Two years ago, a student I work with told me something terrifying. A recruiter at a job fair had told her she’d never get a job without a MySpace page. She wanted to know how I got a job without a MySpace page. I told her the truth: connections. I knew the person that hired me. I’d worked with him before.
“So, you networked,” she said.
“Um… yeah, I guess.”
She explained that this is what MySpace was for: networking. I guess I didn’t get it. And I still don’t. I don’t get the networking value of social networking sites. Social networking sites have given me something valuable: a replacement for my outdated address book, where the entries update themselves and I can always find who I’m looking for. They haven’t replaced much else though, so why are they such a big deal?
Danah Boyd, an ethnographic researcher, just published her essay on class issues in social networking Web sites. First, though, she gives the history. In 2003-2004, MySpace went from being a 20-30-something site to a teen site that helped bands promote themselves. In 2004, Facebook started at Harvard University. Before them, Friendster and other social networking sites could show you who you knew, and who they know (that’s what networking is, right?). MySpace and Facebook took off because they had plenty of space for the users to talk about themselves. The theory is that you can list your favorite hobbies, or movies, or books on your profile and make friends with people with the same interests. It doesn’t work that way in practice though. Most people just write about themselves. These sites are called “Social Networking Sites,” but very little social networking really goes around. I can list my friends and you can list yours, and if we have friends in common, it will tell us. But how is that really changing anything? Are we meeting new people? Are we finding people with similar interests? Aren’t these things we could do before the Internet? And was it better then or is it better now? It’s pretty much the same, only now, we’re not always sure who we’re meeting.
I don’t know if this is true for everyone, but I’m not exactly the same person on the Internet that I am in real life. It’s not like I’m really a middle-aged man from Indiana in real life, but I’m less polished in person than I am on the Web. The Internet affords one luxury of communication you don’t have in person: time. I have time to cleverly concoct and assemble my lists of likes and dislikes for my social networking profile. It’s like writing your resume. You get to work on it for months, and your interview might last 10 minutes. Even though I’m not any smarter, I sound smarter on the Internet. But if people were trying to network with me based on my interests, they might be out of luck. Sure, my Facebook profile may list my favorite movie, but you know what? I lied. My favorite movie is “Caddyshack”; the profile says it’s “The Royal Tenenbaums.” “Tenenbaums” is one of my favorite movies, so it’s not an entire untruth, but it changes my entire online persona. Stoned frat boys like “Caddyshack,” but cool people like “Tenenbaums.” Did I do this consciously? Kind of. I thought of the movie that would give me something in common with the people I know. But was it the Internet that influenced the decision to fib? Kind of. If I was at a dinner party with my hip, educated friends, I probably wouldn’t admit to be the type of philistine that enjoyed the story of golfers and an overzealous gopher. At a sports bar with my college-football-watching friends, I wouldn’t admit to being the hip poseur that likes “The Royal Tenenbaums.” Everybody fibs. It’s like that saying; On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. On the Internet, nobody knows you’re not cool.
And that’s the draw. That’s the attraction. You can talk endlessly about yourself, and make yourself so cool. And that’s also exactly why these sites aren’t promoting networking. People are all too busy making themselves look cool, and showing their intelligent and fascinating interests and hobbies, great photos of themselves where they look thin and pretty, and listing how many friends they have. The features that made MySpace and Facebook popular (photo sharing, detailed personal profile pages, etc.) are the exact things that are preventing people from meeting anybody new. The social networking site is the new Narcissus’ pond. Let’s try not to drown ourselves.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
media journal
For a course I took last year, my book was Media Journal by Joseph Harris, Jay Rosen and Gary Calpas. I try to keep my books after courses are over, in case I need them again. Some I never kept because I knew I'd never keep them. I kept this one though, and I'm glad I did. Over the (very) long weekend, I found a few essays that went along well with the th, butemes in this course, and I'm going to post about each of them.
First, M. Kadi's essay "The Internet is Four Inches Tall," (reprinted from h2so4 issue 3), explores the concept of the Internet being somewhat like the Emperor wearing no clothes. It's this big, shiny new toy with plenty of possibilities, but the biggest one, at least now, is commercial possibility. First it's about the commercial situation of charging for the access. Then it explores what you're paying for. Back when this was written, in 1994, most of it was bulletin boards and chat rooms. Her final decision is that the Internet, while it has bells and whistles and speed, is still just another way of transporting information, which so far, isn't anything new.
