Social Media Pressure

Knowing your audience is something I have always been aware of growing up in the performing arts world. That being said, I agree with the authors Marwick and Boyd’s article, “I tweet honestly, I twee Passionately” and the discussion of the unknown audience social media has created. 

Like most new beginnings in life such as going on a first date, job interview, first time playing a new sport, society always tries to hide their flaws. Social media has made it easier for people to put out their “perfect” versions of themselves on the web for friends and family to see.  Now, from what I have observed watching friends and family on the web people seem to think twice before posting an opinion on a political statement because of the fear of being ridiculed by their fellow social network community. In my opinion such a common fear as an individual not posting there believes or moral values on the web because they do not want to offend or be made fun of, takes away that individuals voice and right of expression. I am not saying that this form of self-censorship is a bad thing; some people need to think before some questionable posts. However, I do see a trend from social media acceptance correlating with the need for instant acceptance in the outside world. As a result of this trend I have seen people disregarding subjects that were once very important to them all because of how they think their audience will perceive them.

Then again the user does get to choose who is allowed to follow them, well at least the social media platform facebook allows friendship requests. Although, for such media sites like twitter, it does cause a problem for the user especially if they have celebrity statues and have to be extremely careful with what they decide to post to the public. Take Jimmy Fallon for example. He has a huge twitter following, well at least in my opinion he does, anyway because he has such a big following with such a diverse group it can be very difficult for him to say what exactly is on his mind. Which is why he uses twitter as free advertisement for his show Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.

Even though you know your friends and family on social media you never know who else can be viewing your post. So, my question is since social media has allowed people to show what they believe is a perfect version of themselves, can this trend cause problems for society in the future when the need to speak against an important issue arises? 

Politically Correct Tweets

Although I am new to Twitter, I can relate to and understand Marwick and Boyd’s discussion of audience in the social media realm. I have used Facebook since 2007 and my idea of who “my audience” is, has changed drastically since then.
    I would argue that everyone using social media, whether it is Twitter or Facebook, tries to put their “best self forward”. We post our likes and dislikes, our favorite bands and movies, all in order to give off a certain image of ourselves.  (See #25) We decide against posting about controversial ideas because we don’t want to upset certain groups or people who follow us. I know that I think about my audience on Facebook, without even realizing it sometimes. Is this post going to upset my aunt Jan? I know my friends at work will think this meme is hilarious...These are some thoughts that might cross my mind before posting something.  Marwick and Boyd believe that “Self-censorship can be a useful technique in the face of an imagined audience that includes, parents, employers, and significant others.”  What you choose to post online is partly decided by the people you allow to follow you. What are you comfortable with them reading or seeing? “Social media participants are far more concerned with parents or employers viewing their Twitter stream than a complete stranger.”
    But we also know that when we post something, it has the capability of being seen by more than just your “friends” or “followers”, but we still do it. There isn’t any stage fright when it comes to expressing yourself in front of all these people because you can’t see them. You can only see your imagined audience, which includes your 654 friends, and probably more specifically the ones you interact with online the most.  
    Jodi Dean says the “ideology of publicity is valuing whatever grabs the publics attention”. Although I cant speak for celebrities on Twitter, I know that sometimes I post statuses/articles/videos on Facebook, already knowing exactly which people on my friends list will have something to say on the subject matter. I am strategically posting to a specific part of my imagined audience; Instant gratification in the form of a notification or retweet. While I don’t personally understand the hype of Twitter, the person with 100,000 friends would probably use this kind of strategic posting in order to gain and keep as many followers as possible.
    So, are people exposing the “real me” on Twitter and Facebook? Or are they posting the ideal version of themselves, who are politically correct and strive to make their audience happy...

