As I first entered the course, I knew nothing of the beginnings of the internet. The ideas of ancient technologies were vague and seemed irrelevant. However, seeing the vast changes in a relatively short amount of time has led to a better understanding of our relationship with technology. Our development proves the co-constructive power between us. We continually attempt to create new platforms to fulfill our needs.

I enjoyed the examples of people utilizing their networks to make change. Whether it is social support, a feeling of acceptance, rallying around a cause – these new groups enables us to find connections and purpose that we might have previously abandoned.  I never thought much of group formation online, dismissing it as leisurely activities. I never gave much consideration to the involvement and changes that can develop through online interaction. Online interaction also impacts our perception of the world around us. It can provide information and entertainment, fuel our passions, increase understanding, give us hope for humanity, and provide us with the opportunity to enrich our lives. I assumed we were careful in our self-presentation, but never considered the countless ways we can cultivate and express our individual personality. We are emerging from a world of distance, divisions, and fear as we enter a new era ripe with potential. The internet provides an empowering social space for people to come together, form bonds and develop a sense of community beyond precedent.

This course has made me realize that these technologies do not regulate our lives, or inherently cause harm or good. As we choose to accept, adopt and incorporate the technologies, we transform our behaviors. They provide the power to enhance our communication power, expand our reach, and diversify networks.

My overall impression is that we, as people, are at the root. We aren’t subservient to the technology around us; we have a degree of autonomy and freedom.  Though technological immersion may impact our behavioral patterns and have some social implications, it also opens other doors to opportunity. There will be trade-offs, but there is still hope for people to flourish.

I think the most interesting current research is on impressions and adoption. I will be curious to see future research on digital natives and how youth that develop with technology utilize technologies to enhance productivity and create new social experiences.

In her BBC interview, Boyd touched on the paradox of our existence online. We produce heaps of information that stays visible or searchable. Longevity is an unavoidable certainty (nothing ever dies on the internet).  Everyone has a repository of information published on the web. One’s absence might seem more suspicious than any compromising information that could surface. So, in an attempt to strike back, we try to create a certain amount of transparency in our online profiles.  We can be mindful of our tracks and self-presentation.  We can also demand a more responsible system.

How do we incorporate technologies into the balance of our lives? They obviously have benefits, but we see their limitations and potential threats.  We are sensitive to some of the recurring issues: privacy, presentation, engagement, and responsibility. The studies we have read over the semester spanned years of research, reflective of generations of thought condensed into a short time. The more recent studies have shown the increasing acceptance and adoption of technologies by a growing population.  This week’s readings focused on cell phones, Facebook, and commentary on the role of technology in our lives.  The Smith reading emphasized our increasing adoption of tools. As we familiarize ourselves with this technology and begin to trust the technology, we become immersed in the relationship.  Older users were typified as being concerned about privacy, while younger users were concerned about their social role. Younger and more savvy users recognized some risk, and took steps to manage their settings  and presentation (Boyd & Hargiatti).

Older generations of adults saw the privacy risk as physical and psychological vulnerabilities. Their fears were technology’s intrusion on their well-being established in the real world. We might demand stricter guidelines for security. Possibly some type of certification will emerge to establish a sense of trust. (Since each site is different, there is no uniform security. A certification could make this more plausible. Sort of like good-will forces of the internet.

The biggest risk for our truly important private information will require stronger security. I think the future will hold something we see in our Science Fiction movies – of bio-identifiers: fingerprints, eye-scanners, and voice-activation, in combination with passwords, instead of archaic modes of identification like SSN #s, address, email, etc. That would stave off the physical threat of identity theft… for a while.

We have to become more educated in our mediated lifestyles, but bigger organizations should be held accountable for their ethically questionable practices.  It would really help if companies were banned from buying and selling all the information to better manipulate us.  I understand the opportunities that Big Data provides for targeted advertising, but I don’t think we should all submit to this, especially when we are coerced into accepting the inexorable structure.

We need to support more conscious designers, discourage corrupt practices, and generate more trust. These are perpetual issues of society, but just as relevant in our online social behavior.  There is so much hope and potential for our elevated communication practices, we need to adapt our structures to be more permissive of such freedom.

We have repeatedly discussed in this class that people are always yearning to communicate and connect, and the internet aids this desire.  CMC has the power to promote engagement and participation.  It makes it easier to congregate online and enables us to be more effective in our groups.  The internet provides an accessible forum where groups can communicate, connect, draw attention to an issue, organize activities, and impact local communities and society (Rainie, et al, p. 31). It can also lead to connection offline, encouraging increased participation in the real world.

