These two readings were both extremely interesting and very insightful. People really do seem to believe that there are only two types of people online: those who are lying and those who are being honest. I have always believed, however, that our online personas are a combination of our true selves and the versions of ourselves we wish we could be. I think Baym perfectly explained this, by referencing the idea of impression management. She writes, “This impression management may involve outright deception, total honesty, or, most often, a strategic balance of sharing, withholding, and distorting information.”(108.)This is a great point, because most people online are not complete liars. However, most people online are not telling the complete truth either! I definitely think that the majority of online users are applying some form of strategic impression management with their online personas. After all, how many people re-read their tweet before sending it to make sure its perfect, or obsess over which of one of the basically identical filters to use on Instagram. People desire to express both a true version of themselves, while also showcasing the version of themselves they would like to be. I thought about that idea a lot while I was reading Turkle’s explanation of how people design their online avatars in MUD gaming. People are creating these fantasy characters, but they are also giving them a little bit of their own personal appearance. The blogger I follow, for instance, is The Feminine Miss Geek, and her blog is devoted mainly to all things “geek.” Star wars, comic con, comic books,video games, if its considered “geeky”, she writes about it. While the main blog features her avatar, which is an adorable pink haired girl in black thick framed hipster glass, her about section actually has a real life picture of herself. I found it interesting to look at the avatar she created for herself next to the real picture she posted. There are similarities, such as brown eyes on both and black rimmed glasses, but pretty much everything else was completely different. She had taken pieces of her offline persona and meshed them into her online persona. The idea of taking all the different facets of yourself and using them online is an incredibly fascinating idea.

I n Chapter 5, Baym, asked “when people’s bodies aren’t visible, will people lie about who they are? Can they be trusted? Can they be known” My answers to all these questions are as follows: Some people prefer to use their real name, others prefer to by anonymous. Some people they have different identities in different names on different online sites. They would use a certain identity in blogs, another one in Facebook or Twitter or MUDS and MOO. It all depends on the role they are playing and the context of the interaction. Just as the identity scholars Goffman described “the self plays multiple roles in everyday life and cannot be understood adequately as a single unified entity.”

Baym also asserted that the researches did not support the idea that “anonymity makes people lie.”Therefore, yes, we can trust those people; especially, if they are well known in public and it is dangerous for them to use their real names. Finally, yes, we know people through their written language because it is significantly powerful language where people can express their thoughts and ideas and have strong relationships with their fans and readers.

In Turkle (1995) compared people in the past with those in the postmodern times and found out that today it is not unusual for people to “experience identity as a set of roles that can be mixed and matched, whose diverse demands need to be negotiated,” which was described by different psychological theorists as the flexible self, protean, or saturated self (multiple masks). Turkle also noted out the characters of MUD (a new kind of social virtual reality) can converse with each other, exchange gesture, express emotions, win and lose money…etc can also provide worlds for anonymous social interactions where people can play a role that can be either too close or far away from their real selves as they wanted to be.

My blogger, Teresa Walsh Ciarrusso, is real, not faking anything or hiding her identity. In her profile, she had all the information about herself, college, marriage, parents, and about her three kids in details. Their ages, names, what they are doing…etc. She is journalist, used to work in a newspaper but now she is writing in her own blog in a personal style for all busy moms. She always talk about very important topics that they are real (happened recently in real life) and ask her readers for their opinions. Her blogs are very informative not only for busy mothers, but for all parents in genera. Most of her readers knew her writing from the newspaper that she used to write in, therefore, she does not need to change her name or have multiple identities, or like an object as Turkle described.

Turkle says that identity can be attributed to multiplicity. In other words,  our selves are multi faceted. I was intrigued by reading about the woman who had talked to a man on AOL for a while before deciding to meet him in person. She had expressed her fear about how she was afraid when got around him in person that she would have trouble being like her online self. She said that her online self was more outgoing and didn’t have as many inhibitions. I could see there being a problem when she met the guy because she would probably be shy in person and he would be expecting the same outgoing person he had been talking to for a few months. I do think Turkle is right about identity because everyone seems to have a different personality online. My blogger is a true fashionista and I have the impression she would be very interesting in person, but I have a feeling there would be some different things about her in person.

