Week 5: "Vital Signs of Life" or Maintaining Visibility on the Social Stage

For this week’s blog I went under investigation of the social networking site Friendster. According to Donath and Boyd (2004) social networking sites create a network of personal connections in which their network of connection is displayed as an integral piece of their self-presentation. After creating my own personalised profile I put Donath and Boyd’s theory into practice. Why do people display their social connections in everyday life – and why do they do so in these networking sites? I think every user creates a profile to self publish themselves to build and gain potential networks. The reason why people do this on Friendster, Facebook and MySpace is to publicise themselves whether they admit this or not. What do people learn about another’s identity through the signal of network display? According to, Donath and Boyd “The public display of connections can help verify that you are who you say you are. But it can also help someone else establish that they are you, too” (2004). Referring to online identity representations, a public display of connections is an understood confirmation of identity. People learn and discover that the identity of a person is reliable through the predictions that can be made about the effect of a public display of connections. Anyone, who has a social networking site, is aware that “one’s connections are linked to one’s profile which they have presumably viewed and implicitly verified” (2004). Therefore, through the signal of network display one learns that the identity of a person isn’t fraud and in fact a true representation of their online identity.

Reference List

Donath, J and Boyd, D. 2004. Media and Communication: Public displays of connection: BT Technology Journal. Volume 22 (4): 71-82. (accessed March 26, 2010).

Week 4: ‘MyFace’ or “Do you know what I did 5 seconds ago?”

'Social networking' refers to individual use of new media for socialising. Huberman, Thompson and Rosen all convey that social networking websites for example 'facebook' function like an online community of internet users. According to (Huberman et al. 2010) a standard definition of a social network represents the notion of all the people with whom one shares a social relationship. However, in reality those of you who own a Facebook or MySpace will know that not everyone will interact with every person ‘listed’ as part of their network. “One important reason behind this fact is that attention is the scarce resource in the age of the Web” (Huberman et al. 2010). Huberman defines a user who is engaged in their life, with many daily tasks and a large number of social links. The user is more inclined to interact with those few that matter in their network and will reciprocate for their attention.

In reference to Rosen, she points out “that Today’s online social networks are congeries of mostly weak ties – one who lists thousands of ‘friends’ on MySpace thinks of those people in the same way as he does in his flesh-and-blood acquaintances” (Rosen 2010, 19). Rosen reasons that perhaps we shouldn’t be asking how closely are we connected? Rather what kinds of communities and friendships are we creating? To answer that question, I would agree with Huberman in that the kinds of friendships and communities we are creating are the ones that we have previously formed. By using social networking sites we are maintaining and nourishing relationships by how much attention we will reciprocate with each ‘friend’ we have in our established network. With saying that, social networking does have room to build upon new ‘friends’ by accepting them into our networks. As Rosen draws to our attention “our need to believe in the possibility of a small world and in the power of connection is strong, as evidenced by the popularity and proliferation of contemporary online social networks” (Rosen 2010, 19).

In this week’s KCB201 tutorial the class created weak and strong networks. This activity was a hands-on workshop which opened a greater understanding of what Huberman intended; users who engage in their own life with a large number of social links are more inclined to focus interest on their ‘friends’ who matter most in their network.

Reference List

Huberman, B.A. Romero D.M. and Wu, F. (2009). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday, Volume 14, Number 1.(accessed March 19, 2010).

Thompson, J.B. 1995. The media and modernity: a social theory of the media. The Self as a Symbolic Project. Polity Press: Cambridge, 209-219. (accessed March 19, 2010).

Rosen, C. (2007). Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism. The New Atlantis, Number 17, Summer 2007: 15-31.(accessed March 19, 2010).

Week 3: Branding Me: Viral Marketing, Buzz & Word-of-Mouth

Entering the realm of virtual environments we are posed by millions of online identities also known as "Avatars." Avatar - you may immediately ask the blue alien like creature from the James Cameron hit Blockbuster? Well yes and no an Avatar is an online identity a personalised character representing them in their virtual world.

