Sorry if this blog asks too many questions as apposed to evaluating the discussion material. I just wanted to get people thinking in a different direction, since we've already covered a lot in class discussions about online identity and privacy.
We seem to be stuck in the mind frame of evaluating what users of social networks are producing. I think it is more important to look beyond the "social implications" of what people are posting about themselves that may serve as a potential "risk." What are these kids doing on Myspace? How do they get these crazy ideas? What kinds of subcultures are spawning from the so called "Myspace generation" and how is it affecting communication for future generations to come? I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. There are pluses and minuses to every "technological revolution." So what makes social networking important, besides the fact that it is everywhere?
Boyd advises us not to be concerned with these so called risks, and instead looks at why the media has propelled this moral panic about "our children" exposing themselves so freely.
Nussbaum's social networking article took an interesting look at the sociology of the cyber phenomenon. She implies that users are behaving or performing for an "invisible audience." But she also recognizes that most users are careful to reveal or disclose just the right amount of information to interest "friends." Are there any parallels to the same tactics in real life? I believe so. In real life we can "edit" parts of our past and personality and decide what info to share with people that we meet. Social networks allow people to do the same, and beyond. Are users simply behaving as an editing version of their "self" or are they performing as an alternate entity?
No comments:
Post a Comment