The formation of online groups is affecting our voluntary participation. It is easier to find groups and congregate in groups we are interested in following and joining. We can choose to participate from numerous options of our own interest, where we might be more likely to engage in relevant activities. This choice was made clear in involvement among the variety of age groups, genders, races, and socio-economic classes.  Different groups cater to different people.  The important factor is that people across the board are becoming more engaged, and they are able to watch the issues they care about and have the ability to converse in a positive environment that calls for more substantial dialogue.  Involvement can affect perceptions, such as an increased sense of trust and faith in the ability to make a difference (Rainie et al, 13).

Many of the same qualities of social capital we discussed were crucial for online communities:  emotional and social support, raising money or awareness (Rainie, et al, p 35).  Internet groups provide us with the option of becoming more engaged with our society. If we are so inclined, we can connect to groups of our liking that provide the possibility of making an impact on society.   The involvement with the group can foster a relationship with the community, bonding with those who have similar concerns. People often stay involved because they believe in the groups’ goals and can make a difference. (Rainie,et, 19) As more people stay involved, this leads to a greater potential for social capital, providing a wider the pool of resources.

Social capital develops around the available resources provided by an individual’s network. People can acquire collective benefits (social capital) through the cooperation among their networks. The more resources you share and the more connected you are, the more social capital you gain. You can increase your value.

The types of interaction we choose in our online participation can lead to potential benefits and drawbacks.  Norris made a positive association with bridging social worlds: connecting two incongruent sides via the powers of the internet.  There is hope that the internet could bring people together in a way that facilitates more tolerant understanding. Certain interaction could allow people to connect despite differences and surpass traditional societal barriers.  That is, if we make the leaps to connect to the others. The superfluous amount of choices and possibilities allow us to explore without leaving our comfort zones.  We can stay in our own like-minded groups and filter out ‘the other’ (view/ interest/background/belief). But if we stay in our own circles, we risk surrendering a broader social understanding.

The Ellison article discussed how a people use Facebook to connect.  Facebook’s most significant use of social capital is its ability to maintain relationships. Even weak ties can lead to a broader social capital, where users have the potential for each other’s resources in the future. Facebook has the ability crystallize relationships that might have dissipated in the real world. (Ellison, 886). While Facebook doesn’t cross vast cultural jumps, it does allow for a slightly broader base of exposure. If we add more people, there is an increased likelihood we might see into their world.

I always fear that I am living in a bubble, choosing to filter my own world and allowing it to be filtered for me. I strive to increase my understanding of others, and I try to be more flexible in my sociability. I see the internet as a unique place to transcend traditional barriers. Though I will always be at risk for subconsciously filtering my own world, I can at least attempt to meet new people through SNS sites.

My experience on Facebook is similar to the Ellison article. (I, too, am an undergraduate white female – as the majority in the study). I mostly use the site to maintain relationships, but I also use it (information-seeking) to find out more about non-friends (if they are visible) and pages. I also see evidence of in comments between mutual friends who are seeking emotional support, are looking for tips, information, events, etc.

Though I have not yet fully read the Graduate’s article on CouchSurfing, I plan to read it in time to comment more on this week’s blog entries. I glanced over it and saw a lot a truths in their observations. CouchSurfing is one SNS site that I am engaged in. It is all about trust and creating connections. CouchSurfing users can provide information, connection, participation in events, host events, and a literal resource of opening their homes to travelers. Here is a link to my page. Though I am not the most active user, it could provide a cursory introduction to those unfamiliar with the site. You can also see a lot of evidence of the sense of community belonging and reciprocity in my profile, comments, and connections. I hope to stay involved over time and increase my connections others so I can take greater advantage of the site.

An online community consists of a group of people who interact in a digital space around a shared interest or topic, whose interactions may deepen over time. The site might start out as a random group of people, but it quickly progresses into a social community. As mentioned in the IRL documentary, people started talking because of a common interest, but it became a gateway to establishing relationships. Baym commented on the deeper connection users grow: members of “online groups develop a strong sense of group membership” (72). The opportunity to share other interests with a wide variety of people creates a realm of possibilities for relationships. These are often possibilities that are not offered in the real world. These groups are connected in a way that “transcends local communities” (Baym, 97). People get involved because of a shared interest, and they become engrossed as they develop ties with each other and build authentic relationships (Rheingold).

