Ellison et al’s chapter in A Networked Self discusses the motives behind making connections through social network sites, concluding that offline relationships dominantly make up the online connections. The factors that determine most of the connections include a desire to maintain contact with old friends, acquire more information about those one meets offline, and participate in online communities that represent familiar offline communities, like high school. According to their findings, “We believe the key way in which Facebook serves to support the generation of social capital is through reshaping the social network of individuals and by lowering the costs of communicating with (and thus contributing to and extracting benefits from) this social network” (137). This study presents Facebook in a very positive light, projecting Facebook as something that fills offline social holes and provides a means for people to expand interactions between friends. In my own personal experience, I have found this to be true, particularly with family and friends who live very far. I don’t often email dear friends who live in other countries, and calling them on the phone can be expensive, so Facebook has been very accommodating in that regard.

As I read Ellison et al’s cheery and seemingly accurate study of SNSs, I wondered about the growing number of people falling victim to cyber bullying. The study shows that friending people online is motivated by pre-existing offline relationship – they are already one’s friends and that one has an interest in getting to know them further. The inference of the study is that there is a positive correspondence in these offline/online connections, particularly because of the denotative use of the noun and verb “friend.” However, according to the i-SAFE foundation, “Over half of adolescents and teens have been bullied online, and about the same number have engaged in cyber bullying; more than 1 in 3 young people have experienced cyberthreats online; over 25 percent of adolescents and teens have been bullied repeatedly through their cell phones or the Internet” http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyber-bullying-statistics.html).

Granted, these instances of cyber bullying can happen between individuals who are already friends, and I’m guessing that many instances of bullying are initiated by a falling out of some kind between friends. At any rate, I wonder what the motives behind cyber bullying are, if bullies go online to randomly bully other kids, or if the bullying experience arises from something that started offline. The Ellison et al study would imply that bullying is motivated from pre-existing friendships because those who make friend requests online do so from an already-established offline acquaintance. However, with cyber bullying happening so frequently, it begs the question, does online bullying reflect offline bullying (just as online friendships reflect offline friendships), or is Facebook an easy means for strangers to pick and choose their victims?

In the Burke and Kraut authored piece, we discuss the different users and usages of Facebook. If there are in deed three kinds of social activities that take place on Facebook – directed communication with individual friends, passive consumption of social news, and broadcasting, then I have used Facebook to meet all three of these purposes. I initially joined Facebook for the communication with individual friends and classmates. However, as time passed and I saw how valuable of a networking too Facebook could be, I began to use it more for the other two purposes. It certainly allowed me to consume social news, and broadcast, or better stated advertise my basketball program.  As stated in the article, social network sites foster many types of relationships. It allowed me to reconnect with the high school classmate that I haven’t seen since graduation, but also connect with the high school or AAU coach in Texas who has access to an extremely talented pool of high school players, or meet and have conversation with a person who lives in California but is also a diehard Chicago Bulls fan. My networking in Facebook has expanded way past the typical geographic region or educational circle that it would seem like I should be limited to.

 In the Vitak and Ellison piece, an interesting point was made about how “network composition”, basically the people and networks reprenented in your friends list, can be a barrier to a person’s interraction. As a result, some persons may  not to interact with a particular network. I have faced this dilema a few times, and know people who 1. will not add persons from their employer to their friends list or 2. have a seperate personal and professional page, and will only invite their co-workers to the professional page. This is a solid strategy to maintain privacy, and one that I do not knock anyone for practicing. Of course as stated, the easiest way to avoid this problem is to not post any content that could be deemed as inappropriate for anyone in the network. Of course, there are so many freedom of expression type issues that go along with this train of though…

