As an employee of Apple, I spend 40 hours a week completely surrounded and engrossed in technology. I am constantly interacting with people who want to understand their iPhones, iPads and computers better, both in a technical sense and in a personal sense. Although I am surrounded by technology all day, I have never really taken the time to analyze what exactly all of these new advancements mean for the communication and social lives of people. This class has really given me a new perspective on how and why people are using the internet.

One of the most surprising things that I learned this semester was that internet communication is actually having a positive effect on human communication. I definitely hear people’s fears about the internet on a regular basis, so it was nice to read so many studies that focused on the more positive aspects. One of my favorite readings from this semester was the story about Trudy Johnson-Lenz and the outpouring of support she received from online supporters. It was such a testament to the benefit of being connected so intimately with such a large group of people. So frequently people discuss how the internet is “ruining face to face interaction” or making people less sociable. However, the results of many of these studies seemed to indicate that the internet is actually helping people build and maintain relationships. One study that we read, by Rainie and Wellman, summed up the unnecessary fear of new technology brilliantly. They stated that “technological changes before the Internet – planes, trains, telephones, telegraphs and cars – neither destroyed relationships or communities nor left them alone.” I really loved this quote. In fact, I have used it in a previous blog. I think it emphasizes the fact that humans, in general, are afraid of all new technologies. We are quick to assume the worst of something, before we give it a chance to prove if it is positive or negative. I definitely saw a pattern in the readings this semester of the internet benefiting communication, instead of destroying it. Computer mediated communication is definitely having a large effect on people, but it certainly isn’t ruining anything.

I also feel like I have a much better idea of the impact online communication is having on both interpersonal and group dynamics. On a strictly interpersonal level, the internet can allow people to create new friendships or make it easier for them to maintain already existing friendships. I do not personally enjoy Facebook, and I have never seen much benefit to the site. However, after reading my classmates blogs this semester, I realized that Facebook was a way for people to connect to others in a multitude of different ways and to stay connected to friends or family as they moved away. It made me look at social network sites in a different light. The way the internet affects group relationships was perhaps the most interesting part of the class. My original perception of an “online community” previously was the message boards at IMDB. However, there is literally a community for everyone and everything on the internet. There is a place online for everyone to belong!

Personally, I am most excited to see the research on online communication that comes out a decade from now. Right now, we are witnessing an entire generation of internet savvy users who are utilizing every aspect of our technological world. People are extremely free with what they post on the internet, even if they don’t realize they are. Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and all the other social networking sites that exist are systematically being saved. It is possible that, in ten years, there will be an entire generation whose lives have been documented and archived online. What will the world be like in that context? Googling dates beforehand is becoming common practice now, so what will happen when you can access a person’s entire history online? Will it become completely ordinary to us? Or will it actually change everything about how we communicate and socialize? I am interested in seeing how the amount of personal information that exists online will affect communication in the future.

The internet allows people to connect and participate in many groups that are devoted to civic issues, such as social or religious groups. There are literally tons of different groups to become involved with, from religious organizations to volunteer groups to community awareness clubs. The great thing about using the internet as a tool is that it allows for a wide range of different people to participate. I didn’t find this study to be very surprising, because I do notice that more of my personal social group uses the internet to participate in various civic groups. A lot of my friends are runners, so they use different marathons’ facebook pages or twitter feeds (such as LuvMud or NashVegas) to sign up for the run or stay connected to other runners. Quite a few of my friends are involved in charitable organizations, and they use the social media pages for these groups to post information and organize different things in the city. The power of the internet is that it can deliver information to a large number of different people, very quickly, which is great for civic groups as well individuals in need!
Obviously, social capital is directly linked with civil engagement. When a person is actively involved in a civic organization’s social network site, they can form new bonds with the other members. Generally there is crossover from the online site to real life, so many members do have a real world connection to each other. Plus, there is a level of support and consideration for each other that exists within these groups. There are actual connections being made, and its more likely that real friendships will arise.

