Davidson’s (2012) article on the language of memes provided insight into the rise of these internet entities and why they are so prevalent. In particular, three of their characteristics stood out as the responsible parties to the memes popularity: speed of transmission, ease of replication (and therefore variation), and lack of attribution. With access to the internet, a file can go viral in literally minutes. Take for example, one of the more popular memes from this week, an unflattering photo of Beyonce from her Superbowl half time show. Her publicist requested that a website remove the unsightly photo of the pop queen, and at such an outrageous request, the photo made internet rounds faster than some of the week’s top news stories. The speed of transmission allowed this photo to be something that people shared instantaneously. With software providing the ability to alter digital images, ease of replication and  variation allowed the joke to continue while evolving into various forms of jokes that anyone could enjoy. Like Futurama? There’s a Zoidberg Beyonce. Like The Walking Dead? There’s zombie Beyonce. If you’re just a meme fan in general, then let’s call this little fiasco Bad Luck Briyonce. Lack of attribution frees us from the otherwise stiff and stifling property rights laws. Since no one is taking credit for the memes, they can be shared and manipulated as many times as the public continues to tolerate the joke. For your viewing pleasure, and clarification in case you’ve been living under a rock this week: http://baconwrappedmedia.com/funny-beyonce-super-bowl-meme-37-pics/. I hope its obvious why I chose this as my paper topic.

Baron (2008) examined away messages in instant messaging services and the alternative uses that individual users found for them. While some users did alter the default away message to explain why there were away from their computers (even if lying about their whereabouts), many used the away message as a form of self expression. Everything from humor to soapboxing were observed in users away messages, much like the modern Facebook status update often used in strikingly similar ways, in my opinion. Most memorable from this reading was the strong opinion of some users about the away messages of others. The utter disgust displayed for a lack of a clever message was a telling sign in why this facet of online communication was worth studying. Such strong opinions about the away messages of others confirmed that users deeply cared about the identity they displayed in their own messages, but most significantly, that they cared about the identity displayed by other users. I guess I was blissfully clueless that those Pink Floyd lyrics posted as my away message as a 15 year old fell short in the eyes of other instant message users.

Naaman, Boase, and Lai’s (2010) look at microblogging, Twitter specifically, and make a study of two kids of users, the informers and the “meformers”. Informers generally post to make others aware of an event or subject, and while the subjects of their posts are centered on their interests, they are not self-subject posts. For this reason, their posts then to be more conversational. The “meformers” on the other hand are self-centered posters, but interestingly, they also use these platforms as a way to maintain a large network that would otherwise be too time costly without such networked platforms as Twitter.

Humor plays a significant role in self presentation for users on the internet. Humorous posts tend to be looked on more favorably than those posts that act as a cry for attention and users seem to use humor as a way to make themselves appear interesting and attractive. Although due to lack of attribution of internet memes, the humor of the individual’s variation on the joke can be cathartic. For those of you familiar, I often note this in Bad Luck Brian posts, with users sharing something unfortunate happening to them through the character. The style and language used online also convey some form of self presentation for a user. For example, if I post a Facebook status  that says, “YOLO, LOL!” then I it could either be a display of how in the know I am when it comes to these text talk lingos, or I could be making fun of those who use them by over exaggeration. Both would convey something about myself, and in this case, it would be the later.

Its become a popular myth that the English language is dying a slow death at the hands of CMC and the “Net generation”, as Thurlow calls them (2003). Before you cry out that grammar, sentence structure, and vocabulary are the innocent victims of a merciless digital villain, I encourage you to read a little Shakespeare. Too much trouble you say? Hard to get through such flowery, overly structured language to really get into the story? There is a reason that nearly every high school student in America has to read Julius Caesar or Macbeth. Not only are the stories great, but its good as students to see how our language has changed, becoming more casual over time. So who has been selling us this myth that our language is under threat? According to Thurlow (2003), “it is not only lay people and journalists who are responsible for this kind of exaggerated and often prejudicial rhetoric” but academics as well (p.3).

This week, much of our readings focused on the study of instant messaging chats. One of the key messages found in our readings is that it is important to view these logs as “conversational”. When studied, these messages act more as a back and worth one would have in person. Despite being exchanged in the form of writing, these interactions did not really resemble the formal writing that is taught in school. The SMS message seems to be something of the next generation of instant messaging. With mobile technology bringing a handheld device that can do much of what our previous desktops (at the height of instant messaging, late 1990s and early 2000s) could do, SMS has become the popular way of exchanging messages that can be both synchronous and asynchronous depending on the attention of the parties involved.