 Ellison and colleagues pointed out particularly intriguing remarks. Users often connect with people whom they already knew or met using SNS regardless tie strength. Despite its abilities to connect with strangers, people use SNS as an additional communication tool to reinforce existing relationships. It can maintain weak tie that otherwise perish over time and even convert such weak tie to stronger one. Internet and SNS technologies supplement users to accumulate social capital by 1) removing physical and temporal barriers, 2) expanding one’s reach, 3) restricting information flow with access control, 4) managing dependencies, 5) maintaining a history of interactions, and 6) reifying roles or creating a group identity through naming. Vitak and Ellison (2012) also share such similar remark. They suggested that participants of social media, such as Facebook, use the ability to connect with others to maintain and reinforce currently existing relationships rather than acquainting with complete strangers. In that sense, social media are an extension of human communication and network building using a series of applicable technologies.

The advantages of tapping into a diverse network with various individuals were also noted (Vital and Ellison, 2012). Despite weak ties, participants still access vast information even with the inherent risk of privacy compromise and possible contact collapse. Although one may voluntarily refuse to share information and interact with others, the benefits of acquiring vast information from weak ties and highly relevant advises from strong ties are hard to refuse and the potential advantages will likely grow exponentially as technologies advance.

Burke and colleagues (2011) also suggest that SNS have strong potential to influence users’ social capital and the psychological wellbeing. Among three types of social activities—1) directed communications, 2) passive consumption of contents, and 3) broadcasting—only directed interpersonal exchanges were appear to be associated with increases in bridging social capital. Nevertheless, we need to note that broadcasting of messages can be also effective on bridging social capital in a cost effective manner. Given the media multiplexity, it may be effective enough to reinforce message contents in an additional channel.

Unlike traditional computer-mediated communication platforms, social network sites foster many kinds of relationships in varying degrees. Even from passive consumptions of contents, social capital can be gained, and messages can be delivered and reinforced. Since features lowering the barrier for conversation initiation will have positive effects on social capital, various interactions feature of social media can generate positive social capital. Even considering varying degree of interactions intensity, users can be prompted to engage interactions with the display of contents. Also, highly time-sensitive nature of social media content can stimulate communication by connecting prior contents to concurrent communication. Therefore, the potential implications of social media call for more attention. Although SNS can be a flavor for the current decade, it will surely alter our lives, just like the advent of radio, TV, or VHS tape did.

As we all know, social media has become a phenomenon in nearly all facets of society. Whether it be for advertising or personal entertainment, social media has become an outlet or one person or organization to communicate with others. The world of athletics is no exception. However, there is one specific area of athletics that I would like to take a look at – college athletics. Professional athletes first of all, are technically adults who are considered to be old enough to be fully aware of the ramifications of their actions. Secondly, professional athletes to a large degree are their own brand, so their thoughts and feelings are much more personalized. However, it is a slightly, maybe even largely different scenario when you look at college athletes. Not only do college athletes represent their personal brand, but also the brand of an institution of higher learning, one who in all cases looks to maintain a certain level of credibility, distinction and integrity. Therefore, when a student-athlete engages in social media, they are indirectly carrying the banner for their institution, whether willingly or unwillingly.

What role can the university play in an athlete’s decision to partake in social media? Should an academic institution concern itself with the postings on one of its student-athletes? If so, why would there not be the same concern for a non-athlete? Does a university have the right monitor, or regulate an athlete’s social media posts? Does the Constitution protect the athlete’s freedom of speech? What steps have certain universities taken to monitor their athletes’ social media exploits? Do these universities take the same initiative to monitor their own social media usage? And is there any sort of regulation over what a third party decides to post about the student athlete?

Much emphasis is placed on the athlete’s use of social media. In 2011, Ray Fittipaldo of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote an article about some of the steps taken by some of the nation’s NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) Division I (the highest classification of college athletics) programs. While the NCAA itself does not have a social media policy for member universities, several schools have implemented their own policies. As a result of there not being an official policy by the governing body of college athletics, it has given the individual institutions, athletic directors and coaches the freedom to establish their own regulations for athletes’ use of social media.