One thing in the Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe study that really struck me was the idea that those who have an over abundance of Facebook friends are actually considered less socially attractive. The feeling that these people were “friending out of desperation” was something that I always felt, and I know that feeling is shared by many who deal with Facebook. I had Facebook for a very brief period of time, and during that time I never exceded 100 ‘friends.’ I never felt the need to be connected to people that I did not have a personal connection with in my offline life. However, I would constantly receive friend requests from those I barely knew, and it always seemed like they had hundreds of ‘friends.’ The idea of the “Friendster whore” is very real, and one of the more interesting things about Facebook (in my opinion.)
However, amassing a large network of weak or latent ties on Facebook can be extremely beneficial in some situations. Friends of mine who have bands, are artists or have started new businesses, for example, have a large number of ‘friends’ on Facebook. This is extremely beneficial to their “networking” abilities, but has little to no effect on their actual social life.

These two readings both provided different, but valid interpretations of the definition of “social network sites.” The first reading, by Boyd and Ellison, set up a very specific definition of an SNS. It must do three things : (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. For Boyd and Ellison, there is also a significant difference between the terms “network” and “networking”. According to them, certain sites cannot be called “networking sites” because the term ‘networking’ emphasizes a relationship initiation, although that is not actually what is happening on most of these sites. I definitely agree with that statement. A site like Facebook, for example, is generally used by people who are communicating with friends or acquaintances they already have. Although new relationships can happen, they are generally built on “latent connections”, in which the two people already had a friend in common. However, other sites such as Linkedin or even Twitter fit the three criteria of their definition, but are also used for ‘networking’. Therefore, Boyd and Ellison’s definition is not completely accurate. In David Beer’s response to their essay he points this issue out, and explains that SNSes are simply evolving too quickly to actually label.He explains dividing them into subcategories actually make them more confusing, not less confusing. I agree with Beer’s response, because I have noticed a change in SNSes over the last year. They are becoming places where new relationships are formed, versus simply being sites where people communicated with those they already know. For example, I am involved in two SNSes, Twitter and Instagram. I have a semi-public profile, a list of those I follow/those that follow me, and I can look at the list of “followers” my network has. So those two sites fit all three of Boyd and Ellison’s criteria. However, a large majority of the people I am connected with on these sites are people I did not know offline nor were they discovered by “latent” connections. They are entirely new relationships that I have formed. As a result, I must agree with Beer, that SNSes are more than Boyd and Ellison’s definition.

In Chapter 4, Nancy Baym discusses what makes an online community different from an online group. Baym references five qualities – space, shared practice, shared resources and support, shared identities, and interpersonal relationships – as being necessary to the creation of a community. (Baym 75) While doing research for our second short paper, I came across what I would deem an online community and I think it has all five of the qualities Baym laid out. The subject of my paper was an anonymous person on Twitter who went by the handle AndreasBurnBook, and she took on the persona of the character of Andrea from The Walking Dead television show. AndreasBurnBook, or the ‘Fake’drea’ as I call her, is part of a larger group of people who participate in parody accounts of other core characters from the same show. Going through the last six months of her/his tweets, I discovered that there was a lot of interaction between this group. Tweets between the group evolved from being solely about the show to dealing with more personal issues. The group tweeted encouragement to each other when they needed support for things like bad days, lost jobs and even loneliness. Messages exchanged between them showed that they had some kind of relationship off of Twitter, with references to emails, phone calls and text messages.The fact that they do not share the same geographical space was not an issue for them. They all shared the same practice of live tweeting during the show, and they even participated in question and answer forums together off of Twitter. Even though they operated under anonymous identities online, they shared aspects of their true identities with each other. The strongest community tie that the group showcased, though, was their obvious support of one another. Although the accounts all typically post snarky or humorous Walking Dead references, the members of the group had a different relationship amongst each other. When one account was almost banned, the other members spearheaded a Twitter campaign to save it. When a member would tweet that they were having a bad day, the others would send them funny pictures or uplifting messages. It was obvious, after reading six months worth of Andrea’s tweets, that they had in fact formed interpersonal relationships with each other. Its possible that these relationships will eventually fall apart after the cancellation of the show or when one member decides they are no longer interested anymore. However, offline communities fall apart in much the same way, like friends that lose touch after graduation. The important thing is that they are very much a community. So, what is the difference between an online community and a random online group? An online community goes farther than just a shared set of interests or ideals. They show an obvious concern for each other, and they form actual interpersonal relationships that exist in the real world, even if they never meet in person.

