Stalder’s article on Castell’s work defining and exploring networks seem to mirror the introduction of A Networked Self. Both gave a biological picture of networks and how communication creates the network between nodes, the building blocks of networks. In the keynote to A Networked Self, Barabasi uses the example of Google to give us a better understanding of how the fitness of a node determines how likely a node is to develop relationships with other nodes. In Google’s case, as a fit node develops lots of connections to other nodes, it becomes easier and easier to gain more relationships, becoming nearly impossible for other nodes to catch up. I liked this example because it gave me a concrete example and led me to see the same example in other areas as well. In particular, it led me to think about the telecommunications industry and what I learned about it during a brief post-college employment with a wireless provider. There are two dominant wireless companies in America today, and probably about 5 major brand competitors. Because the top two companies can afford the top two spots on every cell tower, their signal strength is better than their competitors and this leads more and more consumers to contract with them because of that reputation.

I mentioned in my introduction that one of the aspects of social media that I would like to explore during this class is this sub-type of etiquette that has formed around our online interactions. I’ve also come to realize that while platforms like Facebook make me feel connected to old friends and acquaintances by giving me the impression that I know what is going on in their life because we have had some kind of conversational interaction, the reality is that the only contact I’ve had with them is voyeuristic. I’ve seen pictures of their children and I know they got a new job last year because of what I have seen in my news feed on Facebook, but we haven’t exchanged information directly to each other for years in some cases. I may have “liked” their most recent status update, or wished them a happy birthday, as prompted by Facebook, but the truth is those are just as much for the other people reading the “news feed” of our mutual friends as those interactions fill a social obligation. Boyd talks about these interactions in the second chapter of A Networked Self, “Comments are not simply a dialogue between two interlocutors, but a performance of social connections before a broader audience. I know I have been guilty of writing the obligatory birthday message almost on a daily basis, and I know that at least to some, this is a way of saying, “Look at what a good friend I am, I remembered your birthday!” I hope this topic is something we will explore more in the coming weeks.

Going back to our discussion from last class on defining new media, I was further affirmed by our readings this week that new media, in my recent interactions, is giving users the ability to broadcast their own message. I am more convinced than ever that, at least the way I use it in my own life, new media comes down to one button on my smartphone and computer, the “share” button. In chapter three of New Media Cultures, Marshall writes about McLuhan’s explanation of cool media as, “those that allowed for greater interaction, where the audience as participants completed the form and its meaning.” (pg.31) When I read this, it dawned on me that this could be a completely accurate academic description of both Twitter and Tumbler. Most of the tumblers that I have read or check with any regularity do not even have much original content. They are usually a short two to five second gif file from a show or movie and the author has captioned or titled the file with their own witty comment. They are using the new media outlet, and someone else’s art to send out their own message.