Week 10: The Virtual Community

“The richness and vitality of computer-linked cultures is attractive, even addictive”.

A quote from Howard Rheingold’s The Virtual Community, that quite aptly I found, summed up this reading for me. Rheingold talked about his experience of participating in the online community of WELL (Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link), and how he’s seen it grow from a community of barely a few hundred members in 1985, to more than 8 thousand in 1993. He talks about the way virtual communities have become a part of his life, how it’s put him in touch with people from all over the world, and how the virtual world has transcended into real life for him. Stating how “people in virtual communities do just about everything people do in real life, but ‘they’ leave their bodies behind”, Rheingold goes on to discusses society’s uses for virtual communities and why it has become such a phenomenal part of society.

Some discussion points:

In the reading, Rheingold came across as somewhat of an addict to his virtual communities to me. He mentions how he can spend all day at his computer and his family has gotten so used to it, it’s even normal for him to be laughing and swearing at his computer as if he were talking and relating to an actual person in the room. He seems to be more towards, in his words, “living a life that does not exist outside a computer”.

As virtual communities expand and more people become drawn to them, does it have a negative impact on society? For example, are people cutting away that real space and real-life touch of human relation, and turning it all virtual?

Rheingold made me think of how in offices these days, colleagues sitting next to each other don’t open their mouths to speak, but instead sent an msn instant message and say “Lunch time, let’s go!”. Has it gotten to a point where virtual reality beats human communication, human real life relations?

On the other hand, does communicating via virtual communities honestly help you, and is it exactly the same as communication in real life?

A good example of this point would be this unit’s blog. Being virtual gives you the opportunity to be the person you want to be, the opportunity to think before you speak. In class we might have had the fear of speaking up in case we said something out of context, or get laughed at, or had simply feared being shot down by another classmate or the teacher. This illustrates Rheingold’s idea of virtual communities changing our experiences in the real world; we become more articulate and confident of our views and opinions through this veil known as cyberspace.

Works the same for guys trying to chat up girls I guess. Though I don’t actually have evidence per se, I’d say it’d be easier for a guy to approach a girl online and strike up conversation – where he can plan his right words with his possie of friends and gather the confidence he needs slowly – than if it was in real life. Virtual and real life – sets quite a different stage.

What are your own experiences with virtual communities, and do you think virtual communities are positive or negative upon our society?

I find Livejournal to be a great site for communities that flourish. Like how Rheingold described finding WELL to be like “discovering a cozy little world that had been flourishing without me, hideen within the walls of my house”; so I felt the same when I first joined Livejournal. I was part of a shopping/trading community based in Singapore – I actually recognized or knew some of the people I met online here. I was part of a music-sharing community, they were as good as having Limewire; every music need I had, they provided. I enjoyed the pockets of people who all shared the same interests as me; it was like having instant friends!

I believe virtual communities are positive; they can exist in correlation with real life communities. It shouldn’t be a case though, of real life communities diminishing while virtual ones increase. I agree with what Rheingold said about there being a “hunger for community” in people, but disagree on the stance that more and more informal public spaces are disappearing from our lives. There are shopping communities out there, people who’d exchange movies or programmes with you out there. We just need to be out there looking for these public spaces, not cooped up in front of our computers all the time. It’s something easier said than done at this time and age, I know... convenience and wariness make it hard to do so I’d guess. But I don’t think that it’s impossible. People can and should learn how to converse naturally again.

Week 10: Why Youth ♥ Social Network Sites

I found Danah Boyd’s article to accurately cover many important issues surrounding a relatively new social phenomena- social networking (MySpace, in particular) Boyd begins by discussing the logistics of the MySpace profile page- a user’s personal homepage which includes pictures, lists of interests, friends and comments. She notes how friend lists allow users to surf from “Friend to Friend to Friend” (p6) in an endless network, which she says can become both a source of entertainment and motivation for social voyeurism.

The issue of online visibility really alarmed me and got me thinking. Boyd says, of MySpace: “friends are publicly articulated, profiles are publicly viewed, and comments are publicly visible” (p7) The article describes how what would have previously been private messages written between two friends (such as “I’ll meet you at the movies at 7”) are instead written in a public space- as a publicly viewable “comment” on MySpace (or alternatively-a “testimonial” on Friendster or a “wall post” on Facebook)

It makes me wonder what our motivation is behind such actions? There are private messaging facilities available on all social networking sites, yet users still choose to post messages of a personal nature in a public space.

What are your thoughts on this?

