This class was very interesting, in part, because I am not very into all the technology and because this was not for my major. I admit I did not think there was so much to communication, but I find myself enlightened with all this new knowledge. Through the semester we read many articles of research done on internet and communication. I use the internet, but I never realize all the things that go on, even when I see them. I guess when you are open to them you notice them more. You can point out things that you maybe passed over in other occasions.

I think my favorite part of this class is researching first hand by analyzing other peoples profiles. Once you know what you are looking for and you examine it, it makes more sense. When had to examine the blog and the myspace profile. People put so much information out there that many people can see an judge you off. You have to be careful because anything that you share online could come back and haunt you.

What I took from this class is that technology as a whole is not all bad. There is a good side and a bad side to everything. Balance is key! We have to remember to keep a balance with our offline relationships and our online. If we have one we cant neglect the other. Also, occasional brakes from technology are very refreshing. We have revolutionized communication. There are new languages and new forms of communicating. People are still communicating, they are not isolating themselves, they are just changing the location and form of communication.

The internet has evolved so much that we use it every chance we get, cell phones, tablets, ipads. Smith (2011) mentioned a lot of stats regarding internet usage, especially in regard to our mobile devices. It said that 51% of users use their phone at least once a day to retrieve information fast. I am guilty of that, any time I do not know something I want to know something fast I google on my phone. At first it was simple things, but know I use it for EVERYTHING! My fiance pokes fun at me because he says that I am a google addict. I am also guilty of using the phone as a distraction because of boredom. It is not surprising to me that  I can relate to most of the statistics provided. I fall  in the category of young adults between the ages of 18-29. In the Boyd interview she says that it is not that kids act differently now because they do everything on the internet rather than the mall or the movies, the only thing different is the space they act in. Kids still do everything they would do in an offline setting such as joke, flirt, get to know people. I guess, it is a different world and it comes with the evolution of technology. There is nothing wrong with it in my opinion, as long as there is a balance with our offline life. You can be a completely normal person who maintains online relationships as well as offline if you find a good balance for your internet usage.

People are becoming more and more involved in voluntary group participation and it is something that is growing. Civic engagement is related to social capital because people join groups for many different reasons. It allows them to accomplish their goals, organize activities, communicate with others, meet new people, etc. The people who join groups for religious purposes is one of the biggest, then following sports related groups, and consumers. Civic engagement and social capital relate when, for example, in support groups people give advice and help other people. At the same time they get something out of it, a personal satisfaction.

Engagement in groups was dominated by women, and what I found interesting was that it was dominated by older adults. This is probably because older adults are more likely the ones joining religious groups and consumer groups. Younger users are more likely to be part of gaming groups. There seems to be a group for everything and I do not see it slowing down any time soon.

This weeks readings started with the notion of social capital and bridging and bonding social capital. Norris (2004) defines bridging social capital as social networks that bring together people of different sorts, and bonding social capital brings together people of similar sort. Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe (2011) were among the first to explore the relationship between social capital and specific communication practices on the most popular SNS among US undergraduates, Facebook. In Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe’s (2011) reading they stated that bonding social capital describes benefits from close personal relationships, which might include emotional support, physical succor, or other ‘large’ benefits (such as willingness to loan a substantial sum of money).Bridging social capital, the benefits derived from casual acquaintances and connections, can also lead to tangible outcomes such as novel information from distant connections and broader world-views.

From my experience using SNS I would agree with both Norris and Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe. Ellison, Steinfeild, & Lampe (2001) state “the extant literature on this topic suggests that Facebook is used more for communication among acquaintances and offline contacts than it is for connecting with strangers”. This is very true for me because I mainly use Facebook to stay connected to my family and friends, and I do not use it to meet strangers. However, I have met new people on Facebook and built relationships, that was not my main purpose or intention. So, the bridging that Norris talked about also applied to me.