Baron (2008) theorizes that a new form of English is emerging as a result of the adoption of instant messaging and text messaging, and I agree. I can see that the conversational dialogue style that comprises the average CMC exchange is more “speech than writing”, but I think this is an organic change. To say that there is a “new English” makes it seem like something radical has occurred, and I don’t see it that way. CMC technology has allowed us to communicate with each other using the written word in a more immediate way than previous technologies have provided, and we are using this technology in our everyday conversations with friends, family, and coworkers/peers. It seems natural to me that these types of quick, largely casual exchanges would more resemble our speech than our writing. In this way, it seems a more natural progression of change as a consequence of technology, and it seems to follow the natural change of our language becoming less formal over time, per my Shakespeare example.

Gender cropped up again as Baron (2010) look over instant messages exchanged between males and males, and females and females and looked at three key indicators: general discourse scaffolding, utterance breaks, and lexical issues.  While male to male interactions more closely resembled their speech patterns, women were more structured with their interactions more closely resembling their writing patterns. With gender differences once again being identified within the scholarly literature, I would like to see a study where professionals try to identify the gender of the sender by only reading their exchanges. This would make a stronger case for the such defined behaviors.

In Jones and Schieffelin (2009), the AT&T commercial and subsequent reactions were explored as a means of studying the power of humor, language, and forms of “text talk” that have emerged out of CMC. The authors concluded by reviewing the reactions on YouTube that textalk is not a signal of the end of language integrity, but as a form of verbal wordplay. In this way, humor is used to poke fun at both those who didn’t understand text talk, and those who had overly adopted it.

Gerrand (2007) pointed out the problems with the way that language diversity on the internet has been reported by other academic sources. Out of date census information and bad assumptions (such as the belief that internet users will only use their native/first language online) were only two of many reasons they point out that prior statistics about languages used online are unreliable.  The author argued that the most accurate way to measure internet usage would be through user activity, which is not currently possible. However, Gerrand article offers, “a new taxonomy…that distinguishes among user profile, user activity, web presence, and diversity index as separate indicators of language diversity on the Internet” but is quick to remind the reader that advances in software must be developed to increase the accuracy of language detection.

Although the validity of an overly English dominated internet is called into question in Gerrand’s peice, Danet & Herring (2007) points out that what we have been calling computer-mediated communication may be more accurately described as “computer-mediated English” (p.6). Danet & Herring go on to point out that language isn’t always subject to geographical boundaries. Look at modern customer service for American companies today, we have largely outsourced these services to India where call center workers who grew up bi-lingual often speak more technically correct English than the American callers, albeit with an accent. Danet &Herring also bring up issues within other languages that make it difficult for their language to be expressed over the internet because they contact special characters, as those found in Japanese, or diacritical markers, as those used in Hawaiian. English, generally without such special characters, doesn’t have the same challenges. The lack of this barrier and ease with which English can be communicated with current hardware (keyboards) and software have lead to, as the authors note, a “typographical imperialism”.

Finally, Baym (2010) brought up once again the Utopian hope that CMC would give us equality and the pessimist fear that it will diminish the quality of our relationships (p. 51). However, she is  quick to point out that despite mediated communication’s inability to match the quality of face-to-face interaction, that doesn’t mean it cannot have rich content or maintain “social context” (p.57). We are even reminded that incidences of flaming looked at in this chapter are over estimated because they are so memorable (p. 59). Further ways that people are using means within CMC to bring better understanding with the absence of social cues are explored such as emoticons, use of upper-case and lower-case lettering to convey tone of voice, and acronyms (p. 60-61). Additionally, Baym contradicts what many have come to believe recently, that CMC is bringing about the destruction of proper grammer, and instead confirms that writing in general was becoming more casual. To blame CMC for the trend would be like blaming the messenger, instead of the message.

Currently, I haven’t had any experience with other languages on the internet, but with the ease of establishing wireless internet and the explosion of mobile devices, I think an increase in web activity in other languages is sure to follow. I predict that as this is happening, there will be a focus on developing translation software that better interprets the slang and uses of acronyms in other languages. As we become increasingly global, many are sure to feel that their native language is under threat and an emphasis on writing in one language (such as English) could be seen as destructive to cultural identity. If better translation software is developed, then it could allow individuals to communication through CMC in ways they are unable to do so in person at a much larger capacity than they can now with current translation products.

Picture of IRC from Jumpin’ Jack Flash (1986)

The film referenced in my blog title is the only reason I knew what Baym (2010) was describing as Internet Chat Relay Chat in her review of early synchronous chat technology (p. 14). In the film a bank associate (Whoopi Goldberg) gets caught up with a British spy stuck in Russia. Using the IRC function they conspire to get him home and the required hijincs ensue. This film gave me a healthy dose of paranoia about the internet at an early age, similar to other films that Baym describes in chapter 1 like “The Net”. I guess I have my parents to thank for having HBO when I was little.

