Blog 5 – Look at Me! Look at Me!

Although the Baron reading was a specific study concerned with AOL instant messaging away messages, I can certainly see how its findings apply to other social media channels (or Social Awareness Streams). The idea that users construct images of themselves for the purpose of self-presentation manifests itself all over the place on Facebook and Twitter. The Naanman, Boase and Lai research, for instance, found that the majority of Twitter users focus on the self when Tweeting. I credit it to narcissism and egocentricity. As a random sample, the first message in my Facebook feed right now reads “Looking forward to a Walking Dead marathon tonight at the (REMOVED NAME) house. Perfect Friday night!” That status means absolutely nothing to anyone else, save for the person who typed it and/or the people in his/her household. So what was the purpose of this person’s post? I would conjecture that he or she is determined to let other people know (or lead them to believe) that he or she is really happy with their evening schedule (and possibly with their life in general). Baron remarked that “online sites are also places for constructing images of how you wish others to perceive you.”

The Baron study also found that some users intentionally mis-represent themselves. Apparently, Manti T’eo missed this memo. I especially enjoyed this example in the Baron article: “dinner with Mark and dancing all night” , which really meant at home alone watching TV. CMC affords us the ability to create our own identities and, in some instances, lie to make things look better.

The content analysis section of the Baron article found two main categories of messages within AIM IM away messages, one of which was entertainment. Baron also noted that “more often than not, if there’s an opportunity for humor, the user takes it.” The article said the motivation to entertain or be humorous was related to the opportunity CMC affords for self-expression. I’d be interested to see that topic explored further, because as an avid Twitter user it does seem that humor is used a great deal.  The Davison article, which analyzed the definition and spread of memes, also noted that humor is one of the most common types of Internet memes. The article on memes was interesting because I never officially knew what a meme was before reading this article. I had an idea, but I wasn’t certain on the exact qualifications. For instance, I did not realize that emoticons were considered memes. Their use and replication is so widespread in large part because they are easy and quick to use.

Blog 4 – It’s still English.

Thurlow mentions “how the human need for social intercourse – a kind of ‘communication imperative’ – bends and ultimately co-opts technology to suit its own ends, regardless of any commercial or military ambition for the technology.” As we discussed in the early chapters of Baym, the technology doesn’t control us as much as we adapt its capabilities to suit our needs. In so doing, our streams of consciousness evolve, sometimes without us even realizing it. But again, we brought on that change. Thurlow makes the argument that, despite this evolution, the young generation is not reinventing language. Rather, this generation is attracted to new technology because of the desire for “mobility, discretion, intimacy and, indeed, fun.” Our use of SMS language is, as Thurlow said, “unremarkable”.

I found it interesting when the Thurlow article mentioned that adults criticize text messaging as a form of code that is ruining the English language and the ability to properly socialize. Yet older generations focus all their attention on how the young generation does things differently than they did. They make little effort to understand the root cause behind the activity of text messaging and how it might relate in many ways to their motivations growing up.

Thurlow pointed out that text messaging language is not as uncommon and deviant from the standard English language as some might think. For example, his study found that abbreviations account for less than 20% of overall message content. Baron’s 2008 study on Instant Messaging substantiated this as well. This dispels the myth that those texting speak in code. Thurlow’s study also found the majority of messages were relational in nature vs. informational. I was a little surprised at this. I thought it might be a mix closer to 50/50. But as I looked at some of my recent text messages, his findings held true.

Baron’s 2008 study had many similar findings to that of Thurlow’s research. For instance, individual linguistic CMC transmissions more closely resembled informal speech patterns than they did tradition written formats. Also, acronyms were not nearly as common as most people believe. IMHO (In my honest opinion ;-), even when abbreviations are used via instant or text messages, it’s because our information exchanges via these media are intended to be fast, much like speech, and it’s quicker in some cases to use acronyms. Yet, at the same time, Baron notes that instant messages are not analogous to speech. We don’t use nearly the amount of contractions in SMS as we think we do and as we do with oral speech. And her study showed that there weren’t many grammatical errors exhibited in discourse transactions via IM. Despite the rapidity of this medium, we still ensure that what we type is correct, much like we do with things we write formally.

Baron’s 2010 study took more of an in-depth look at gender differences via the use of IM discourse. She found that male IMs more closely resembled speech while female IMs are more similar to written language. It will be interesting to see if future research can determine whether or not the same gender qualities are visible in speech discourse.

The Jones and Schieffelin findings further demonstrate the idea that CMC is not ruining language.We’re simply adapting the way we use language to fit our needs, keeping in mind the technical affordances and limitations of new media.

Blog 3 – Everyone Doesn’t Speak English?

I don’t have much personal experience in dealing with non-English languages on the internet. I think a lot of this can be attributed to the fact that the internet originated in the United States and the majority of web pages today are in English. Nevertheless, Baym noted at the end of Chapter 3 that “the influence and spread of English online remains disproportionate to its speakers.”

I found it very interesting to see the great disparity in estimates of the presence of the English language on the internet. As the Gerrand pointed out, this is because the different methodologies “estimate different aspects of language use.” Yet, when the numbers are reported based on individual individual studies, they typically fail to acknowledge the discrepancy in methodologies.