At first glance, Turkle’s discussion of MUDs might seem foreign, if not just a little weird. Even if we experienced a Dungeons and Dragons phase at one point or another, few of us would admit it. But, if we’re honest, it’s not a stretch to say that most of us, at one point or another, found ourselves engrossed in some sort of MUD. So, if we’re able (or. perhaps, in some cases, willing) to think back far enough, perhaps we’ll be able to re-live that experience.

My own personal reflection took me back to eighth grade, a time I remember as the point at which I reached my full potential as a mega-nerd. I was heavily involved with a MUD called “NationStates,” in which players had the opportunity to create their own nation (complete with it’s own profile, composed of your nation’s notable laws, economy, political classification, et cetera—fascinating, I know). These nations would then be tied to the “Region” of the user’s choice. Regions elected delegates to the United Nations, passed their own legislation, and even co-wrote the histories of inter-regional “wars” in their own forums.  It was engrossing, and, as you can see, totally cool. It would be easy to dismiss this a fond memory or amusing anecdote, but, it is interesting to note the similarities between the draw a MUD may have had yesterday and the appeal of SNSs and blogging today.

In Chapter 5, Baym quotes Turkle’s poignant analogy of windows, which she sums up by writing, “The self is no longer playing different roles in different settings at different times. The life practice of windows is that of a decentered self that exists in many worlds, that plays many roles at the same time.” This description will likely resonate clearly with those who self-identify as “networked individuals.” However, although Baym and Turkle both attribute (at least, in part) to the internet, the networks and communities thereon also seem to provide a solution. Speaking about MUDs, Turkle asserts that online communities serve as, “…objects-to-think-with for thinking about our postmodern selves.” While most of us are probably not active MUD participants, this statement applies to blogs and SNSs as well. At times, it can feel like an enormous challenge to cognitively consolidate our professional, artistic, and/or personal “identities.” However, SNSs and blogs give us the opportunity to create and arrange content we feel best expresses who we are.

Yesterday, as a kid in middle school, I wanted to create a “nation” that expressed my views, values, and ideas about the way things ought to be. Even though I might not have realized it, it was really important for me that my creation reflect each of these things accurately and artfully. Today, I often find myself trying to do the same thing through my Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram accounts. “What does this say about my personal brand, and how can I better use the tools to create and communicate that brand?” But, it’s about more than that. It’s an opportunity for me to reflect on what that content says about who I am today, and who I might hope to be tomorrow.

I will start by saying that my blogger, Joanna, may be outside of the norm because she is a professional blogger. However, I find that she does fit the profile set by our readings in most cases, maybe even to an exaggerated extent. Baym argues in chapter 5 that reduced cues and social risk influence users to be more honest online. Joanna is excessively honest, revealing things about herself that break down digital distance and make the reader feel personally connected to her through revealing posts.  Because she makes her living through her blog, she is the product she is selling and has incentive for revealing more about herself and her personal life in order to attract readers. Posting between 5 and 10 times weekly, Joanna’s post have a wide range of subjects spanning from fluffy posts about life in New York to more disclosing accounts of marital intimacy. As Baym acknowledges that the more space there is to fill online the more truth is revealed, I have come to find that Joanna may need to write about her private matters not only to connect to her readers, but simply to have subject matter to fill the amount of content she needs to generate. Additionally, on Fridays, Joanna has a weekend prep posts that focuses solely on links to other content. This content can range from products she recommends, to humorous YouTube videos or posts by other bloggers. In this way she confirms her own image by connecting with outside content or individuals.

Walther’s article brings up the issue of self presentation as we alter it depending on the situation and relationship to the person we are interacting with. Obviously we act differently towards our bosses and professors than we do with our friends and families. In Joanna’s case she is presenting to a world of strangers in the same space as her friends and family through her blog. However, because she makes her living from her blog, she has more incentive to present in a way that attracts new readers, essentially strangers. Walther argues, “When CMC users are motivated to do so, these processes allow them to manage impressions and ultimately exceed parallel FtF partnerships in social orientation or intimacy, according to the hyperpersonal perspective.”. From this I gather that Joanna may be crafting an image through her more personal content to create what feels like a personal relationship with each of her readers (simulating a FtF connection) and provide incentive for them to continue to follow her blog.