According to Cooper (2007) the ability to communicate more freely is one of the main attractions of virtual communication. “On the one hand participants feel more able to express themselves away from the immediate judgement of personal appearance and status. On the other, are they talking to other people or just their online persona? Do people act differently online and offline?” (Cooper, 2007). Cooper points out two notable questions and queries which I put to the test. This week I created my very own Avatar using Meez a social entertainment leader combining avatars, web games and virtual worlds.

I constructed two avatars in a social and professional surrounding. With Cooper’s theory in mind, these questions were brought to my attention.

Are there substantial differences between my professional and social avatars?

The only significant difference between both my Avatars are dress; business dress opposed to casual attire.

To what extent do my avatars represent my ideal self?

I don’t think that either of my Avatars represents my ideal self. I found it difficult to personalise my Avatar looking similar to my own appearance. The soft ware was pretty straight forward – being half Asian I couldn’t find features that best represented mine so I found this difficult.

How conscious am I of wanting to manage the impression that I would make with the social avatar?

I found this interesting as when creating my social Avatar I was aware that other people would be judging my Avatar and I wanted to make an Avatar that was true to my own self in a way that was likeable to other online identities.

Reference list

Cooper, R. (2007) Alter Ego: Avatars and their Creators.(accessed March 12, 2010).

Kirby, J. And P. Marsden. 2005. Conclusion: the Future of Connected Marketing in
Connected Marketing: The Viral, Buzz and Word of Mouth Revolution. Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann: 267-274.(accessed March 12, 2010).

Week 2: "Let Me Entertain You": the New Media Amusement Arcade

One of the first questions asked when referring to New Media: ‘what qualifies as new media?’ or more favourably ‘what is new about new media?’ According to Levy (2006, p.25) “the ideas of defining oneself by what you listen to isn’t exactly a new concept.” Levy adapts the functions of the iPod as a tool for socio-cultural exchange “because the iPod amplifies such concerns in the media and in Web sites like Myspace.com... we seem to be immersed in an age of musical voyeurism” (Levy 2006, p. 23). The underlining question is what would your music playlist or library says about you? “Obviously, exalted status comes from cool music libraries” (Levy 2006, p.23).

With iTunes each music library distinguishes an individual as different types of people ‘the thinking person, a discerning individualist, a lover of fun or a blender of high and low culture.’ McLuhan (1965) examines the ‘medium is the message’ that the personal and social consequences of any medium is an extension of our self. “For the ‘message’ of any medium or technology is the change if scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs” (McLulan 1965, p.8).

Another form of entertainment that makes similar connections to what Levy and McLulan discuss are the relations between identity, reputation and social capital is the iPhone. The iPhone is a form of new media which has used ‘convergence’ in a form of combining three different devices all in one: a revolutionary mobile phone, an iPod and a breakthrough internet device. The iPhone is a form of ‘mass communication in the way the content of communication message is carried’ (Turow 2009, 3).

The identity of the iPhone is stylish and sophisticated and has made a new era in Apple technologies, Apple’s reputation has exceeded since the iPod’s first release date in 2001. Ultimately, the social capital for the iPhone has revolutionised modern society since the first release date to date.

Reference list

Hormby, T. (2007). A History of the Ipod: 2000 to 2004. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from
http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/origin-of-the-ipod.html#0

Levy, Steven. (2006). Identity in Levy, Steven, The perfect thing: how the ipod shuffles commerce, culture and coolness, New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, pp.21-41. (accessed March 5, 2010).

McLuhan, Marshall. (1965). Chapter 1 : The Medium is the Message in McLuhan, Marshall, Understanding media : the extensions of man, New York: McGraw Hill, pp.7-21. (accessed March 5, 2010).

Turow, S. (2009). “Understanding mass media and the importance of media literacy,”
Media Today: An Introduction to Mass Communication, New York: Routledge, pp. 4-37. (accessed March 5, 2010).