An important part of the article is that in which Boyd discusses the difficulty involved in defining “public”. She talks about how “the public” can be read as synonymous with the “audience.” but she is careful to point out that there is not “the public” (one public). There are multiple publics, separated by social contexts, so we must talk about “A public”. (p7) The public on MySpace is what Boyd defines as a networked public because its members are bound together by technological networks (p8) Boyd also notes that a networked public is actually a type of mediated public.

Networked publics are special because of four properties…persistence, searchability, replicability and invisible audiences (where the infinitival nature of the audience means that we can cannot know WHO might come across our expressions in a networked public space) (p9) There are no geographical /temporal constraints on networked publics (p9)

I found it important that Boyd pointed out the fact that MySpace is primarily used to strengthen, enhance and maintain social action between already existing friendships. Boyd describes in detail the steps a teenager typically takes when joining MySpace. She talks about how the creation of an online identity is a highly important and premeditated step to take. Boyd notes that more often than not, a newcomer to MySpace will first examine friends, and friends of friends’ profiles, to work out the social conventions of online identity (i.e. what is acceptable/unacceptable, what is cool/uncool) Profiles can then be created and manipulated in order to create an online self.

A central idea which Boyd revisits throughout the article is that of impression management- the way in which people use “contextual cues from the environment around them” to gain an understanding of which behaviour is and isn’t appropriate. She notes this process as vital to socialization into society, and is in no way limited to the offline sector, it is also highly applicable to the building of a “digital body” or identity. (p12)

Boyd discusses how on MySpace, friends are connections, and a friend network displays these connections to everyone for scrutiny. “ For better or worse, people judge others based on their associations” (p13). The article describes dramas that are common amongst teens which emerge out of the “Top Friends” feature. I think it is important to note that online and offline are inherently and inseparably linked. Online actions can translate into real life fights/dramas.

Finally, the article had a strong focus on privacy, which is necessary in a discussion of teenagers online. However, I found Boyd’s take on privacy problematic. In my opinion, it seemed to be based too much on the child/parent privacy issues, and gloss over the child/predator privacy issues.

In her conclusion, Boyd makes the point that parents, as adults, must allow teenagers to “ make mistakes and learn from them” in public life (and in a networked public)(p22) Of course I understand that Boyd is suggesting a supportive parenting approach rather than a restrictive one, but I must confess that in my opinion, online mistakes and offline mistakes are very different things. And as social networking is a fairly new social phenomena, a lot of these “mistakes” are ones which teenagers and adults alike are not fully prepared to handle. I don’t disagree with Boyd’s conclusion, but I find her manner of brushing over the seriousness of the issue of online bullying, child predators etc slightly difficult to swallow.

Any other opinions on this?

Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article in depth :)

A further question to consider from the reading: What is consumerism’s relationship to angency in online participation on social networking sites? (adapted from p5)

All quotations etc taken from:

Boyd, Danah. (2007) " Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life." MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning- Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Week 10: Theres No Place Like Myspace…..

So, just separately from my core post, I thought it would be interesting to test out Danah Boyd’s theory that

“ In essence, MySpace is the civil society of teenage culture: whether one is for it or against it, everyone knows the site and has an opinion about it” (Why Youth ♥ Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life, p3)

As most of us were highschool/teenage aged when MySpace was released, I wanted to test this, and find out whether, in fact, everyone knew of/ had an opinion about the site. Furthermore, I thought it would be interesting to find out which of Danah’s categories of MySpace users/non-users did you (or do you) fit into if any ….

1. MySpace teen

- those who sign up, create an online body/virtual identity and participate in a network public

2. Disenfranchised teen

-those who don’t have a MySpace Account because of lack of internet access

- those who don’t have a MySpace Account because the only internet access available is at school/public places where social networking sites are off limits

- those who are banned from the site by parents/guardians

3. Conscientious objector

- those who refuse to sign up in a protest against the corporate ownership of MySpace

-those who respect or agree with the moral/safety concerns of parents

-those who either feel not cool enough (maginalized teens) or too cool for these sites (Boyd,p3)

I will answer my own question by saying that in highschool, I was definitely a MySpace lover/addict (but have long since abandoned it for the new social networking mecca-Facebook) In parts of the reading I cringed a little, for it reminded me of my former self !

Have some fun, I would especially like to hear from those who fit into category C :)

Boyd, Danah. (2007) " Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life." MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning- Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Week 10 - A Rape in Cyberspace.

The virtual community of LambdaMOO has an intense reaction to the cyber-rape of several characters by Mr Bungle. Although this story seems to unfold in a world far from ours in the reading A Rape in Cyberspace by Julian Dibbell, I found the links to the real life or ‘RL’ eerie and disturbingly close to home. Although the rape only happened to two characters, the emotional and ethical repercussions begin to concern the majority of the cyber community of LambdaMOO. Amongst the outrage, there are also several groups willing to let the matter slide in order to preserve the freedom of cyber communities. A freedom which is censored within RL. Dibbell says the rape is “Ludicrously excessive by RL’s lights, woefully understated by VR’s.”(p203) which shows the exact reason for our hesitance towards such on-line crimes. This is where the gap between the real world and cyber clash within the undefined structure of technological existences and intermingling.