These two readings dealt with how people present their genders and racial identities in an online context. I found Huffaker and Calvert’s research on gender differences in online communication extremely interesting. They found that women tended to talk about themselves more openly and they were generally more polite than men. I actually find this to be true, especially in regards to the online classes I am taking this semester. Although names, and in some cases pictures, are associated with the discussion boards and blogs I participate in, I think I would still be able to correctly identify the gender of the poster, even without any external information. Women tend to use real life experiences, such as events with friends or families, more freely than men, while male posts seem to be more focused on examples solely from the text. Also, in one class in particular, I have noticed that men are quicker to post something aggressive or impolite. My professor actually had to step in to break up a “fight” between three male classmates on one extremely sensitive topic. Interestingly enough, even though the majority of the class is female, no woman responded to the discussion once it started to break societal norms. I found Huffaker and Calvert’s findings on gender to be very true.
I will say that I do not ever question the racial identities of my online classmates. However, I found Grasmuck, Martin and Zhao’s findings on “colorblindness” to be intriguing. They describe colorblindness as the issue that “race continues to affect social inequality, but cannot be acknowledged in interactions.” That is an interesting thought, because it makes me wonder if the lack of racial indicators in online communication is a good thing or a symptom of something awful. I think we would like to believe that the internet really is a utopian environment in which race and gender do not matter, but obviously it does. Grasmuck, Martin and Zhao found that minorities are “less inclined to highly invest in performances of their racial identities” in online settings, which means that offline racism is permeating online environments. I would like to read more on this particular issue.

These two readings were both extremely interesting and very insightful. People really do seem to believe that there are only two types of people online: those who are lying and those who are being honest. I have always believed, however, that our online personas are a combination of our true selves and the versions of ourselves we wish we could be. I think Baym perfectly explained this, by referencing the idea of impression management. She writes, “This impression management may involve outright deception, total honesty, or, most often, a strategic balance of sharing, withholding, and distorting information.”(108.)This is a great point, because most people online are not complete liars. However, most people online are not telling the complete truth either! I definitely think that the majority of online users are applying some form of strategic impression management with their online personas. After all, how many people re-read their tweet before sending it to make sure its perfect, or obsess over which of one of the basically identical filters to use on Instagram. People desire to express both a true version of themselves, while also showcasing the version of themselves they would like to be. I thought about that idea a lot while I was reading Turkle’s explanation of how people design their online avatars in MUD gaming. People are creating these fantasy characters, but they are also giving them a little bit of their own personal appearance. The blogger I follow, for instance, is The Feminine Miss Geek, and her blog is devoted mainly to all things “geek.” Star wars, comic con, comic books,video games, if its considered “geeky”, she writes about it. While the main blog features her avatar, which is an adorable pink haired girl in black thick framed hipster glass, her about section actually has a real life picture of herself. I found it interesting to look at the avatar she created for herself next to the real picture she posted. There are similarities, such as brown eyes on both and black rimmed glasses, but pretty much everything else was completely different. She had taken pieces of her offline persona and meshed them into her online persona. The idea of taking all the different facets of yourself and using them online is an incredibly fascinating idea.

The overall theme of these readings is that, while society has a fear that new technology will isolate us from social interaction, the truth is that we are still as socially connected as we ever were. People have historically been afraid of new technology. Rainie and Wellmen even comment on this, saying that people fail to realize that all technological advancements, such as the train, telephone or airplane, have changed or reshaped communities and interpersonal relationships before. The internet and new technologies are no different than the telephone. They will definitely change how we as humans interact, but they certainly won’t destroy relationships. In fact, Rainie and Wellmen point out that “Internet use does not pull people away from public places, but rather is associated with frequent visits to parks, cafes and restaurants…” (119) Its especially interesting that, according to Baym, “greater use of cell phones to call and text close friends leads to higher expectations that friends will use mobiles for relational maintenance” (Hall and Baym, 317-318) Now that we have the ability to stay in connect, we not only use it but are expected to use it. This technology is forming stronger bonds, not destroying them.

