There are three main ways tdefinite a social networking site 1. a public profile 2. Communication between others with similar interests 3. View end transverse the connections.the readspas differ because the two authors are on two different ends of the spectrum. Beer feels the definitions lack any real…..well definition. It is too open for discussion. Easily arguable. I am more inclined to agree with Beer. I do ink that definition is far too broad to be taken as the primary definition for SNS. I have a public profile but most of my relationships, new relationships, are built through mutual friends. Even on twitter where there are millions of users I often follow people at the suggestion of someone else that I know. I am often reluctant to follow someone on any social site that I have not seen interact with someone that it rust. It is my life or portions of my life that I am putting out there for others to see, so it is important who you allow to see it. As far as interest, sites like Pinterest, would apply to Boyd and Ellisons definition but it is an interest based site. You’re able to openly view projects and such and decide if you’d like to follow.

In a group project for another class I experienced a social conflict when dealing with face to face communication and using social networks. Half of the group preferred face to face meetings while the other half wanted to do the majority of the project through emails, twitter, text, Facebook etc.  We argued a lot because people who were meeting face to face were getting all the work done while the random texts or emails from other members left them fairly clueless about what we had planned for our project and the presentation. I was on the face to face side of the group and I felt that the other half of the group was not interested in putting their time and effort into our project because they always had excuses why they couldn’t meet and would send emails asking what we had to do. This type of conflict included a number of communication breakdowns as well as incompatible interests. It took forever to get text or email responses about questions we had. Also the differences of opinion on how to present and what was required created a lot of tension amongst us. This conflict was symmetrical because we were all students in a group for a class project.  No one person had the power to delegate responsibilities or punish anyone else for not contributing. The conflict was destructive in the end because it made it hard to trust those other people to do work, and for me, it created an image of them as lazy and unwilling to participate. I would never recommend them to people for a job, project, etc. It essentially split the group into two and broke friendships due to their unaccountability and lack of dedication to the group. Reardon’s strategies were used in this conflict. At first we tried to be versatile by being understanding and flexible to each other’s schedules. We also didn’t want to be too selfish but eventually became too giving when it came to doing the majority of the work with only half the group. We asked a lot of questions throughout the whole project about what were the goals, expectations and in the process we learned about other people’s attitudes and negotiating strategies. In the end we became accepting that others were not willing to put the time in for this project and no longer wanted to negotiate timed meetings or the workload, we just got the project completed for the grade and did not worry about it anymore. We could have tried to be more understanding of the style they chose to approach the project or we could have negotiated other ways to meet like through webcams that would have made the conflict less stressful but I think because everyone was so consumed with their own time schedules we all just wanted to get the project done.

This weeks reading focuses on how racial and gender identities are formed online and how CMC shape how people present themselves. I like this reading in particular because of the build up specifically. A lot of our reading has been so intellectually deep that I’ll find myself reading without actually reading and often have to go back and reread pages that I know I have already “read”. Huffaker and Calvart walk us through the traditional sense of self identification. Normally, up until adolescence identity is built up of “one’s interpersonal characteristics, such as self-definition or personality traits, the roles and relationships one takes on in various interactions, and one’s personal values or moral beliefs”. Once a person hits adolescence, their physical characteristics and social abilities (i.e. being able to vote, drink, entry into 18+ club) began to affect the previous idea of identity.

I love that the author then draws a line of relevance to the way the online user, blogger, texter, etc, develops their social identity. “For the social interactionist language is a key means through which these roles are explored.” That’s to say that just like you finally being able to vote, or growing breast or a mustache affects the way you see yourself and thus define yourself; the accessibility to language and a forum to use it then becomes the way that the social interactionist CHOOSES to define his or herself. I think the word “chooses” is an important word. We cannot control when we enter these adolescent ages, how our mind, body, social status will change. I watched an episode of Catfish and one common sentiment held by catfishers was that it often turned into something they could not control, an addiction. So this reading made me wonder, we often say that online communication and perception of ones self is a choice and I agree that it is, but are the outcomes (i.e. creating a meaningful relationship will misrepresenting yourself) also a choice or is a snowball effect of collateral damage coming from something you can no longer control. Is there ever a point where you can no longer control the identity that you created. I don’t know if I am explaining this efficiently, if it doesn’t make sense forgive me. I am really curious about the psychological factors behind it all.

Baym discusses in this chapter the threat of people and false identities when communicating online. I remember when I first began to communicate heavily online, back when myspace was the go to social network. I have met people from the internet, thankfully I have not had a “catfish” encounter but I do realize now that I am older and have heard stories of deception and tragedy, that this is not always the case. I am a very big fan of murder mystery and investigation television shows and you can always count on at least a few episodes in the series to circle around an internet relationship. That is why I named my blog, who are we when we can be anyone.

Turkle discusses the use of the internet as a means to escape reality and form a new identity. This is not the case for the blog that I chose to follow. The blogger is a traveler who has challenged herself to travel the United States and see what the country has to offer. Unlike some of the other blogs that I had the option of following, I have actually met this blogger in person. We had a chance meeting while I was at work and her personality was so dynamic and inviting and her story interesting, I decided to follow her blog. In her blog, I think that same personality that I had the pleasure of coming in contact with, shows through her posts. Call me young, naive, or unexperienced but that optimist in me believes that generally people are who they say they are. That is not to say that I trust everything that I hear, but I do believe in giving the benefit of the doubt as opposed to coming into the communication distrusting. I have had the pleasure of meeting amazing people via the internet and can honestly say that I would again.

I think that  webspeak/net speak has a very large impact on our culture. We are living in the age of technology; nearly everything can be accessed via mobile phone. Even this blog that i am currently typing is being typed from a Droid phone. This easy access while convenient is often damaging, often spoiling us, subconsciously convincing us that we need constant contact. To be unreachable is to be dead, out of the loop, unacceptable. With technology there is often a race to be the fastest and to have the latest, which has created a code that Barron and other sophisticates have deemed CMC.

I often find myself tempted to short hand in regular communication. Where I would normally articulate, professional emails, papers, I often have to double check and reread my work because of my habit of shorthanding. When shorthand becomes your most often way of communicating of course it would take precedence over the traditional way of communicating. The most tempting thing abou the new language of text/IM is that it is a lot like talking. Its the most relatable form of language. Like I said previously, if text lingo is the most frequent form of communication/language it automatically takes priority as the go to language. It eliminates the gap between the brain and the hands, the conscious and unconscious speech. Much how we code switch from slang to standard english when the situation deems neccessary.

The first thing I found interesting in this weeks reading was the date in which communication (more specifically video chat) began to be researched. The book says that it began in the 70s. When I think chatting I think more modern techniques such as Skype, FaceTime, etc. probably because they are the chosen mule of my generation. I was not aware that they were in the process of installing video chats for work purposes.

Something else that I appreciate about the author and found interesting, was his insistence on the continuation of face to face/physical contact. he says at one point, “I’d be the first to insist, there’s inviting like a warm hug.” I don’t know why I found that funny. Possibly because he’s an author on society’s new chosen form of communication, how it affects us, and what could be next. He must have spent years researching which could have strongly isolated him, but he still prefers warm contact. There is to replacement for that. Internet may take away loneliness but does nothing for  the remain for interpersonal contact.

Finalky, quite astonishing to me, is the science behind texting and text lingo. To me it’s simple texting, means nothing. Everyone does it. But there are scientists, researchers, writers, etc who study these things in depth. It has been named, studied, there are college courses on it. And prior to reading the first few chapters of this book. I remained completely oblivious to how it is a major for of communication.