My thoughts on social networking sites, and user generated content

Im Afraid to say that I too have been caught up in the craze that is the social networking websites. Facebook is perhaps the biggest form of procrastination in my student life. My experience of it is good overall, the site offers me what i need, it allows me to express myself, comment on others, and often be reminded of the night before. And prompted when certain events are happening so i know what's going on. It is fair to say that it started off as a 'thing to do' and has now become an addiction where i find myself updating my status at least once a day if not 5. I have never viewed it as an online community untill i began this blog, but I still see it as a neccessity and a great form of communication and expression. I like the fact you can chat with people, and write things on their wall and even do a bit of 'lurking' on what friends and family are up to! Not that this is cool, but we all do it! We seem to now be in the post modern stage where if you don't have Facebook, you are out dated and 'uncool'. It is the norm to use such sites, due to a desire to be conneced and informed.

Due to this rapid increase in social networking, many critics have had many opinions and views on the effects they have on society and the impact on individuals. A 2008 book published by Forrester Research Inc. titled Groundswell builds on a 2006 Forrester Report about social computing and coins the term groundswell to mean "a spontaneous movement of people using online tools to connect, take charge of their own experience, and get what they need-information, support, ideas, products, and bargaining power...from each other."

I thought I would highlight the positives and negatives as I see them of Social networking sites.

Positives;
- CMC can allow relationships to develop and communication to be possible at any given time.
- Buinesses are opting to use social networking sites and layouts as it is a good way to advertise their product.
- Social networking allows us to identify and connect with friends and strangers while on the go. Such computer mediated communication also allows us to reconnect with friends from the past whom we may have lost contact with.

Negatives;
-Employees are now more likely than before to carry on inappropriate conversations at work. Communicating through such technologies creates a relaxed feeling in a professional environment. Some messages that should be relayed in person are being sent through the computer.
- People's details are exposed on the web for all to see.
- People can change their identity and be someone they are not.

I predict that social networking websites will continue to rise in popularity, as the internet becomes more available worldwide.

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.

Facebook and social networking

I think that Facebook has proved so popular because when it became available, it was 'fresh' and new. I agree that it follows all of the same concepts as previous social networking websites, but at the time Myspace was becoming dated, in my view, and Bebo has never really appealed to the masses. Facebook became a cult craze, and word spread fast about it. Within 2 years, I think it will have lost some of its appeal, unless it finds a way to reinvent itself, in the same was tv has with digital.

I agree that many people represent themselves in a way they want others to view them, not neccessarily how they actually are. I know people who will untag themselves from pictures so they are not embarrassed or family members dont see them etc. But I sense that some people are more comfortable in this environment. For example, people will talk freely on Facebook, be keen to speak and share things, but in person are quiet and are completley different. This concept of 'other' identities and representations are prominent in all areas of media. In magazines, photos tend to be immaculate, in tv, presenters are always done up with make up etc. We live in a world where we are all too keen to see others embarrassed and shamed, as long as it isnt ourselves. Facebook is a prime example of this.

selves and others online, and Facebook

Facebook has shot to prominence within the last 2years. It is described as a social networking site. It enables people to communicate in a variety of ways, like Facebook chat, sharing photos and videos, and people can comment on what others have said, in a similar way to blogging. People often express themselves through the status bar, in which people write any feelings and emotions, or simply what they are up to at the time. People add friends, relative and colleagues, and then have access to their profiles. The main type of people on Facebook are young people. I am friends with fellow students, school friends, cousins and work colleagues, which enables me to easily communicate with people from various parts of my life. People tend to present themselves as fun and outgoing judging by their status' and comments. My favourite thing about Facebook is the fact it tells you when other peoples birthdays are, which helps me remember, plus it provides me with a cheap way to say happy birthday! For those without Facebook, here is a link. http://www.facebook.com/. The site is structured with lots of different applications, such as photo albums, a personal inbox and a public wall for friends to write on. People only have full access to your account if you accept them. There are so many ways you can communicate, which is why Facebook is so popular. It takes on similarities to other social networking websites like Myspace and Bebo, so users are easily familar with the structure.

selves and others online

The internet certainly offers the chance for people to express themselves in ways they wouldnt otherwise. There has been much coverage in recent years about people who become someone else when they are online. On Channel 4 recently there was a documentary following people who spent their entire days logged into cyber sites, and virtual world websites. These include sites like papermint.com, which encourage people to create themselves in computer form and communicate with other users online. This is seen as unusual, and the more contemporary and popular forms of social interaction are sites like Facebook and Myspace. These allow people to share thoughts, feelings and photos etc. It allows people to show their character, show others photos and videos of events they have been at, and write about common interests and show personal relationships and chat to friends. The obvious ciriticism with this is that people can tamper with their identity, change characterisitics, and manipulate others into thinking they are someone else. People can hide behind a virtual character, which presents a problem to others. For me, the game The Sims is what has provoked this trend in virtual games and sites. Does anyone agree or disagree?

Emails certainly take on the idea of previous communication methods. They are written in a certain way, often formally when it is business related, and conversationalist when it is too a friend. Emails appeal to a vast majority of people as they follow on from a previous form, which enables people to pick this up easily. The only change in language has resulted by consequence of 'text' talk from mobile phones. But, in relation to Bolter and Grusin's theory of remediation, new media forms certainly take on a previous form and adapt into what is percieved as 'new'.

The purpose new media serves in society and its benefits are unquestionable. They certainly enhance the things we do in the sphere of society; things like online shopping, and banking make money and suchlike accessible in an instance. Having elderly grandparents means thy struggle to shop for themselves, so ordering food to their door is a huge help. Our ideologies as a society have adapted to this idea. Many were wary about leaving and giving personal information online in the form of adresses and bank details, but despite many problems still occuring, people opt to use the internet in this way due to it being convienient. New media is thusfore viewed as both a progress and as a hinderance; many use it for business, shopping etc, but when it goes wrong, new media is criticised. But the ideology of society is that whatever its flaws, new media and technology are necessary and ultimately symbolise progress.

Robins viewpoint is not necessarily arguing against there being new technology, but he feels it will amount to the same as all other new forms; an apparent integral role in society, which we are all subject to needing. Growing up as a kid and not having a Gameboy made me adrift from others, due to the capitalist view that all kids should have one, and you were 'different' if you didnt. This is certainly applicable to mobile phones in contemporary culture. I beleive we are governed by a techno-capitalist society, where a growing majority will buy because it's new, and depend heavily on technology. The 'newness' of media is unquestionable, as every new form does something new or is entirely original. Robins is arguing that these new forms serve to simply further strengthen our techno-capitalist society.

New media and the concept of it began to thrive in the 80's, resulting in a hype which has surrounded it ever since. In all social contexts, the 20th century moved into a world that thrived and almost depended on technology. To keep up with this trend institutions and companies aimed to sell high amounts to consumers through new media forms, such as DAB radio and digital tv. For me, the debate which surrounds upgrade culture is this; is it the consumer market that demands these new and innovative meduims or is it driven by businesses with financial motive? I think itis both. Businesses like BSkyB know there is a demand for services and their product, so will produce it at a price to suit them. Consumers are seemingly prepared to pay anything for an upgrade in exsisting media forms. Media has to update itself to continue to be in high demand and 'fresh'.