I can remember back in high school when I had my myspace and you could categorize your top friends. My sister would always get mad if she got moved to number two. It is crazy because she is my sister, who is also in my top “friends”. A term that can now be applied more broadly. On facebook you can now categorize your friends if they have a personal connection to you such as mother, sister, cousin..etc. Networks have been changing as peoples needs changes and depending on the site and the structure, then that will influence how we act and what we do on those sites.

Boyd and Ellison (2007) 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. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.

Beer (2008) states the difficulty that boyd and Ellison’s use of the term social network sites creates is that it becomes too broad, it stands in for too many things, it is intended to do too much of the analytical work, and therefore makes a differentiated typology of these various user-generated web applications more problematic.

I tend to agree more with Boyd and Ellison even though their definition is a little broad. Personally, Facebook is the best of both worlds for me because I do have those people that  I know and share a connection, that I built relationships with. However, I mostly go for the entertainment and to pass time, and also of course to keep up with family and friends. I think, that social networking sites differ in that you do not necessarily have to share a common interest with all your friends whereas an online community that has a specific interest or topic can bring people together.

In reading chapter 4, ” articles and books on digital community often begin by noting that no one has ever been able to agree what exactly “community” means” (Byam. 74). People join communities for different reasons, shared interests, or the need to talk to other people. Communities can make people who share a common interest have a place or space where they feel comfortable to share. I found the interview very informational, especially the part that people join to share their feelings or vent that really intrigued me. I could really understand why people would want to join a community where they felt like they were being heard. Some people might feel like no body ever listens to what they have to say. They might have a tough day, and feel the need to share their day with someone but no one is there. With an online community they have fast easy access to many readily listening ears.

I have not been involved in an online community personally, but with reading this chapter I understand why people would be part of a community. It might be the only place for some people to interact and share things they might not be able to share in their offline life. For some people these online communities are so tight that they feel like they are part of a family.

Sexual identity is such a big part of who we are as human beings, so it does not surprise me that it is such a big deal online as well. Especially now that many people seem to live on the internet. In the study done by Huffaker & Calvert (2005) , they found that the majority of blogging is done by adolescents. It is a way to express their thoughts and find who they are, but unlike real life, online gives teens more room to explore and discover their sexual identity.  “Within the social interactionist perspective, adolescents take on the roles of others through playful stances where they assume different perspectives, thereby allowing them to try on different facets of who they will become” Huffaker & Calvert (2005). One of the points that Huffaker & Calvert (2005) also brought up regarding gender was the use of emotions. More females used emotions when writing than males. Yet, males were more likely to use emotions when talking to females than talking to males. Now that I think of it, it seems that it is pretty much the same case offline. Males are more likely to open up to females than to another male. In the  Grasmuck, Martin & Zhao (2009) study regarding racial identiy on facebook,  research suggested that self-presentations varied according to the nature of the settings: People tend to “play-act” at being someone else in anonymous settings and be more “realistic and honest” in nonymous environments. It was very interesting to see that “African Americans, Latinos, and Indian ancestry students project a visual self that is dramatically more social, they invest more frequently and intensively in displaying a cultural self marked by specific consumer and popular cultural preferences, and they invest more in the direct “about me” narrations than do Vietnamese or white students” Grasmuck, Martin & Zhao (2009). This was because it gave them empowerment and freedom to express who they really were. I do notice that in my facebook my Latino and African American friends, and even some Asian friends do express more cultural aspects about themselves than my white facebook friends. When it comes to race and gender, I do not think it is something we think about regularly, but once in a while we do think about. For this class, for example emotions, I have seen and thought that mostly I see females use a smiley in the chat sessions. However, I also noticed that there are more females and males so that could be the culprit.  =( 

Meeting people online is complicated, because you have to wonder if the person you are meeting is the person they say they really are. It is hard to trust or to believe everything that is online. There is more room to lie online than in person. You can hide many things or pose as someone you are not. Being in the privacy of your home and being online with no one else watching might give someone the liberty or freedom to lie. Yet, there are those that might feel more comfortable being even more honest than they would be in person. This depends from person to person, because the affordances are different.