Pseudonymity

Danah Boyd’s article "'Real Name' Polices Are an Abuse of Power" points to the issue of pseudonymity and its conflation with anarchic anonymity, where those without boundaries (i.e. social stigma associated with one’s public persona) will turn to frothing at the mouth and laying waste to common decency. What Boyd counters with, and with which I very much agree, is that pseudonyms allow for people to hide, and ultimately counter, those very attacks of the frothing masses, which Facebook has proven time and time again are not afraid to use their real names. I think Google, and especially Google+, are founded on the idea of consumer interactivity, where ads can be targeted to a person’s name and interests. And because it exists under its own Terms of Service (free of pseudonym-friendly Google tech like Gmail or Youtube), they are free to do such a thing, though it might hurt their PR in the wake of Facebook’s acceptance of nicknames.

The anti-bullying stance cannot be ignored in this conversation, and important in weeding out potential victims versus aggressors under their own pseudonyms. Rather than laying blanket statements on the needs and intents of a social media site’s population (looking at you, Randi), the communication between user and producer needs to become stronger, so that they understand why we want to use pseudonyms, and we can let them know when pseudonyms are being abused. Is Google, as a singular entity, not a pseudonym for the abusive power of its creators and other faceless organizations ready to gain from this policy? Does this not force us to be consumers and not just people? What might happen if they started treating us like people-- yes, even the ones named "timidboy12"?

What Google might consider doing, especially with its innovative design, is to create a function where one can privately arrange and identify under one gmail account the various pseudonyms he or she goes by to different groups. The discourse might revolve around what Google can know about you regardless of what is posted publicly, but it might be the start of a new phase in outsourced communication, where one can more easily float between personalities without the psychological break between sites and selves. In this way, Google+ might create a new valid way of sharing and assimilating identities unmatched in other social media markets, and a step in creating an overlap between these personalities when an individual is ready to do so.

Must our online identities be real?

So the idea of creating and maintaining online identities as well as the term "networked self" means a whole lot of different things. As we have all experienced our online identity is closely linked to our social life, employment and even education but these identities are pretty malleable. While we can represent a “real” or public version of ourselves we can also create identities, join communities and interact with others using and identity that might not be the same as they way you identify offline. I think one of the most important and interesting aspects of online identity is being able to build a secondary representation of yourself and I think the debate on whether or not people should be able to act anonymously online or need to use their real names in order to use internet services is incredibly important to the way that we interact with web 2.0.

I found the Danah Boyd blog assigned resonating when we think about representing yourself with alternate names. She mentioned ways that people use pseudonymity to protect their public selves. What I took from these cases is that these secondary personas allow us to explore our identities, especially aspects that might not go over so well in public, aspects relating to politics, sexuality, and other more taboo subjects as well as being able to protect ourselves in a way that isn’t possible offline.

While I think that Boyds article really does the best job expressing why it is important that people aren't required to use their real names online this article expands on examples of people using pseudonyms or writing anonymously.

Theres another side to this of course that deals with the dangers of accountability in anonymity. It seems that while there are benefits to participate with online identity attached to a real person, its hard to make sure these people are accountable.

I understand why facebook and google might want you to use your real name (some of their thoughts on the matter can be fleshed out here, because they want to be able to hold someone accountable for their actions. But should this mean that we have to use our real names online? I don't think so. Our first amendment rights protect our ability to speak freely and anonymously and in addition to that I think the idea that anonymity can protect a lot of people who really need a safe space far outweighs the dangers of anonymity online.

“Not everyone is safer by giving out their real name. Quite the opposite; many people are far LESS safe when they are identifiable. And those who are least safe are often those who are most vulnerable.”

So I wonder what you guys think? I know there are dangers of people writing anonymously online, and there might be more examples of those dangers, but to me Boyds ideas about real name requirements actually hurting people who are marginalized outweighs the dangers, do you agree?

Glee Fandom and Twitter

            I have only seen the show a few times and though I do find it creative. I just don’t understand how viewers can get so attached to characters from the show that would compel them to create twitter character accounts of the shows main characters, and create their own personal narratives separate from the show. I guess that is because I have only been recently introduced to twitter and the social environment it creates for users. I find it honestly puzzling that some users post anything that is on their mind and having that info assessable to fellow friends and followers at any moment. With that being said. Society can see that producers and other television shows are taking advantage of this media tool to bring viewers back to the television set to keep ratings from falling to sites such as: Netflix, Hulu, and Couchtuner that allow viewers to watch their favorite shows at any given time.

