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.