This course has increased my knowledge about online communication by exposing me to work by Baym, Turkle, Norris. These key theorists along with others have created study’s and resources for us to better understand the impact of technology and our communication networks. Additionally, I realize that the internet hasn’t been here very long, it has changed interpersonal and group dynamics through virtual space, and relationships are made more freely online for social capital reasons.

My understanding has changed by realizing that being over connected can influence the individual to have multiple “faces”, the internet can be effective or ineffective, and that it is a huge distraction. Cellphones were a big part of the distraction piece for me I know realize that I may have an issue with constantly checking my phone for an email/fb post/instagram. Therefore, I plan to cut back on my usage because it’s similar to a person who smokes taking up so much time for a habit!

Overall, technology has richened communication because it gives instant access to unlimited resources. However, social networking is dominate for networks but comes with additional ties that we may not necessarily need. As for future research I would say that we need to see what the next step is in technology to determine what else needs to be answered. For now, researchers are on track with social trends by evaluating SNS’s and the psychological effects of communication on the internet.

P.S.

I learned what a BLOG was and how they are created!

Thank you.

Baym-Baym suggests that those individuals that did not grow up with the internet will continue to minimize the importance of it along with the usage of cellphones. Further, noting that along with being, “savvy interpreters of the messages in popular medial and interactions instead of taking them at face value.” By this I think we are in to realize that we cannot take all blogs, FB Posts, or SMS communication to heart and will have to work harder at clear, concise communication through technology.

Smith evaluates the usage of cell phones, particularly comparing smartphone users to regular cellphone users. What was interesting here was the gap of internet activity from each type of user with contributing factors such as age and ethnicity. One key factor to why 83% of Americans are using smart phones is to have quick access to the information that they need. Communication is the driver for the success and desire to have a cellphone of any type. However, the luxuries of internet, text, and mobile phone access are favorable by young ages 18-29 are using all functions of the phones features, while older people are not utilizing the features to their full potential.

boyd & Hargittai address the issue of privacy. This is a huge issue that is affiliated with the “e” world as a whole. More than ever people are exchanging personal/private/intimate information rapidly with a large audience. Facebook is one of the larger SNS’s available for individuals to self disclose. The issue of privacy did not become big until Facebook’s appeal to businesses and apps came about. With the extension of employers and businesses using the social network to reach consumers, the limit of sharing was basically Friends, Friends of Friends, No one, or specific Networks specified by the users. However, with the implementation of Apps, Marketing, News Feeds, & Like buttons users are now connected more than ever. Facebook offers the users privacy options but the “settings” are questionable. Most high traffic users of Facebook do not limit their privacy because they are sending and receiving the information they want. Therefore, they are willing to dismiss the privacy issue.

After reading the articles above the main problems we will see grow in 5 years is the interest in technology. There are so many versions of computers, cellphones, and within each piece of technology 1,000’s of options to communicate with friends, strangers, and family. It will be challenging to keep the users engaged and we will become more distracted. The communication ties and quality of relationships are also going to be in a test to see if the users will still be connected with the same people

People are going to the internet to connect with other people for various reasons. The decision to participate in online groups or communities depends on the individuals ties to technology. It was noted that most people that are active in groups are active in just over 3 different types of groups and would more likely be an owner of a cellphone.

The internet is bringing more people together faster and most people who are tech users are trusting of their group members opinions and views. Participation is voluntary, however, there is temptation that could sway a person to participate in a group that may genuinely not want to. The internet is a big book of unending information most Americans regardless of their race or social status will utilize the internet in one way or another in a voluntary fashion, it is hard to force someone to use the internet.

Civic engagement and social capital complement one another. Of the internet communities religious and church groups were found to be the more popular surveyed. In addition, church groups had a larger pool of participants the level of trust in their groups and communities was higher. The participants of religious groups will experience higher social capital due to these factors and the relationships are deeper because more often than not members of the same church will be participating in online activities together as well.