“The Bronze” was the modeled after the name of a club, and it became a hangout of its own as an online community. The community was referenced as a “never-ending text-based version of a party” where you could actually relate to neighbors. You had more choice in forming you relationships – something the real world heavily limits.

When I was a Freshman in high school, I was a member of a LiveJournal community that revolved around the show Late Night With Conan O’Brien. Some of these members later created a separate Fan Website. The front page had screencaps, icons, graphics, and soundclips for the public, and there was a private message board community where members could chat on different threads. We all shared the interest in Conan, and commented on talking points in the show, skits and characters, and jokes. The message boards had many threads, and most of them unrelated to the show.  They provided a place for members to talk about a wide variety of topics. As we commented on each other’s posts in the community, we began to communicate and connect outside the sites. Some of us shared outside interests, such as music taste, life stories and struggles, political conversations and thoughts, poetry and photography, etc. I made a deeper connection to some of the members and we became friends. We ended up reading each others’ personal journals and chatting on AIM regularly. I even made one friend in Oregon with whom I regularly talked on the phone. The online community helped provide the support that I didn’t feel comfortable asking for in real life. It didn’t take away from my normal social activities, as I mostly posted late at night when I had no other social responsibilities. The community gave me the freedom to explore parts of myself, interests, concerns, and worries, in similar ways mentioned in the IRL documentary. I wouldn’t have the time to do this now, but it was very helpful at a young age to have a strong sense of community.

The Huffaker reading addressed how adolescents use weblogs to explore and form their identity. The CMC context allows for more a more flexible and varied presentation of the self. Identity can be constructed through personality traits, interests, beliefs, roles, and involvement with other groups and users. In the corporeal world, these same people might have their identity assigned to them through such physical traits as gender and race. Online, they have more freedom to explore and construct their own identity.  The Huffaker reading mentioned the level of disclosure of personal information on teenagers’ blogs. They revealed the extent of personal information provided on teen’s blogs. If basic gender and race information was not revealed in their profile, it was often expressed in their personal journal entries.  Because every site is different, each type of CMC creates a unique context. Each site creates a different environment and set of expectations and requirements for the users. People change their methods of expression, and can disclose more or less information depending on their audience. If there is a forum for support and embracing cultural identity, they might do so. But they have the right to choose.

In the Facebook platform, it becomes necessary for users to fully present themselves in an honest and transparent way. By providing information, images, interests, and involvement, each user is motivated toward apt expression.  The positive affirmation that surrounds that open expression creates a stronger sense of identity. Previous platforms enhanced anonymity, and encouraged users to create false or homogenous identities. Today, diversity is expected and embraced.

The CMC context of this class blog has not led me to think about physical categorizations. The interaction does not really lend itself to self-expression. Our writing does reveal pieces of ourselves, but we are not creating an individualized presentation. It is secondary to the class assignments. Our comments are more relevant as students than as members of one particular identity. If our attributed names were removed from our posts, I would find it difficult to guess which person wrote what.

Turkle underlines the point of fragmented identity by showing explicit examples of people fulfilling specific roles in MUDs. People are able to present more online, where there are multiple platforms to express each interests.  “Many people experience identity as a set of roles that can be mixed and matched, whose diverse demands need to be negotiated” (Turkle, 180).  Turkle presents that people are made of many complex layers. Life in virtual worlds can clue us into broader behavior patterns. If it is true for MUDs, maybe it can us a generalized perspective on CMC behavior. It seems to resonate with standing communication theories on social and relational behavior.

The CMC mentioned in Turkle’s work is much older and a different platform than a blog. Her work focuses on more direct interaction in chatrooms, websites, and MUD’s virtual worlds. She presents a sort of psychoanalysis of specific types of users. While I appreciate this insight, it is a different type of identity formation and presentation.  Baym’s ideas hit on broader aspects of identity. We construct a public version of our selves through a series of cues (or omission) for more impression management and a more crafted version of our selves. Turkle made an interesting point related to the construction of the self. Are we creating a new fictionalized and idealized projection, or are we enhancing ourselves?  Are we creating an “expanded” self or a “separate self” (Turkle, 180).

My blogger, Jodi, has a very coherent identity. She presents herself in a positive, clear, and professional manner. Her identity is revealed through her constructed persona, and she comes across as a likeable person.  Jodi’s style of writing is simple but engaging, and it to create a connection with readers. Her bubbly and quirky personality comes across in her writing style, stories, content, images, and interaction.

A public blog isn’t as direct and personal of an interaction, like there would be in chats. Individualized chats can result in deceptive conversations , misleading perceptions, and exaggerated interpretations. A blogger, however, must exude a particular personality to everyone. I think she respects the medium, the content, and her audience enough to present a genuine, expanded version of herself online. And I respect it.

