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?