Some universities have chosen to construct their own policies for social media usage. On the Dartmouth University athletic web site, you can find a official “Student-Athlete Social Media Policy”. This policy goes into effect for a student-athlete upon signing his letter of intent, and any violation of the policy can result in temporary or permanent dismissal from their respective team. 

I tend to agree with the position taken by Eric Stoller in his article written earlier this year. There is a lot of hypocrisy in college sports. This phenomenon of social media is just another example. While coaches have the  freedom to post as they please, the athletes in some of these institutions are being monitored and controlled. I find it very ironic that a young man who is old enough to be drafted into an army to fight for his country doesn’t even have the freedom to use social media without limitations. Stoller challenges these coaches and administrators, and rightfully so. First and foremost, these people are “educators” as he states. Therefore, instead of banning them or limiting their use of social media, these institutions should educate them about the risks and rewards, and how to protect themselves from making critical mistakes in social media.

Also ironic is the fact that the social media that is being banned or has stipulations placed on it for student-athletes is the same social media that many coaches are using to recruit them. As John Talty mentions, not only do coaches utilize social media to push out information about their programs, but also as a valuable recruiting tool. Whereas a coach has certain times known as “dead periods” where phone calls and text messages to prospective athletes are impermissible, there are not yet rules in place addressing a college coach direct messaging a recruit via Twitter or Facebook, or even using Skype to contact a player. Yet, once on campus, the university can dictate an athlete’s use of social media. Something is not right about this to me…

Dartmouth University’s Student-Athlete Social Media Policy http://www.dartmouthsports..com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=11600&ATCLID=205437343

I’m intrigued by the notion of social capital, something I haven’t ever consciously named but think about a good deal. It feels good to hang out with people and socialize regularly. Similarly, it feels good (though in a different way) to interact with fellow humans within digital spaces. Taking these two notions of social capital and juxtaposing them creates the connective line of thought for all three of our readings. What Ellison, Lampe, Steinfield and Vitak begin in “With a Little Help from My Friends,” Burke, Kraut and Marlow continue in “Social Capital on Facebook…” There is great attention given to how online social interactions within the frame of SNSs, specifically Facebook, impact and coexist with offline social interactions. Does Facebook function similarly to a dating site where users meet one another and become friends? Do people use Facebook to support already existent offline relationships? The answer, found by these two articles, seems to favor the latter option, meaning that Facebook exists as a continuation of an already active offline network. Though, two strangers with the same mutual friend can enter into conversations facilitated and encouraged by “broadcasted” posts and become friends.

I enjoyed Burke, Kraut and Marlow’s classification of the three types of social interactions on Facebook: “directed communication, passive consumption, and broadcasting.” Directed communication is the most pointed, and my personal preference for interaction on Facebook. If someone posts “how are you, David?” on my timeline, I will always respond with a private message. Though unnecessary for this kind of simplistic chit-chat, I find the wall/timeline of Facebook a rather impersonal space designed mostly for broadcasting statements and performative/show-off conversations meant for the spectators in your friend list. As for SNSs being opportunities for less publicly extroverted individuals to shine and interact, it seems like an obvious bi-product of this kind of virtual space.

Lastly, I was moved by the approach of Vitak and Ellison’s “There’s a network out there you might as well tap: Exploring the benefits of and barriers to exchanging informational and support-based resources on Facebook.” The consideration of Facebook as a space that allows commiseration among those suffering ills and losses hit home for me. Also, Facebook as a kind of workshop where one can obtain information outside of a limited specialty of interest makes it a great place to exploit “bridging” relationships. The weak links, discussed early on in the class, between nodes can often carry some of the most valuable information since that weaker link represents a connection outside of one’s normal field of “bonded” interactions.