It seems that user profiles, if literacy censuses were up to-date, would be an ideal reflection of the web presence of English and non-English languages. But as Gerrand addressed in his article, user profiles and web presence are two independent measures, and they clearly don’t parallel each other at this point in time, although they may be trending closer together. This closing of the gap seems to be essential because, as the Danet and Herring article explained, “In recent years, the Internet has become truly a global communication network.”

 Web presence has some controlling power over user activity. After all, if English is not your first language but the majority of content you see on the web is in English, you might be more inclined to use English in emails, discussion posts, blogs, etc. Gerrand said that user activity is the ideal measure of internet language usage, but that “it is simply not technically feasible to measure the aggregate Internet activity in any given language directly…”

The idea of flaming was another interesting topic from the Baym article. Although the concept of flaming evolved out of CMC, it’s not a unique to CMC. Baym cited a definition of flaming “as messages that include swearing, insults, name calling, negative affect, and typographic energy.” I don’t know about you all, but in my day (I like to think when I was younger and immature), I’ve sworn at people, thrown around a few insults, and name called in face-to-face interaction. Some acknowledge that flaming is not unique to CMC but argue that the medium is more conducive to increasing this type of behavior. Yet Baym pointed out studies that show we largely overestimate the amount of flaming behavior. This might be because flames get the most attention.

Blog 2 – It’s the Internet’s Fault

One thought I had after completing these readings was about innovation itself. What is innovation? To me, innovation is developing a new concept or product that fulfills an intrinsic need or want that people didn’t realize was a need or want until they experienced the new concept or product. Take the general masses use of the web, for instance. I doubt ordinary people in the early 20th century were upset at the lack of opportunity to access endless amounts of information via an electronic system. Yet, the web as we know it today did not create that desire within us. The web is rather a symptom of that desire. Baym (p. 47) notes a similar point made by readers of Ann Landers and Dear Abby.

What about violence? We can trace murder back all the way back to the beginning of time, when Cain killed Able. It’s true that guns enhance the ability to commit murder (and I’m all for regulation on a personal note). But guns don’t make us violent. Violence will never go away. The same point can be made about CMC and our use of it. The evolution of enhanced technology is an evitable course that will continue to magnify our desires, needs, wants and human nature.

Meanwhile, as discussed in the Herring article, some aspects of modern technology and CMC  have become ordinary and mundane in their use. Email and texting are prime examples. They clearly fulfill a text-based communication need. Herring noted that “the robust popularity of, for example, email over the past 30 years suggests that it satisfies some important communicative needs.”

Yet, despite some of the benefits of CMC, like efficient communication, closing the gender gap, information at our fingertips, there are also many aspects of CMC that have caused users to fear it. Some of these negative forces include loss of personal privacy, online harassment, spamming, excess noise (which leads to de-valued content), addiction, etc. Again, though, are these qualities caused by CMC, or symptoms of human nature and how we choose to use CMC? It certainly begs the question.

I think Herring is correct to note that CMC has become more of a practical necessity than an object of fascination. The same can be said about most new inventions and technology advancements. We adjust our use of these technologies over time and integrate the parts that satisfy the most pressing needs into our everyday lives. Then they become mundane, and we move our attention to what’s new. As for research, Herring makes a good point about the cycle I just talked about. Researches would be well suited to “take a step back from the parade of passing technologies and consider more deeply the question of what determines people’s use of mediated communication (p. 34).

What User Type Are You?

According to the Pew Internet & American Life Tech User Quiz, I am a Digital Collaborator within the Motivated by Mobility category. After reading The Mobile Difference, I personally felt that I was more aligned with the Ambivalent Networkers, which would make sense based on the group demographics (male, late 20s). Digital Collaborators like to create and share via personal websites, blogs, podcasts, etc. They are self-proclaimed “nerds”. Side note: I have lots of techie friends, but I’m not a fan of how they call themselves “nerds”. It’s a badge of honor to them. It’d be like if I told all of you “I’m awesome.” Anyway, I use ICTs i.e. my iPhone, laptop, iPod, etc. on a daily basis to work, connect with others and to stay updated on news, entertainment and industry-related topics. When publishing, I do my best to avoid becoming a me-former (someone who talks about themselves all the time). I use Twitter quite a bit to comment on news items and other areas of interest. As do other Ambivalent Networkers, there are times when I feel ICTs are intrusive in my life even though it’s my own fault. I choose to stay plugged in.

The Horrigan article also mentioned that Ambivalent Networkers text more than any other group. I’m not sure how many text messages the average person sends in a given week or month, so I don’t have a basis to compare myself with others. I probably send more than 1,000 text messages per month, but probably less than 2,000. I’m guessing that’s above average. The article also said the Ambivalent Networkers watch the least amount of TV, with only 24% watching TV in a given day. I’m in that 24%. TV is one way I relax, whether it be watching a game or a favorite show.

Overall, I liked the distinction between Motivated by Mobility and Stationary Media Will Do users. I think it’s pretty cut and dry when grouping people into one of these categories. However, the groups within these categories isn’t so simple. I shared traits from multiple groups, as I’m sure many of you did as well. Our access, actions and attitudes towards ICTs is not as neat as this survey attempts to make it. Individuals are different and motivations are complex.