Lister pages 172-184 and my response

I think that online communities can be seen as both empowering and disempowering, depending on how it is viewed. It is seen as empowering due to every user having their own passwords and details so that only they can log in. Certain people are also able to then become someone else through this community, depicting themselves in a way they choose. This notion allows people to feel empowered as they are fooling others or leading others to believe this. This gives people a great deal of empowerment. However, it has been revealed that sites like Facebook and Myspace keep personal details like phone numbers and adresses for years and people from all over the world have access to this. What is empowering about that? Also, the fact that with things like Facebook, people can put photos up or write things about you which can expose you, so again, this is disempowering.

This does mean however, that the net can provide people with a public sphere where they can interact. But with this public sphere, the problem is that people can hide behind a different identity, and who you thought you were interacting with in this sphere, may not be who you thought.

People are able to then produce this culture themselves as opposed to having it supplied to them. But the flaw with this is that the culture must exsist in some form before it can be produced, or people are already demanding it to some extent. This goes back to the idea that media culture is never really new, it always takes some previous form and evolves. So while ordinary Net users can become producers, their role is still mainly a consumer, and are responding to a need for culture.

Into the Blogosphere - Blanchard reading and my response

Blanchard raises many points on the idea of communities and computer mediated communication. I feel that the word community stands for a selection of people who are within a specific area, whether virtual or real, who communicate through various forms. Therefore I believe that this term 'community' is acceptable when applied to virtual worlds. On social networking sites like Facebook, which could be deemed as a community, people interact through pictures, conversations, and leaving personal comments etc. This is the way a community would operate.

The term 'virtual settlement' is an important one when you are considering the concept of a virtual community. Jones stated that in order to understand a virtual community, you needed comprehension of the virtual settlement in which it operated. The way I interpret this is as follows. The word settlement implies people gathering and 'settling' somewhere. When these people are settled, a community can develop. This applies to new houses being built in an area, contestants on Big Brother, and to a virtual community which 'settles' into an area on the net. If there was no settlement, then a community wouldn't develop, so the term is an extremely useful one.

I suppose I have never thought of online interaction as a community, but upon reflection it is clear to see wht it can be seen as being so. A community has events, contrasting characters, those you know well and those you don't, and beyond all, is somewhere you feel comfortable or at ease. If this was applied to Facebook, it is easy to see why it is viewed as a community, although this seems an odd term to use in my view. It could be said that this has derived from face to face interactions, but many people change their identities when online as opposed to face to face, so the two cannot realistically be thought of in the same way.

The term 'Lurker' is one that when thought of as strangers looking at you and your life online, is not only scary, but slightly perverted! Emphasis on slightly!! The term is surrounded with a negative vibe in the same way the word criticism is - people always assume this in a negative context. However when this term Lurker is broken down into meaning, how many of us can say we have never sat in a cafe, looking out the window and making a comment on someone walking past? How many of us can say we have never looked in through an open door or window of someone's house? This is lurking, it is an intrusion or viewing of someone else's life. We all walk around being judged by others, but are fine as we are unaware of it in general. But when it is done online we fret and fear for our personal space. Everyone has a different role within a community and function, so if you consider we as a society are all lurkers in some form, then no one can be booted out or not needed.

We can make assumptions from this of course, as the vast majority of the people were female. But the age was only an average, which doesnt account for the fact that 1 participant might be 14 and another 73. So the ideas and assumptions we make about this community are very broad and vague, sothe identities could be inaccurate.

A community could be seen as a group of people who interact online, as well as depending on what's on offer and what is done with this. Certain people will chose to 'belong' or participate to a certain community due to interests/beliefs and what rewards there are for doing so. It is going to depend on what is on offer that appeals to the user in their eyes, and what benefits they will get out of it. In the eye of the user(S), they will opt to be in a community where it suits them best, as opposed to just selecting an online community to participate in.