Dibbell highlights the effects that cyber culture has on its real life participants. Legba, a participant of LambdaMOO cried at her computer as she posted her reaction to her cyber rape, calling for “Virtual castration”(p203). When discussion arises as to what punishment should be handed down to Mr Bungle, it comes about due to the fact that cyberspace and real life cannot be separated. Without even realising it, our ideas about cultural ethics cross into our social environments on the web. The link between both is together a blessing and a curse. It allows us to perhaps use our cyber culture as a tool to enhance our real life experiences whilst simultaneously creating the same rules in cyberspace that hinder our ultimate freedom in the real world. The gap between the virtual and the real is the critical problem we face when blogging, facebooking or walking within these online communities. Do we resolve tensions through applying the same rules we have in the real world?

It is also important to note through Dibbell’s reading that although “LambdaMOO has never been the same since…nothing’s really changed”(p210). Many issues can be raised from ‘The Bungle Affair’ such as the intensity at which issues online are raised and then evaporate. It is also interesting to note that even though Mr Bungle was ‘toaded’, he was still able to return as another character, rendering the online judicial system somewhat of a farce really. The threat of the rape is still ultimately there, yet virtual time, and perhaps the virtual community, has healed and learnt so fast that blocks have been put in place to prevent it happening again. Viewing this from afar, we could say that perhaps the community system in cyberspace is more effective then a judicial system setup like in RL.

The cyber community of LambdaMOO, unlike the real world, is segregated over the rape. There are many justifications, approaches and arguments from groups such as the ‘technolibertarians’, royalists, parliamentarian legalists, anarchists and even a strong female participant response over how to deal with the rape whilst maintaining the freedoms of cyber space. Which group would you belong to and why? Do you think that actions performed online, such as the cyber-rape, should be punished or is it simply a consequence of the freedoms of cyber culture?

Week Nine: Pranking Rhetoric

Culture jamming, according to Harold, is ‘an artful proliferation of messages…which challenges the ability of corporate discourses to make meaning in predictable ways.’ However, Harold distinguishes between parody and pranking.

Pranking, Harold’s preferred method, can be viewed as the adornment and folding of texts. The goal is not to create a new meaning, but to challenge the idea of meaning itself. A good example of this is the Biotic Baking Brigade, which threw pies into faces of famous people it considered to be promoting questionable values (such as capitalism). The act in itself did little to challenge norms, other than that of authority.

In contrast, parody aims to change things in the name of a presupposed value. A successful example would be Adbusters' 2003 campaign to sell the ‘ethical’ Blackspot sneaker as an alternative to Nike. Here, Adbusters drew on the presupposed value of fair labour to challenge Nike’s use of sweatshops. Parody can also be successful in ‘rebranding’ products. Brands aim to associate themselves with concepts: for Nike, these may be freedom, or discipline. Instead, Adbusters attempted to associate the Nike brand with unfair labour.

Harold criticises parody because it fails to challenge the hierarchy of language and all its binaries. However, I believe that this is a positive thing. All texts and authors (including culture jammers) are socially, economically and politically situated and thus have their own biases. Trying to pretend otherwise would be counter-productive. Presenting parody against corporate advertising, I believe, allows the audience to arrive at their own ‘truth.’ This works in a manner similar to our adversarial court system. Hearing binary arguments does not prevent the reader from choosing a middle ground.

Like advertisements, subvertisements rely on existing norms and values. The fashion industry associated the norm of beauty with its models and clothes. Retaliating, subvertisements used commercial rhetoric to associate the industry with unhealthy choices. Adbusters featured a model vomiting into a toilet. Recently, Dove launched its Campaign for Real Beauty, appropriating the norm of natural beauty from subvertisements in order to sell its beauty products. Should the norms of the advertisement be celebrated, or is it even more dangerous than other commercial advertisements? Unlike pranking, parody is open to challenge.

Another example of parody moving into the mainstream was ABC TV’s Gruen Transfer, which dissected various advertisements. It aired subvertisements (such as anti-tourism) and encouraged critical engagement with culture and advertising. For example, in ‘Consumer’s Revenge,’ users are invited to mix their own advertisements.

Do you believe that parody or pranking is the more successful method?
Does the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty make you uncomfortable, in that it is ‘hijacking’ parody for commercial purposes?
Can culture jamming make a real difference?