Smith (2011) state, “The internet is now deeply embedded in group and organizational life in America…And social media users are even more likely to be active…”Data supports the idea that the impact of the internet is not limited to a small number of groups. In fact, latest research increasingly support the wide-ranging impact of the internet on almost all social groups, including those based on religion.  The effect of the internet in recruiting for social groups is undeniable. Rainie, Purcell, and Smith (2011) state, “With all these group invitations being passed along, it is clear there are times when people feel a social push to join groups. Some 16% of adults say they felt obligated to join a group because someone they know invited them”. Some of the people who most feel pushed into group participation include young adults, 18-29, higher socio-economic status individuals, tech users, and social media users. This is proof that being exposed to the internet can influence people to belong to groups that they might not have otherwise thought to participate in.

Civic engagement relates to social capital because participation in group life can bridge and bond people in relationships and activities that increase knowledge. These activities improve the health and value of the participants with the resulting effect of improving the whole community.

The internet has many uses such as bringing people together for the development of new relationships, the deepening of existing relationships and the increase of social capital.

Norris (2004) and Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe (2011) are similar in their study of how on-line activity affects social capital. However, Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe limited their study of this phenomenon to one SNS (Facebook). Both articles conclude that participation in SNSs and online communities have a positive correlation to both bridging and bonding social capital. Both studies noted, however, that the level of capital is influenced by the type of communication members engage in while using social networks. Participation in SNSs and online communities do have benefits and drawbacks.

Participation on SNSs and online communities benefit a person by enabling them to connect with new people and also stay connected with friends and family, positively influencing bonding and bridging social capital. Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe (2011) state the following benefits of SNSs in their study: “emotional support, exposure to diverse ideas, and access to non-redundant information”.  Norris (2004) agrees that “online participation has the capacity to deepen linkages among those having similar beliefs”. 

Norris (2004) indicated that there is a limit to the social capital derived from internet communications. In an analysis of her research data she concluded: “…participation in most online groups did little to bridge racial divides in the United States…” Furthermore, Norris wrote: “Group contact was also fairly ineffective at bridging the socioeconomic or class divide.” 

My own online experience as a Facebook, and other social network, user supports the conclusions in the research works by Norris (2004) and Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe. My use of social network allows me to stay connected and get closer to friends and family (bonding) and also increases my potential of learning new things from strangers (bridging). There is definitely a positive correlation between my use of SNSs and the increase in social capital derived from these activities. Furthermore, my bonding and bridging social capital is positively correlated to the level of my involvement and contribution during my social networking experience.

The rapid growth of computer mediated communication, especially those happening on social sites, has attracted the attention of scholars. This attention has made it important to define these types of communications.  Some of the earliest attempts to define these types of on-line communications were put forward by Boyd and Ellison (2007) and Beer (2008). Based on these articles, it is clear that the authors of each article have a different picture of how to define social network(ing) sites.  Boyd and Ellison shy away from the use of “networking sites” and define social network sites (SNSs) as “web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system”.  Beer believes that the use of SNSs is rather broad and the more specific term “social networking sites” would facilitate the work of researchers.  Beer defines a social network(ing) site as “something particular, a set of applications where, to a certain extent, networking is the main preoccupation”.

I think both definitions have value. While I agree with Boyd and Ellison that networking is not the primary use of SNSs in every case, I also believe that Beer is right to want a precise definition of SNS in order to eliminate confusion.

Social networks are similar to online communities in that they can connect people on both the local and national level based on similar interests, or in some cases connect with strangers. However, SNSs differ from online communities in the sense that members of online communities develop a closer connection that spills over into off-line relationships.  In SNSs it is possible to be connected within the site and not have an emotional connection.

As a society we have come to accept the physical community as real, and have difficulty understanding the concept of a virtual community. However, the concept of community has transcended the physical world into the virtual world. Both communities are similar in many ways. According to Baym, an online community includes “a sense of space, a shared practice, shared resources and support, shared identities, and interpersonal relationships”. According to Rheingold, an online community consists of “real people who became part of my life”. According to him, they act in ways that mirror that of an offline community. Rheingold explained that the online community he belong to “babysat for my daughter, I was at they’re weddings, I went to they’re funerals, I sat by their deathbeds”. There are many reasons people get involved with online communities. According to Rheingold, those reasons could include “they’re sick, or they’re in a scary part of town where they don’t want to leave their apartment at night.  Or maybe they’re older and they don’t get around that much.  Or like myself, and many others, I work at home.” Rheingold poses the question “where am I going to get my relationships?” There are numerous reasons that keep people from being able to find people in bars and coffee houses, and also, even if you find those people, it is not guaranteed that you will share the same interests. In online communities, you are coming together under shared interests so when there is face to face interaction, it’s easy to know where to start the conversation because you know you share a common interest.

I have not been a member of an online community. However, it is easy to see how online communities would fit into the rest of our lives by allowing us easy access to people who share our common interests. In addition, virtual communities allow us to connect with local people who share our interests. Virtual communities even allow us to connect with people all over the world which could lead to better connections and relationships within world nations.