At my church they have just started to form groups by requesting the members of the church to text their hobbies and interests to a number that filters to different group leaders within the church. Technology is connecting people with like interests and creating social capital to help people gain relationships, knowledge, and resources much like a physical community would offer.

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.

Boyd & Ellison define social networking as, “We define social network sites 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.”

I agree parts of Boyd & Ellison’s definition of social networking. In today’s social settings you cannot go anywhere without seeing someone using a technology source (cellphone, laptop, ipod, etc. ), these tools support Boyd & Ellison’s views of users creating a list of other users to be connected with. For instance on Facebook you have a list of “friends” and you can view the “friends” of your “friends” which can lead to different connections within a virtual system of connections.

Beers arguments were valid in that he views Boyd & Ellison’s definition as too broad. I like that Beer called out youtube. This site is not solely offering a “friend” or “network” but more that it is entertainment. Therefore lumping all social sites as “networking” is false. Users are not always seeking a true connection with their online interactions.

Social networking sites differ from an online community in that they are smaller and more targeted. The user is seeking a specific connection. Social networking is more branching out and exploring while staying connected to family and friends. On the flip side social networking and online communities are similar in that they are a way to connect through technology. A user may start out in the big field of social networking and find that they need more intimacy or support and join certain online communities for closer online relationships.

An online community is a targeted space on the internet that is dedicated to the interest, desires, and needs of specific users. The difference is that the participants in an on line community are more connected by the area of interest. Baym offers “five qualities found in online groups and many definintions of community that make the term responate for online contexts. Thes include sense of space, shared practice, shared resources and support, shared identities, and interpersonal relationships.”(Baym, 2009)

The key differences of members of a random group and communitites is the depth and connection of the users. Groups tend to be on the surface may be a part of You Tube but not a follower of specific videos that are further assessed and shared to a certain number of people within the community. Communities are a network of users that are usually of the same ethnicity, geographical location, and interests. Participation in a group is more voluntary versus a community it is expected you will contribute.

People get involved with online communites to feel connected to others who have the same opinion, beliefs, and interests. They seek sharing of useful information and usually end up in more intamate realationships. I have never been involved in an online community. I have a Facebook, but I do not participate in groups within Facebook. Another reason individuals seek a community is for support. Some examples in the text revolved around health issues. Which leads me to the fit into the rest of our social lives. Online communities are a “higer level” of social networking, it entails more details and a sense of commitment to the community that you will bring information, support, and connections to the table.

Huffaker & Calvert (2005) view that physical constraints become more flexible. Allowing gender and racial identities can be exaggerated or revealed easier online than in person. Grasmuck, Martin & Zhao (2009) focus a lot more on race presence in CMC. When the internet started there was a notion that people would not be racially profiled creating a “raceless” cyberspace. However, with elements such as activist groups, photos, and web-sites asking for race as a demographic tore down the idea of a “raceless” cyberspace.

Huffaker & Calvert(2005) note that the use of emoticons can determine the attitude of a person online. There are certain emoticons that would indicate more male than female persona in CMC contexts. Males are less likely to use emoticons versus females, primarily because females are more open about their feelings. Another finding was that if a male uses emoticons they tend to use them when in conversation with females versus other males.

Grasmuck, Martin, & Zhao(2009) used Facebook to conduct their studies because it does not focus on race. Facebook provides a number of avenues for an individual to disclose who they are: photos; emoticons; check in feature; map locator, etc. I think that these avenues provided by Facebook support the multi faced pallet that the internet gives users to present their self and disclose what they wish on different sites to fit in accordingly in a diverse way.

I think sites focused on race such as “Black Planet” or religious “Christian Mingle” are ridiculous and only contribute to racial and religious profiling.

Yes, I have thought of race more than gender primarily because they have unique names that indicate different races/cultures. My main assumptions are age. The comments from my class mates appear to be views from younger individuals just getting out into the world, and that we have a diverse class that is not from Memphis, TN, a place in our country that is not known for high diversity in races.