Turkle’s article largely focuses on users who are either “working through” their own personal problems or “acting out” through the medium of MUDs. While I couldn’t find much parallel between the figures in his article and my blogger, Joanna, I did find the article useful in understanding how many non-professionals might use digital space to work out issues of their own identities. His example of Dr. Jekyll/Mr.Hyde was helpful in understanding the difference between self presentation versus self display, and I can see this from other bloggers in the spot light. Several years ago a blogger who goes by “Perez Hilton” created a bully style image in which he made fun of or revealed information about celebrities. At that time he was more of a caricature, playing an exaggerated bad guy role. While he still makes a living reporting celebrity news, his image has softened extensively. Several years ago when bullying was first big in the media spotlight he vowed to stop his abuse of celebrities and refocus his gossip blog.  His example has played itself out much like those featured in Turkle’s piece.

In chapter 7 of her Book, Life on the Screen, Turkle describes online identity as fragmented. This means people take on different identities and roles as they live different parts of their lives. She also believes we reconstruct ourselves online. Turkle states, “When we step through the screen into virtual communities, we reconstruct our identities on the other side of the looking glass” (PDF pg 1). This concept aligns closely with Baym’s description of identity which possesses aspects of flexibility, multiplicity and disembodied identities. Baym states, “Digital media seem to separate selves from bodies, leading to disembodied identities”.

When I think about Leandra Medine, the blogger I’m following, I do find Turkle’s observations on online identity to be reflected in how I understand the identity of the blogger I’m following. Turkle states, “The internet is another element of the computer culture that has contributed to thinking about identity as multiplicity”. Online, people are able to create themselves repeatedly by cycling through many selves” (PDF pg2/178). This holds true for Leandra. Throughout her blog she has expressed many sides of herself. It seems she is constantly changing to become a better version of herself. CMC context in Turkles work differs from the blog I am following in the respect that the people she listed in chapter 7 used the internet to escape reality and acquire a new cyberspace identity. In the blog I am following, Leandra is being herself and is not online to escape reality and get away from the person she is. She is online to embrace herself, or at the most enhance her identity. This context impacts the presentation of identity by allowing Leandra to be herself. She is confident in herself and enjoys doing what she does. She doesn’t have to escape online, she presents herself and you can like it or not. This differs from the examples Turkle gave because in all of the examples she listed the people were not sure of themselves and used their online profiles to escape their true selves.

In the both the reading Turkle and Baym discuss the various notions on the use of online identity. Tukle uses a strong example of role playing to show how many people are taking advantage of online anonymity. As the study showed people are using their anonymity to relieve stress or understand somone better by “role playing” as that person. Turkle examines the physiological issues of online identity without exploring the social issues.  Baym seems to agree with Turkle’s ideas raised about identity. She also adds the notion that self representation online  is also contributed to the information about one’s self. If people want to know about some one they have the ability to search that persons name in a search engine. Both Tukle’s and Baym’s ideas of self identity fit well in regards to my blogger. The blogger i choice remains to be anonymous for the most and seems to do so in order to rant about or put various pop culture figures on blast. I dont think hipsterrunoff.com would  exist without the cover up of a true identy.  Also there have been people to contributed information about the blogger stating their short lived relationships or encounters with the blooger, which is an example of Baym idea of self information being online.

            Human identities, even ones that are formed online, are dominated by numerous key factors. According to Turkle’s notes, new images of multiplicity, heterogeneity, flexibility, and fragmentation often influence the way in which human identities are formed. This allows for anyone to be able to change their personalities and/or profiles online. According to Baym, this could result in an untrustworthy, or possibly even dangerous, person posing as a respectable person, all the while just waiting for someone to fall into their trap. While Turkle and Baym show differing aspects and results of changing identities online, they prove one similar point: online identity can easily be altered, whether for good, bad, or experimental purposes.