In the Huffaker and Calvert study, the researchers observed a group of teenagers to see if there were on-line language differences among genders related to the disclosure of real-world personal information, emotive features used for expression, expressions of sexual identity, and the tone of the blogs. On the other hand, Grassmuck, Martin & Zhao looked at online communication differences related to race and ethnicity. The former concentrated on WWW blogs while the latter reviewed Facebook communication. Huffaker and Calvert found very little differences among male and females in the way they expressed themselves online. The Huffaker and Calvert article states, “Interestingly, the blogs created by young males and females are more alike than different”. Grassmuck, Martin, & Zhao did find significant differences in the way different ethnic groups communicate on Facebook. The Grasmuck, Martin, and Zhao article states that “We also found that in a nonymous environment like Facebook, identity claims regarding the extensiveness of social networks appear to be grounded in offline realities”.

Different CMC contexts, however, shape how people present and interpret race and gender. The Grasmuck, Martin and Zhao article states “The intensive investments of minorities in presenting highly social, culturally explicit, and elaborated narratives of self in the Facebook profiles are consistent with preoccupations about and heightened awareness of racial identities”. When studying different CMC contexts, it has been shown that in online communications where identity is less overt there is a tendency to recreate personalities.

I have not thought about the gender and race of the people I am interacting with in class because more important than gender and race is the content of the communication. If they have an interesting post, I am not concerned with their race and gender. I have not made any assumptions about the people I interact with in class.

In chapter 7 of her Book, Life on the Screen, Turkle describes online identity as fragmented. This means people take on different identities and roles as they live different parts of their lives. She also believes we reconstruct ourselves online. Turkle states, “When we step through the screen into virtual communities, we reconstruct our identities on the other side of the looking glass” (PDF pg 1). This concept aligns closely with Baym’s description of identity which possesses aspects of flexibility, multiplicity and disembodied identities. Baym states, “Digital media seem to separate selves from bodies, leading to disembodied identities”.

When I think about Leandra Medine, the blogger I’m following, I do find Turkle’s observations on online identity to be reflected in how I understand the identity of the blogger I’m following. Turkle states, “The internet is another element of the computer culture that has contributed to thinking about identity as multiplicity”. Online, people are able to create themselves repeatedly by cycling through many selves” (PDF pg2/178). This holds true for Leandra. Throughout her blog she has expressed many sides of herself. It seems she is constantly changing to become a better version of herself. CMC context in Turkles work differs from the blog I am following in the respect that the people she listed in chapter 7 used the internet to escape reality and acquire a new cyberspace identity. In the blog I am following, Leandra is being herself and is not online to escape reality and get away from the person she is. She is online to embrace herself, or at the most enhance her identity. This context impacts the presentation of identity by allowing Leandra to be herself. She is confident in herself and enjoys doing what she does. She doesn’t have to escape online, she presents herself and you can like it or not. This differs from the examples Turkle gave because in all of the examples she listed the people were not sure of themselves and used their online profiles to escape their true selves.

All studies in this assignment agree that the internet and the new technologies related to this communication media have significantly affected communication in our society. However, differences exist in the perception of those studying these phenomena, regarding its effect on interpersonal relationships. Moreover, the overall message from these studies suggests that the Internet and new technologies actually bring people together. Reinie and Wellman (chapter 1) conclude that “networking individualism” has created opportunities for people to expand beyond their traditional close groups, increased communication powers and information capabilities, provided at will access to people and friends, and allows society to connect beyond traditional groups. Baym states, “the very existence of an interactive medium that connects people across space gives rise to new connections” (Baym 148). In the case of Peter and Trudy, internet technology allowed them to reach a bigger network of people and allowed them to receive the valuable support of their online village. The Lenhart et al. article supports the belief that new technology such as texting plays a huge role in keeping teenagers and their parents connected. For the teens it’s the best way to stay connected with friends. For parents it’s a great way to stay connected with their children. They feel safe in knowing they can always reach their children. Nevertheless, reliable studies do not indicate that society’s embrace of these new technologies has had any effect on precluding traditional face to face contacts and dependence on close relationships.

There was nothing that shocked or confused me about these studies. Rather, the result of the studies supported my perception derived through personal experience with technology in my interpersonal relationships. The internet has not significantly affected the quality of my relationships or the quantity of face to face contacts with those I care about. I consider myself a member of the “networked individualism” group as defined by Reinie and Wellman. I am, like most people in my age group, a heavy texter and frequent user of social media. I have a social network of about 400 friends and acquaintances; However, I use face to face interactions just about as much as I do texting. My personal experience supports the results of Ling’s research which states there is no proof of direct relationship between the increase use of internet communication and social isolation.

In these two readings both Baron and Davison presented research on one-to-many communication on the internet. The difference between their works is the specific type of messages on which they concentrated. Though not to the same extent, they both included the role of humor or entertainment in their study. 

Baron concentrated on the characteristics of away messages in online communication. He found that presentation in this media resulted from the traditional need of human beings to present an image of themselves to others. As he studied the messages presented during away messaging he found that message length was related to gender. He also discovered that these messages were clustered in two main categories, to convey information or start a conversation, or provide entertainment (humor). 

Davison, on the other hand, chose to concentrate on internet meme, which he described as learned behaviors which are different to those behaviors that are genetically inherited. Meme writers tend to adopt ideas from others. He however, conceded the existence of individualism even in the realm of memes. He pointed out, however, that individuals who use memes to communicate are more likely to utilize the “unrestricted web”. 

Both authors agreed that humor is a significant part of internet mediated communication. Baron asserted that “some away messages are primarily posted to entertain, using humor, quotations, or even song lyrics”. This, he demonstrated, was based on the expectation of entertainment among those using social media to communicate. Davison found that in the world of memes, humor also plays an important function. It uses a unique and effective tool, humor, to influence others and ensure a presentation that will be easily received and retained for an extended period.