I like this in relation to the Mythinformaiton essay. We aren't really connecting. We just have another tool to communicate, but it's not like we have new things to do. This really will play into my upcoming commentary essay on the pros and cons of social networking Web sites. Basically, through my research and experience, I'm compelled to say yes, we are somewhat cheating ourselves out of "human" experiences. And maybe someday, the amount of Facebook friends you have will change the way you live. I have 151 Facebook friends. I'm not on MySpace. But I'm not really friends with most of these people. For instance, only 2 or 3 could I call and ask to go to the movies with me. Or to help me move or anything else vaguely friend-like. I'm "networked" to them. I mean, it's a pretty good way to comprehensively list my acquaintances (or those that are on Facebook), but there's not much qualitative information there. Someone I've known and been close with almost 8 years is on the same level with someone I met once 3 years ago.
Ok, next essay. This one, by Andrew L. Shapiro, titled "Street Corners in Cyberspace" expands on the notion that the Internet provides a uniqueness that the user wants. "Don't like antiabortion activists, homeless people,news reports about murders? No problem–you need never encounter them," he writes. This is spot on. The Web is so customizable, and it's so easy to only get what you want. For instance, I personally subscribe to several RSS feeds. I have The New York Times arts section and BoingBoing. I also have The Onion, and the NYT front page. But it would be just as easy to ditch one and keep the other.
He uses two phrases I like: Cyberbia and Cyberkeley. These are the terms to juxtapose the Internet that's full of home shopping and advertisements vs. the Internet that's full of really intelligent information. But people in the middle, the street corners, are where there's a possibility for real growth and interesting developments on the Web.
There's a lot of interesting things out there, but I'm finding a lot of the same theories echoing over and over. I'm wondering if I'll ever find something different. Maybe it's trendy now, like it was a few years ago, to brag about hating television, or it being worthless. Maybe just right now, the trend is to discount the Internet as worthless. There are certain television shows right now, though, that prove there are dynamic, innovative and amazing minds out there creating them. Maybe it'll just take time for the Internet to come that way.
First, M. Kadi's essay "The Internet is Four Inches Tall," (reprinted from h2so4 issue 3), explores the concept of the Internet being somewhat like the Emperor wearing no clothes. It's this big, shiny new toy with plenty of possibilities, but the biggest one, at least now, is commercial possibility. First it's about the commercial situation of charging for the access. Then it explores what you're paying for. Back when this was written, in 1994, most of it was bulletin boards and chat rooms. Her final decision is that the Internet, while it has bells and whistles and speed, is still just another way of transporting information, which so far, isn't anything new.
I like this in relation to the Mythinformaiton essay. We aren't really connecting. We just have another tool to communicate, but it's not like we have new things to do. This really will play into my upcoming commentary essay on the pros and cons of social networking Web sites. Basically, through my research and experience, I'm compelled to say yes, we are somewhat cheating ourselves out of "human" experiences. And maybe someday, the amount of Facebook friends you have will change the way you live. I have 151 Facebook friends. I'm not on MySpace. But I'm not really friends with most of these people. For instance, only 2 or 3 could I call and ask to go to the movies with me. Or to help me move or anything else vaguely friend-like. I'm "networked" to them. I mean, it's a pretty good way to comprehensively list my acquaintances (or those that are on Facebook), but there's not much qualitative information there. Someone I've known and been close with almost 8 years is on the same level with someone I met once 3 years ago.
Ok, next essay. This one, by Andrew L. Shapiro, titled "Street Corners in Cyberspace" expands on the notion that the Internet provides a uniqueness that the user wants. "Don't like antiabortion activists, homeless people,news reports about murders? No problem–you need never encounter them," he writes. This is spot on. The Web is so customizable, and it's so easy to only get what you want. For instance, I personally subscribe to several RSS feeds. I have The New York Times arts section and BoingBoing. I also have The Onion, and the NYT front page. But it would be just as easy to ditch one and keep the other.
He uses two phrases I like: Cyberbia and Cyberkeley. These are the terms to juxtapose the Internet that's full of home shopping and advertisements vs. the Internet that's full of really intelligent information. But people in the middle, the street corners, are where there's a possibility for real growth and interesting developments on the Web.
There's a lot of interesting things out there, but I'm finding a lot of the same theories echoing over and over. I'm wondering if I'll ever find something different. Maybe it's trendy now, like it was a few years ago, to brag about hating television, or it being worthless. Maybe just right now, the trend is to discount the Internet as worthless. There are certain television shows right now, though, that prove there are dynamic, innovative and amazing minds out there creating them. Maybe it'll just take time for the Internet to come that way.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
sorry
Sorry for the lack of posts. I was out of town with my family for a bit. They're still dealing with stuff about my granddad's estate. It's kind of a nightmare. But, as I am trying to keep out of personal stuff in this school blog, I will refrain from giving you the boring, inane details.
Regular posts will return tomorrow!
Regular posts will return tomorrow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