            The article, “Glee Fandom and Twitter: Something New, or More of the Same Old Thing”, by Wood and Baughman talks about the ups and downs with fandom in media. In the article it is explained that this new idea of social role-playing is helping television broadcast ratings by motivating viewers to watch their favorite shows the day they air, in order to participate with their fellow role playing twitter members. Another plus for fandom is that even after shows have stopped airing the fan base can still continually grow from one generation to the next just by users seeing others members role playing post on social media. This brings a whole new group of viewers and possible money making opportunities for shows that have been off the air for years. One of the most popular examples of this in my opinion is the Trekkies. Even years after the show has stopped airing there are yearly Star Trek conventions and that thousands of fans attend connecting with fellow Star Trek fans around the world.

            Now the main issue with Fandom is that with millions of users posting their own thoughts and narrative stories, it causes a lot of confusion and anger between fans and new follower.  For instance, say someone who has never seen the show before decides that they want to join the new television crazes. By the time they decide to start watching so many spoilers are on the web that the new viewer can’t enjoy what they are watching thus, resulting the new viewer to move on to another show. So, even though many viewers like taking part in Internet communities does Fandom help television shows gain more viewership or hurt them? 

Gender Trouble

In Tanja Carstensens’ article “Gender Trouble in Web 2.0: Gender Relations in Social Network Sites, Wikis and Weblogs” Carstensen states that some of the main issues with web 2.0 is if feminist ideals are as equal to masculine ideals in today’s social and blogger sphere world? With these new technological advances has it made an impact with identity in social media? Is it harder to tell if someone is really who they say they are?

                  In the beginning of the article it Carstensen states that with the amount of research that has been involved in the understanding of gender equality in this cyber world that women are viewed differently depending on  the age group. Though, the internet has been labeled as a man’s domain girls in their late teens to early adulthood actually participate in more social networking than the men of their age and therefor have a major tool for voicing their opinions and making a stand for gender equality.    

                  Now something that had made national attention in 2010 about a major issue with gender identity on the web was the movie, Catfish. Now a regular seasoned show, Catfish introduced to the general public that you can’t always believe what someone post on the web about their gender. The premise of the whole thing is to point out that social media, even though it has brought society a great amount of resources, has also given people the ability to play out alternate lives with other users on the web. I find this personally as frightening information. I’ve always known that I should always be careful about what kind of personal information I put on the web but, just the thought of starting conversations with people and believing them to be who they say they are only to find out it is all a lie physiologically terrifying.  I know one can avoid such a misfortune by only talking to people who you actually know personally on the web, which is how I go about my social media. Yet, there are still thousands of people who just don’t seem to understand that just because someone says they are male or female it isn’t always true.

                  That brings us to another issue in society; homosexuals in social media. It is true that on some social media sites they only allow the user to state if they are male or female, or interested in men or women. Specifically with these kinds of social media sites we can only see what the webpages wants us to see, which blinds us from the actual truth. Thankfully this is not the case for all social media site especially Facebook and MySpace which allow the user to say, “Not sure” or even for relationship statues, “complicated”. So my question is even though some social media sites allow multiple identities for users to access will we ever be able to differentiate someone’s identity on the web honestly? 

Sorry guys, I was having technical difficulties getting these blogs up...