Turkle takes a psychoanalytical approach to online identity. Her perception is that the direction of online identity may harm the foundation of relationships. Turlke raises a good with her note, “In the past, such rapid cycling through different identities was not an easy experience to come by.”

With the ability to create online identities individuals are able to make different personas on different social networking sites to portray different parts of their personalities or fantasy self. The concern here is are people able to identify who they really are through online identity? Or are they being selective in what they disclose to get the self satisfying perception out there in cyber space?

In comparison, Baym analyzed online identity as a disembodied. Under Identity on pg.105, Baym says, “Digital media seem to separate selves from bodies, leading to disembodied identities that exist only inactions and words.”

I agree with this point because as we have discussed in previous chapters online communication is lacking the physical pieces that we gain when we are face to face. A good example was given in chapter 5, a person can pretend to be a different sex online however; to really pull that off in person would be almost impossible without radical actions.

About two weeks ago I had shared my first encounter with the MTV show “Catfish” and again I want to go back to that show as an example when we are talking about identity online. The particular episode that I watched had a man who was engaged in a yearlong online relationship with what he thought was another man. However, in the end when they met one another it turns out his online lover was really a woman. What was interesting is that the man had disclosed that he had been having an online relationship with a man to his cousin to get approval before he met his online lover in person, seeking approval of a heterosexual relationship.

Therefore, when he met up with his online lover he was disappointed that she was a woman. It was a very interesting story to watch unfold!

Turkle defines two different types of MUD’s, I would say that my semester blog analysis fits her description of the second type “consists of relatively open spaces in which you can play at whatever captures your imagination.”

My blogger posts random topics related to her lifestyle and suggestions for her followers to give their opinion or use in their lives as well.

Turkle’s work is heavily evaluating the mental influences of CMC and does not allow for casual thought or imagination to be expressed. My blogger is very casual and does not disclose inappropriate or private issues. My blogger is very open but with caution of disclosure.

The overall message is that technology has created a faster way for us to communicate with family, friends, acquaintances, and strangers in many forms. Also, the degree of disclosure is more in our power when communication is not face to face. We tend to disclose more in person at once than we do on line. There are positives and negatives of communicating in a virtual world. Positives are like the story of Peter and Trudy (Rainie & Wellman 2012 Ch.1) their story took a tragedy and through the power of technology sending a photo of Trudy in such a traumatic state caused people to act in ways of kindness and come together.

On the flip side others have become more isolated and lost in the virtual world almost loosing touch with reality. The example that comes to mind for me is the MTV show Catfish, which I recently watched a few episodes of over the weekend. Some individuals feel that online communication is a new beginning they create a “new” image but in the end they are who they are which leads to depression, shame, and isolation.

Most of the information elaborated on topics that I had scratched the surface on, I like the story of Peter and Trudy because it is positive and is a reminder that technology can be of great POSITIVE power if people use it in that manner.

Most of the findings support my personal usage because I am a networked individual I am on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, and utilize e-mail heavily! However, I do use each social site in waves and try not to have the same friends on every website, that way I don’t get overloaded with the same thoughts of others multiple times. In addition, I find myself using multiple gadgets to do the same functions.

Example: Today there was a mix up in my PR Class for the group discussion summary. I checked my e-mail on my MAC, then forwarded that message to my personal Yahoo email, then through checking online on my smartphone logged into myMemphis account for updated messages, and then forwarded the yahoo email to my work email to communicate with the group submission contact. WHEW.. as you can see I was all over the place for one task. So I can agree with some points of technology being really distracting and segmented. 

Staying connected. I recently moved from my hometown and I must say to share things with my family instantly is the primary reason for my Facebook. Secondly, I am a mother of two children that are on line 14 YO and 11 YO tomorrow! So I have to stay up with the times to monitor what they are doing on line as well. The readings were interesting and very true to my use of technology.