I find the virtual games very interesting, because it does give people the opportunity to play different roles. To what point do they believe they are really those other people? Also, sometimes being someone other than yourself might be so satisfying that it becomes addicting to play on these virtual sites. “Role playing games can serve in this advocate capacity because they stand betwixt and between the unreal and real: they are a game and something more” (Turkle, 1995).  A player described his playing as becoming more than the person they play “you are who you pretend to be”. This was very interesting because I imagine this is how they find satisfaction in virtual role playing.

The blog that I am looking at shows some characteristics of online role playing and the type of identity they are trying to portray, but I think only to a certain extent. My blogger is a first time mom, and I am sure she portrays herself as a good mother, or a new mother who is trying her best to be great, but I doubt she would write something that would make her look like a horrible mother. Then she would have child services at her door by now. She is playing the role of the character of the title of her blog. However, it is still her because in real life she is still this mother, but maybe online she might be this super exiciting mom, or maybe what we see is what we get. It is hard to say without knowing the person, but from what I have read she seems like a really cool mom. And maybe blogging gives her the freedom and opportunity to be more honest than she would be in person because she has time to think, reason, and write about her thoughts on motherhood. Just my opinion.

This weeks readings were about the networked individual. The story about Trudy and Peter really fascinated me, because they used technology to their advantage, and stayed connected more efficiently and faster than if they would have relied on just face to face, or simply phone calls. The network individual is about personalizing and making technology adapted to your needs. If you need an answer from someone, you do not have to go through a third party. You can get the answer from many different sources: via email, text, phone call, and even post. People have their agendas on their phones and can set their lives to be more convenient for them. The way Peter and Trudy were able to communicate what had happened to them in a wider mass, was effective in attaining more resources for help.Then friends and family were able to get help from their friends and family and so on. This shows how communication online is not all negative like some people think. Ronnie and Wellman say, “people are not hooked on gadgets-they are hooked on each other”. This is interesting, because if you think about it, most people are communicating online with someone. They are still talking to people, so there is not complete isolation from the world. Most teens who are online or texting do spend hours in front of the screen, but it is to talk to friends and or family.

In the radio interview with Byam, she says “attention has always been scare”. Negative attention always gets more attention than positive attention. So the negative attention that technology gets is overpowered, because the research that is done on the positive is obscured. Not many people know about it. Byam also recognized that there should be a balance with online communication and spending time with loved ones since most people have such scarce time. So what I think she was trying to say was that she does not think the use of technology is bad, also depending what we are doing online, just as long as we can find a balance between the two. So it is ok to look into each others eyes for a while until it gets creepy, then we can gaze back onto our screens. Personally, I do not get online much on the weekends and try to stay away from technology so I can focus on my family and me time, so I do think finding a balance is very important.

In Barons’s readings about away messages she talked about the “best me” trying to portray the best self image of one self. Personally, have seen away messages, but not of that type. Usually the ones I have seen is just the icon that says your away, or online, or offline. I have not actually seen the type where you can post a message on your away message. However, a lot of the things some of the students said during the study made sense to me. For example, the person who posted the list of things they would be doing for that day or week. It made sense that it was used for a conversation starter, that way they could avoid the usual what are you doing? or what did you do? That persons friends could be updated and maybe if they needed them for whatever reason they could know exactly where they could find them. On the other hand, some people post things like cleaning my room when they are not actually doing that. That can actually go along with the messages that people post saying things like they are out taking salsa lessons, when in reality they are not. They are trying to portray themselves maybe as not lazy, or maybe like they are socially active. Some people do not want to appear boring and they lie. I have a Facebook, and I know I see a lot of people always posting things that makes them look like they are the next great adventures or like they are socially active, or like they always have something to do. Makes me feel like maybe my life is not that exiting. Yet, most time these people are not being completely truthful. They are trying to portray themselves as something else in public, maybe like adventurous, or exciting people. Also, away messages serve as maybe a way to ignore some messages and reply to the most important ones. It gives people the option to be selective and still be available to the people they prefer if they wish to. People have more options to be at two different places at the same time, even if they are really only at one place, but who will know?