Fandoms Infiltrated by Producers

Personally I don’t get the hype behind Glee, it’s not really my cup of tea. That being said, I completely understand Glee fans partaking in fan fiction, live tweeting and role playing centered around the, BEST SHOW OF ALL TIME. Television shows that run for a long time gain huge followings that feel personally connected to the shows. Trekkies have their conventions, Buffyverse remains loyal to their slayer during this sparkling vampire epidemic, and Friends fans continue to quote Chandler and Joey in their everyday life. With more recent shows like Glee and The Walking Dead, fans have taken to their social media accounts to prove their loyalty, and producers have noticed. 
    Wood & Baughman’s article, “Glee Fandom and Twitter: Something New, or More of the Same Old Thing”, examines how these role playing fans are tweeting in real time as the show is on air. This helps broadcasters ratings by forcing fans to watch the show live, in order to stay up to date with their fan communities online. “Those participating in or following these tweets as they happen are more likely to (actively or passively) watch commercials, giving marketers a better opportunity to sell their products to these kinds of viewers.”  Are these fans a source for free marketing labor?
    The Walking Dead has gained a large fan base and its marketing campaign focuses on the popularity of twitter hashtags. When watching the show, commercial breaks start with a hasthtag “#itsrainingzombies” representing what just happened on the show.  Thus telling fans to use this hashtag to connect with other fans through twitter, but only if they’re watching live, otherwise the hashtag would be old news. “The content of transmedia texts are embedded with marketing strategies, wherein the goal of the producer is to expand the audience experience, resulting in more consumption overall.” The Walking Dead is using the participatory culture of fans to promote and enlarge their growing fandom, and it's working.
    Wood and Baughman say “Fan cultures are shaped (and their practices reshaped) by the combination of television and the Internet.” Is television going too far by asking us to participate in a “two-screen experience LIVE” where fans can interact and take polls...which will in turn be used to better market to them in the future?

Wikipedia, where the ladies at?

The study about gender on Web 2.0 brought up a topic that I consider to be one of the more relevant issues regarding the equality of women on and offline, the extraordinarily low number of female wikipedia editors. As of 2011 nine out of ten wikipedia editors are male and there are two main reasons that I find this important, both reasons a little cryptic, but never the less important.  First of all, it means that there must be a gender bias a dominant information source and secondly it indicates that there is a major difference in the way that men and women participate in Web 2.0.  

While I hate to quote an entire paragraph I think that this interview with Sarah Stierch, a Wikimedia Fellow gives several examples as to how this difference effects information on wikipedia: "Whether small things like women’s movies, fashion, makeup, or things that are extremely critical to women’s lives, like abortion, pregnancy, feminism, motherhood, these [articles] are being written by majority men. The arguments taking place on the talk pages are being dominated by men. So the content, the images, etc. are coming from a primary male point of view. That automatically causes a systemic bias, even if all these editors are working in good faith and aiming to be neutral in their contributions."

I think its pretty clear that a gender gap can seriously effect the type of information we receive online, (not to say that there isn't a gap in textbooks, newspapers and journals, but thats another discussion altogether) however I'm more interested in why women don't edit. 

This blog Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, is worth a read. It cites comments from women about why they don't edit on the site. Their reasons range from being uncomfortable with the user interface to to disliking the conflicts and arguments that come along with many edits to simply feeling that wikipedia has a misogynistic environment.

So what does this mean for Wikipedia? Ultimately I'm not sure. Historically information has always been pretty male dominant so in context Wikipedia isn't all that different from information we've been receiving all our lives. But it also seems to me that Wikipedia strives to be a revolutionary source of information and I'm going to go ahead and assume that because of this it is important to represent gender equality in their information. 

So I ask, what can be done to change this? What are other consequences of a male dominated online culture? Should this be regarded differently than gender inequality in offline society?

The idea of gender equality in online information seems to be very sticky, and imposing, hard to answer and of course essential to gender equality in society overall. 

Digital Gatekeeping

In Watkins’ article “Digital Gates: How Race and Class Distinctions Are Shaping the Digital World” the author displays evidence that illuminates how class and cultural divisions materialize in the realm of social media. Truth be told, while Watkins does have a plenty of work to back up his assertions, I was sold on the concept before the data was ever shown. While my personal experience may be less scientifically reputable it nonetheless offers a subjective window into how the scenario developed in my school and social circle.