We desire connection, and also feel an obligation to be connected. This creates a duality of satisfaction in our relationships. However, if we can strike the balance, the tradeoff is worth the effort (Hall & Baym, 328). We can create wider, more diverse social networks can help to collectively create stronger bond with society. We can find more support in “looser and more fragmented” networks, and these networks can also be broader, more diverse, and collectively stronger than traditional groups ever permitted (Rainie & Wellman 8).

I loved the presentation of the Rainie and Wellman article. It made me realize the wondrous nature of this growing social structure. It gives me hope for humanity; we can rally around ideas, similarities, and threads of concern. We can rise above traditional group structures and connect with each other. We are at the root of our social networks. We create the connections that are an extension of our selves. They have the power to highlight our qualities. They can make us better neighbors, to reach out to others to seek and gain support.  We become more independent, and more enabled to choose our own paths.  Our stance as an individual empowers us to make endless choices around our interests and activities.  Our behavior isn’t forcibly coerced by traditional social groupings. These constraints do not apply to our personal liberty. “Person-to-person networks show how community has transcended group boundaries. It is the individual- and not the household, kinship group, or work group- that is the primary unit of connectivity. The shift puts people at the center of personal networks that can supply them with support, sociability, information, and a sense of belonging” (Rainie & Wellman, 124).

The issue of isolation rose again. We have discussed this numerous times on the blog, and it has appeared in various articles.  There are universal anxieties and we will continually blame new technologies for causing changes. We fear the unknown and we always seek a scapegoat to our problems. Nonetheless, all of the readings tend to point that we are more socially connected, whether the ties are weak or the content deep. The rise of networks has affected our interpersonal relations. “This is not a shift toward social isolation, but toward flexible autonomy” (Rainie & Wellman 125).

The internet expands your scope. The more you see and interact, the less alone you feel. We are not necessarily isolated, as our interests can resonate with others in the larger circle of humanity. I enjoyed the Pope’s quote that illustrates this cross-cultural connection:  “New technologies allow people to meet each other beyond the confines of  space and of their own culture, creating in this way an entirely new world of potential friendships” (Rainie & Wellman, 127 ).

I must confess I occasionally think technology leads to isolation, but the more I read, the more I realize this is not the case.  The internet does not necessarily lead us into isolation away from society. We just become engaged in a new form; the more engaged we are, the more involved we become online and off (Rainie & Wellman, 119). If we take advantage of our networking capabilities, there are endless sources for connection. I never thought isolation was the fault of the technology; it is in our individual use of the technology. My personal use is an exaggeration of my natural behavior. I still choose to play the role and use technology to my own design. If I lurk and am hesitant to post, that reflects my own anxieties of expression/acceptance/worth. Technology allows for an extension of my current self, with different boundaries and expectation.  Yet, I still have the ability to seek answers from others. The information that fits my needs is already there. If I chose to be more interactive, the potential is endless. It boils down to my individual choice to take advantage of these available networks. I don’t consider myself to be incredibly networked, comparatively. But, I do realize that I have to potential to be; it’s a matter of interest and dedication. Online social networking only further expands the possibilities.

Language is constructed through symbols, and memes are rapidly changing cultural symbols that use compound layers of language such as composition, jargon and slang to create meaning (Davison, 127). Internet memes are often based around humor, but not necessarily. Humorous artifacts are more likely to recirculate, and thus become important features of our culture.

Davison wrote how behavior and culture can be inherited and learned through observation. Learned behavior is often transmitted through cultural artifacts. Internet memes are the fastest transmission of culture. Online and off, memes alter our language and style as we adopt bits and pieces of their influence. Everyone has a unique sense of style. Just take a look at the various differences in each of our blog posts. Even within the narrow form of a class blog, our style peeks through in our content and language.  We use our distinct style to express ourselves.  This is especially evident on social-media platforms, which exist as profiles that are supposed to represent our identity.

Both articles spoke of expression of identity through messages. Humor is the most widely acceptable form of self-expression. That is, it is the most likely to be noticed, approved, and enjoyed.  The examples mentioned in the articles are exaggerated display of face: we often present ourselves in the most favorable light to construct a flattering representation.  Humorous messages also help to maintain a light-hearted environment on the surface, which might increase the likelihood of a future conversation that could delve into deeper relationships. Humor acts a social buffer; it shows effort, appreciation of common culture, and social understanding.