Baym’s discussion of the dystopian visions and rhetoric surrounding new technology seemed timely to me after our first reading. When reading over the blogs from week 1 and the comments that followed, it seemed that at least of few of us in the class were of the opinion that all of this technology is degrading society’s ability to interact meaningfully in person. Baym argues, “the language and forms of evidence may have changed, but the concern that communication technologies make us dumber is as old as writing” (p.26). I’ve certainly had those thoughts, but I’m glad that this week’s reading challenged us to be more moderate and to look back and see that other technologies that we have come to take for granted have been treated with similar negative rhetoric. While I do think that these fears need to be explored and studied by scholars, I find it equally important that we base our voiced opinions on the outcomes of this research, rather than voicing opinions only informed by our fears. Not to say that there aren’t some alarming facts coming out of the research. In particular for me, tribalism is both exciting and frightening. As a person using the internet, its a definite perk for me to be able to connect with people that share similar interests as myself. On the other side of that, it troubling that as a result , I would be insulated from being exposed to those of differing opinions that could give me a more well balanced view.

Herring (2004) describes CMC as “slouching towards the ordinary” as the convergence of two conflicting trends: “it overestimates the novelty of much CMC, and underestimates the effects of social forces such as mass popularization, according to which mundane uses of technologies tend to co-opt their destabilizing potentials over time ” (p.27). In Herring’s conclusion she predicts that 5 years into the future (which was 2009) that internet technology would become further integrated into our daily routine and therefore would lose some of its luster. While I do agree that it has become more intertwined with our daily lives, I’m not sure that 5 years is enough time for it to become  ordinary to us. I’m not certain that its become any safer either contrary to Herring’s prediction, but I’m no expert.

As for future research into this arena, I hope that scholars will look further into the etiquette that has developed around online interactions. I would like to know more about the “unwritten rules” of online and mediated exchanges. Apparently I’m supposed to text before I call to make sure its ok now? Also, is Herring correct, has the internet become safer? Maybe since those of us that spend more and more time online become savvier at spotting the spam. Perhaps its increased or reached a plateau as more and more people go online and those that take advantage follow?

According to Horrigan (2009), I’m “Motivated by Mobility” and sub-catagorized as a “Digital Collaborator”. While I do admit that the descriptors given for this group do fairly describe my content sharing habits and use of ICTs in my daily life, the demographic facts are questionable at best. I’m certainly not male, I’m a solid ten years younger than described and while I do consider myself to have obtained a good education, I am not economically well off. Maybe the demographic information was more accurate in 2009, but I believe it would be better to describe those of us in this category as late 30s and under. With the in depth description of a digital collaborator, it could just as easily describe most of the 16-25 year olds of my acquaintance. I can’t think of a single person I know in that age group that doesn’t have a smartphone and/or tablet they use to share content online.

As Horrigan (2009) describes, I am always present, always plugged into the network (p. 8). My home has wireless and you can usually find me on my sofa, surfing on my iPad, texting or emailing on my phone, all while watching streaming television through my Roku box. Even the iPhone is placed on the nightstand at night, so the only time I’m ever offline is while sleeping. It would be sad if I didn’t feel that it helped me be so much more productive as an employee and a student. This belief that the internet makes me more productive was part of what lead me to be placed in this category to begin with, going back to that Pew Internet quiz, question 13. I think the sense of and act of production is an appropriate marker for identifying my type of user, since one of the prevailing attitudes of this category is the value that we put on using ICTs to share our content (p.29).

In the broader category of those of us who are “Motivated by Mobility”, Horrigan argues that “mobile and wireless access tools have a symbiotic relationship” (p.4). This has been true in my own life. As described before, when at home I can be found using up to three internet enabled devices at a time. At work, its a minimum of two devices at once. My devices (save my Roku for television watching, although I think even that is bound to change soon) all communicate with each other, complimenting each other’s uses.

The internet has been a daily presence in my life since at least age 12 and therefore feels to me to be something as part of my natural landscape. For a person like me, each new step forward in internet technology has seemed to be a natural progression, especially the explosion of smartphone/mobile adoption around 2004. However, these have been radical changes for many in our society and around the world. In particular, those who lived in remote areas and may not have been able to get broadband, can now have wireless access pretty easily. Like every other technology that has been adopted in our daily lives (radio and television for example), there are those who will take up the new technology with gusto, and those who will resist with paranoia. Categorizing people into sub-sections of defined user types is useful to those making new developments in the field. They will better understand what is valued by the majority of users, and where the needs are not being met. It is important to chart how attitudes of these groups change over time. There is a tendency to belief that those of us who are superusers are the norm. These studies confirm that we are the outliers and many subgroups exists where the internet plays varying roles in their lives.