Of course, teenagers and the younger generation are adapting more quickly to this new technological lifestyle. In Ling’s 2010 study, I found it interesting that teenagers were considered to be less socially active because of their frequent texting. Ling pointed out the fact that teens were not asked about their social interaction habits while they were at school, but only their habits outside of school. I know that when I was in high school, I was very social during the day, but at night I would rarely talk on the phone to my friends. I wasn’t allowed phone calls until my homework was finished, and I was not allowed to instant message. I would think teenagers now actually have a lot more social interaction outside of school, because they can text, email, and Facebook with their friends quickly. Of course, the flip side of internet use is the fear of internet abuse.I found Lenhart’s study on cyberbullying to be fascinating. When I was in elementary and high school, people were cruel and there were bullies. Instead of posting mean things about each other on the internet, bullying happened in different ways, such as spreading rumors on the playground or in notes in class. The internet has given bullies a different place to bully, but it is still the same action. Of course, offline bullying is still happening, and the study even indicated that it is currently happening more than online bullying. It is a sad fact of life that bullies exist, but unfortunately they do, and that is not the internet’s fault.

Overall, the fear of social destruction at the hands of the internet is unfounded and unnecessary. Each of these readings highlights the fact that the internet is not as
scary as some would like to think it is!

Both of the readings for this week’s blog deal with the idea of language, emoticons and MEMEs on the internet. According to Davison, the word “meme” can be attributed to the 1979 works of Stephen Dawkins, who defined a meme as a learned behavior. The meme, as opposed to a gene, is something that outside forces can shape and inspire. I found this to be incredibly interesting, because I have always wondered why we refer to these random, sarcastic pictures as memes. It is even more interesting to learn that they are actually linked to the idea that the culture around you can influence who you are, just as much as your genes can.

A meme is defined, by Davison, as “a piece of culture, typically a joke, which gains influence through online transmission.” This definition is important, in my opinion, for two reasons. The first is that it specifies that a meme is typically a joke, and the second point is that a meme’s popularity depends solely on the frequency of its online transmission. Basically, the funnier the meme, the faster it will spread. I am sure there are hundreds of memes out there, but I am only familiar with a few – the extremely happy male baby, the advice dog, and of course, the Philsoraptor. The reason I am familiar with those particular memes is because my social group find these to be the most humorous. We see them, laugh at them and then forward them to each other. The funnier the meme is, the more likely it is to be frequently viewed. Just as long legs help the longevity of a zebra’s life, the humor of a meme helps it stay alive on the internet.

In terms of Netspeak’s influence on our culture, I actually believe that it has been blown out of proportion by the media. For instance, does anyone else remember an extremely funny cell phone commercial that featured a family speaking all in text lingo? There was a sweet old grandmother who had the classic line, “IDK my BFF Jill.” It was a huge hit. However, as funny as the premise of that commercial was, I have never been around anyone who actually talks in text speak. Although advertisements do feature Netspeak and text message acronyms, actually saying things like “LOL” or “OMG” in day to day life rarely happens. In my experience, the only time it is ever used is in a sarcastic or humorous situation. Generally that is the way it is utilized in media as well. Characters in movies do not use Netspeak, unless they are caricatures or being used for comedic reasons. Almost every teen movie from the nineties featured a scene where an uncool dad tried to relate to his children by saying “OMG” or talking completely in text message lingo. The perception is that Netspeak is completely taking over how younger generations speak, but the truth is that it is not as common offline as people think.
I do agree that Netspeak is a hybrid language. There is, for most people, a distinction between how they write and how they speak. A formal paper is not going to be written in the same style that a person would speak. Within computer mediated communication, there are also distinctly different types of writing patterns. I do not use the same language in emails to my professors as I do in emails to my friends. I also do not text message everyone in the same manner. I think we compartmentalize the different types of communication styles that we have. The formal style is reserved for school and business, the abbreviation style is reserved for text messages and social media, and so on. We are constantly flipping back and forth between what communication style we are using. Baron addresses this to some extent when she comments that school children know when to use formal language and when to not use it. We know what is acceptable in what situation, and we match our communication style to that situation.
Because Netspeak is a hybrid language, it is also a hybrid of speech and writing. There really is no way to generalize it as more speech than writing or vice versa, because it has multiple elements of both. In response to the question “Are instant messages speech?”, Baron writes that the “simple answer is no.” I must disagree with Baron on this point, because I do not believe there is a simple answer for this question. How you communicate through CMC changes from situation to situation, therefore sometimes it resembles a natural speech pattern and sometimes it resembles formal writing. I do not believe enough time has passed since the creation and evolution of Netspeak/Webspeakfor us to accurately label it as speech or writing.