            While Turkle and Baym both make convincing points about online identity, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the blogger I am following is legitimate or a fraud. However, I can determine that Turkle’s studies reflect my understanding of online communications. Unlike role-playing games, such as Dungeons and Dragons, which are played by people you know are pretending to be someone else, online communication can not be proven as true or false that easily. By the time someone figures out the truth of someone’s identity outside of cyberspace, it could prove too late for any victims of the potential internet stalkers in today’s world. This is a horrifying reality that must be taken into consideration before offering your identity online for anyone to see.

While I have never really been involved in role playing games, I have always been fascinated by the concept. Turkle writes that role playing games are so much more than just “playing a game”; they allow people to walk a fine line between reality and the un-real (p. 188). She mentions several stories about how people were able to deal with their real-life emotions and problems through their characters online. One girl had a lot of problems with her mother, and through playing as a mother online she was able to work through her concerns (p. 187). A college student would go online before a big test and get into virtual fights with people, allowing him to release his anger and anxiety without actually doing something in real life.

Baym seems to mostly agree with Turkle, and writes that “Digital media seem to separate selves from bodies, leading to disembodied identities that exist only in actions and words” (p. 105). She also writes that knowing a person in real life is key to knowing who they really are (p. 107).

In examining how people use social media and technology, I have to agree with both of these authors. Creating an online profile or world allows you to cultivate an alternative reality based upon whatever you want yourself to be. Even on Facebook, where most friends actually know you in real life, you can choose what statuses and pictures to post, causing people to see you in a certain light. Having people follow your blog is a huge opportunity for influence, since many people have no idea who the author really is (beyond the screen). While Turkle is writing about role playing games, the blog I am following is focused on the life of a pastor’s wife. People visit her page not to pick fights or get virtually married, but to gain wisdom and insight into dealing with some really difficult situations. Within that context, the author has to be really careful about presenting herself in a mature and respectable light. There’s nothing wrong with posting a meme or even venting about something that happened, but this author cannot use her platform as simply a personal profile. She needs to be seen as serious, trustworthy, and as a resource to visit frequently.

In Chapter 5, Baym mentioned that “people often expect others to be less honest online.” Although she noted that existing research does not support the hypothesis that anonymity contributes to dishonesty, most of us have heard of incidences of deception that happen online. Perhaps it could be that these are high-profile cases, ala Manti T’eo, which distort our perception of the amount of this behavior. Yet, on the other hand, the show Catfish supposedly highlights cases of online relationship deception between ordinary people.

Turkle’s article brought up the Freudian concept that our identity is multi-faceted, and that we have latent desires to exhibit different sides of ourselves. Her study found that, for a number of reasons, some people feel like they can’t be their complete selves in the real world. Instead, they manifest different parts of themselves online. It could be that some people feel the need to lie online about their physical identities in order to live out parts of themselves they feel they cannot show in real life.

Baym pointed out that “…self-representations are grounded in explicit connections…” which makes it difficult to create elaborate falsities online. For my semester blog analysis, I’m following Jason Good, a self-proclaimed writer, comedian and family man. I wouldn’t call him a public figure, but he has been on Comedy Central, which by most people’s standards would make him a comedian. Obviously he’s a writer because he has a blog. His blogs are almost entirely about his family, thus making him a family man. It would be very difficult for Good to lie in detail since his offline identity is well known.

Baym touched on the idea that most people go online to satisfy communicative desires, much as we do face-to-face. CMC does not necessarily enhance our desire to lie. In the case of Jason Good’s blog, it’s quite the opposite. His motivation appears to create authentic connections with his audience, primarily those with kids who can relate to his life. CMC allows him to expand his network.

The Walther article emphasized that self-presentation is not unique to online communication. Referring to Goffman, he noted that “people are concerned with the way others perceive them, motivating actors to manage their behavior in order to present favorable and appropriate images to others.” Whether we purposely speak formally to a professor or slang with a friend or whether we write longer emails and spend more time editing them when a professor is our intended recipient compared to a classmate, we are creating an impression.