Though I was still in high school when Facebook opened itself up to all users with an email address, the networking site still held a more prestigious allure to it than Myspace, more specifically because of who was using it: the upperclassmen. Where on Myspace I stayed relatively contained within the friend circles I had created in the physical world, Facebook was more of a dossier of connections. The inherent association of college and achievement turned it into a secret club of sorts. Few from my grade had one yet, but all of the seniors did, and adding them gave one an in for real life social interaction. 

Of course this did not last long. Once everyone had a Facebook it lost its allure considerably, to the point where there is even a backlash of people removing themselves from it. While users leave for various reasons, I think modern flights to and from these communities are more indicative of two human characteristics interacting: the desire for community in combat with the fear of the other.

At Facebook’s inception it was sold on its exclusivity, a community of people with likeminded goals and attitudes that offered a digital “gate” that kept out undesirable persons. In this way the people using Facebook fall into the danger of self reinforced ideals of normality. When a large percentage of a population is excluded, one can very easily subscribe to what they consider “true” ideals without ever seeing the converse opinion. This holds true even in anonymous communities, where even though a centralized user image is lacking certain groups are still ostracized and demeaned for straying from a broad and widely accepted social paradigm. 

However to say this is Facebook’s fault is to be technologically deterministic. It might be more accurate to say that if a user has this tendency to defend their fragile perceptions by easily blocking out the noise of others, they will more than likely do it. What then does that say about the future of thought and argument in the digital age? One can not always avoid the confrontation of ideas in the physical world. Now, you can silence the speaker at even the hint of an upsetting opinion. 

But what do you think? Are exclusive digital communities ultimately reinforcing long held beliefs at the expense of creating understanding among disparate parties? Is the flight to and from sites just another means of individualizing one’s self?  

A New Age in Privacy Control

The formative years spent in high school and college is a collage of ideologies and personalities and faces. Kids meet in the cafeteria and bars, develop relationships, create dialog, and in that time develop their own personalities. The basis for social media sites like Facebook and Twitter (of interaction, usually age-appropriate) has been the structure of the American grade school lifestyle for generations. Social media has given these human interactions a webpage, this much is obvious. More telling is the onscreen presentation of these ties and interactions building and falling apart in real time.

Mary Madden’s research for Pew Internet Project observes different age groups in managing the privacy settings on social media sites. Young people made up most of the users on social media websites, and were also more likely to delete content they posted or untag themselves from pictures. All users were more likely to restrict access to their profiles (58%), with women more likely than men to do so (67% vs. 48%).

Why are young people more prone to using social media, and why are they deleting their stuff more than other age groups? There are a myriad of reasons, but the simplest is: they were born unto cyberspace. Facebook is about to turn ten, and a bunch of fresh faces came of age in the social media hailstorm that followed. Where once people could learn basic social behaviors on the playground, which includes saying the wrong thing in front of the wrong group of people, they now must contend with the “permanent” marks left by virtual text. Word of mouth becomes Shared posts. 

Choice words that could once float off into the linoleum halls on a huff of teen angst, perhaps jotted into the margins of binders the world over, could now sit and stew in the online, public/private forums that people map out for themselves. Staring at a screen and feeling something, reacting to it alone (no matter how many people you’re contacting at once), is much different than the face-to-face interactions that create precedent for one’s actions and others’ reactions. Their personalities and ideologies shift from year to year, so these “profiles” become daily relics of a past that is updated by the minute, but can be commented on well into the future.

More pertinent questions to the findings however, and one I fear I am too removed from to accurately comment on, are: why are women more likely than men to shield their profiles? Is there a through line between privacy settings and the disparity in gender-specific harassment? Is it just harassment from men, or perhaps targeted bullying from other girls? Does the content posted by women negatively affect them more in the future in regards to seeking employment than when compared to men?

Also: why would media users with the highest levels of education report the most difficulty in managing the privacy controls on their profiles? Is this a matter of “time spent on _____” in comparison to those NOT being schooled, and perhaps have more time for “social media distractions”? Could it be that more education raises more concerns, and so controlling privacy becomes a concern to the educated folk who are confused as to why the privacy controls can seem underdeveloped?