Brian Heslop

10-11-12

Final Paper Abstract

            Separated geographically and by politically-drawn lines, the nations throughout the world have traditionally engaged in conflict through physical interference. Colonization, land disputes, trade-discrepancies, revolutions, and “stone-throwing” among other events have mainly comprised the catalysts for friction and war. However, the influence of the media upon the cultural, ideological, and social domains of society has infused tension among citizens and government leaders as the media more forcefully juxtaposes each country one with another. At the latter end of the 19^th century, newspapers helped excite America to enter the Cuban War of Independence, a dispute between Cuba and Spain that did not concern the U.S. in the least. The Cold War was arguably a war amongst media; efforts to counterbalance the communist-controlled radio and television outlets is evident in the creation of Radio Free Europe. Newspapers, radio, telephone, and television have not only provided a means for conflicting countries to face each other more directly, but these media have increasingly framed the causes of conflict itself.

Now, in the 21^st century, media has become integrated into everyday society in a new way. The internet, social networks, and convergence culture have shaped the nature in which society interacts, thinks, and functions. Given the media’s historic role in discrepancies between nations, what are the affects of new media on an increasingly digital and interconnected world? What new conflicts arise from societies whose laws and cultures collide on a boundary-less virtual playing field?

Such questions have become more and more relevant as we have seen the affects of new media on society unfold. In July 2012, the short film “Innocence of Muslims” was released on YouTube. The film depicts scenes of Muhammad, the founder of Islam and considered a sacred prophet to Muslims. Many Islam scholars believe that visual depictions of Muhammad are forbidden, but the objections of the film are primarily due its inference of Muhammad being a terrorist. When the film was uploaded to YouTube, thousands of people throughout various countries in North Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe began protesting its content. Google’s ‘freedom of speech’ policies came under scrutiny, and the film was taken down by YouTube in some countries or banned through legal action by others.

This episode is one of an increasing number of instances that have emerged due to new media. In 2005, a Danish newspaper published cartoons that depicted the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. Several Danish embassies in Arab nations were vandalized as a result. In another case the next year, the world protested the sentence of an Iranian woman who was to be stoned to death. Iranians who spoke to news outlets in other countries, protesting the woman’s punishment, risked being threatened themselves. In 2010, Terry Jones, a Christian pastor from Florida, threatened to burn the Quran, Islam’s holy book, if the controversial Park51 community center was not moved from its planned location two blocks away from ground zero. His threats sparked outrage throughout the world, even getting President Obama involved. On March 5 2012, the 30 minute film “Kony 2012” was posted on YouTube. The film was hugely popular, receiving 100,000 views within 6 days of it’s release. A showing of the film in Uganda, however, was met with confusion and anger, as many people couldn’t understand why the U.S. would want to celebritize a war lord.

These examples reflect controversies that are catalyzed by new media. Several tensions arise from these scenarios: 1) freedom of speech vs. censorship, 2) the prominence of new media in society vs. previously isolated societies, 3) the policies and ethics that govern new media in one country vs. another, and 4) the control of sovereign-governed countries over a generation of new-media users.

This paper discusses the significance of such tensions as they are discussed in blogs, scholarly articles, and other outlets. Eide et al’s Transnational Media Events: The Mohammed Cartoons & the Imagined Clash of Civilizations discusses free speech theory in the context of the Muhammad cartoons occurrence. MacKinnon’s Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle For Internet Freedom will provide a solid framework by which I can organize the most important components of the juxtaposition of formerly isolated countries, and the repercussions of the growing digital movement. The book Fundamentalism in the Modern World relays how religious fundamentalism functions in a modern global society, particularly through mass media. Other journal articles include “Re-thinking the Cultural Codes of New Media,” “Online Communities versus Offline Communities in the Arab/Muslim World,” and “Political online communities in Saudi Arabia” among others. Finally, I will discuss the importance of the role of communication scholars in this culture clash brought on by the digital movement. Specifically, I will answer the question, “How can communication (particularly rhetorical) scholars provide a means for new-media users to understand the implications of a boundary-less virtual venue, and how can scholars equip these users to engage in productive discourse that may constrain instances of cultural friction?