I knew the day would come: I've received my first real robot-spam on Facebook just a few minutes ago. Funnily enough, I was just this evening writing about Facebook's slippery history with fucking over it's core users- ever since the News Feed was introduced in the fall of 2006, followed by the site opening its doors to everyone, including third-party developers and advertisers, and of course we can't forget Project Beacon- in my thesis.
The Spam:
The struggle to effectively communicate one's "true" self is not particular to online social networking; rather, the tension between one's inner sense of self and outward portrayal of that self had been a subject of concern in Western culture long before the advent of the Internet. From the dawn of recorded language, Plato spoke of the "great stage of human life." If, as Shakespeare mused, "All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players," then what happens when the curtains close and we go backstage? In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Erving Goffman (1956) elaborated upon this dramaturgical approach in crafting a sociological theory that has come to be known as "symbolic interactionism." Once backstage, "the impression fostered by the presentation is knowingly contradicted as a matter of course (112)." From the symbolic interactionist perspective, one performs a certain role on the public stage that is often subverted in the private sphere ("backstage"
. This private sphere allows for a more "truthful" performance of self, but is nevertheless still a performance tailored to a specific audience. The question then becomes: may one understand the "true self" when no audience is present?
Paul Ricoeur, an eminent scholar in the field of hermeneutics and phenomenology, challenges the notion that the self is transparent to itself. Rather, he theorizes that the hermeneutic self is revealed to that self through the 'other'- immediately and directly through two interlocuters. Furthermore, this face-to-face, intersubjective encounter is a relation that is "invariably intertwined with various long intersubjective relations, mediated by various social institutions, groups, nations and cultural traditions (Kearney 2004: 4)." One continually attempts to define the self as an individual with a unique "personality," however this process is itself co-constructed through one's everyday interactions with others as well as the subjective appropriation of various cultural markers of identity. From this perspective, online social networks mirror the process by which individuals construct their identities by extending interpersonal communication and providing fields in which they may articulate their cultural tastes and group affiliations.
Yesterday, the Facebook team announced their plan
to help users battle "application spam," describing recently-added
features they've added that many of you should find pretty appealing.
It's a good thing, because the bevy of e-mails and invitations I've
received in the past few months has been a real turn-off for the vast
majority of "veteran" users. High school students and MySpace converts
enthusiastically SuperPoke one another, adorn each others' profiles
with "Graffiti," and rank the "Hotties" amongst their Friends
(capitalized because Friendship on online social networks is quite
distinct from friendship). Other Internet enthusiasts and thinkers
promote charitable organizations, ask Questions of their profiles'
visitors, and incorporate their various online presences (on MySpace,
SecondLife, Twitter, etc. However, those who've been with Facebook
since the beginning (older college students and recent alumni) have a
very different relationship with the site. Sure, we may SuperPoke and
turn you into a vampire every once and awhile, but for the most part,
Facebook serves to keep in touch with college friends scattered across
the globe, see what's come of our high school classmates, take
nostalgic journeys through the hundreds of pictures tagged with our
names (de-tagging when appropriate), and keep our various networks of
old friends informed about our post-college lives.
When Facebook began allowing anyone and everyone to join the site back in 2006 and added the News Feed, thousands of college students virulently protested: some quit the site completely, many joined Facebook Groups protesting the move, and practically everyone I know complained. In response, Facebook added a slew of privacy features, such as Limited Profiles (which I use liberally) and News Feed controls. With the advent of Applications, a similar wave of protest made itself evident through such groups as "fuck off... i don't want to be a pirate/vampire/werewolf/zombie." Nevertheless, the number of Application exponentially increased, growing increasingly manipulative and tricksy. Many applications, particularly quizzes, practically force users to invite friends in order to see their results, resulting in the rise of groups protesting viral applications. Once again, Facebook has responded.
Here's a run-down of the new ways you can control your "Application-Spam:"
1. Block Applications instantly. Now, when you get an invitation for the latest useless, viral Application, you can check "Block Application" directly within the invite. Nevermore, you vampires and zombies! Go bite someone who cares!
2. Clear all "Requests." I'm not the only one who simply ignores every invitation sent my way, allowing them to build up steadily on my homepage (currently, I have 64 pending invitations). Why spend the energy rejecting every single invitation? You can be sure I'll be clicking the "Ignore All" button (located on the "Requests" page, at the top) as soon as I finish this post.
3. Applications must now inform you ahead of time if you're obligated to invite Friends in order to get information or access content. It's so very irritating to spend 15 minutes filling out a quiz, only to be told afterwards that you must invite Friends to see your results. Sneaky Applications are no longer allowed to do this.
4. Forcing users to send Invitations is no longer allowed. Did you install an Application, only to find yourself forced to send invitations to your Friends in order to use it? Report it by clicking "This Application is forcing me to invite friends."
5. Opt-out of e-mail sent by Applications. New Requests will automatically present you with this option, and you can control e-mail sent by Applicatios you've already installed by going to the "Edit Applications" page.
6. Help Facebook weed out the garbage from the good stuff. Getting a lot of e-mails from one of your Applications? Mark it as spam, and Facebook will take note. Did an Application break the rule I mentioned in #3? Go to the App's "About" page and report it to Facebook.
Though it took them awhile to get around to it, I must commend Facebook on once again listening to their users and providing tools for protection against this latest version of viral marketing. Now to spread the news and help empower you Facebookers out there!
Several months ago, someone told me about social networking sites
that function as matchmaking tools for arranging marriages- a cultural
practice that is common for nearly half the world's population,
including India, China, and Indonesia, as well as Hindus, Muslims, and
Buddhists. In a fit of brainstorming for my next research project, this conversation came to mind and I quickly discovered Shaadi.com,
an Indian version of an online dating site. Curious, I filled out a
profile of my own to see what kinds of categories one could choose
amongst for self-representation.
Well, first of all, it's clear that most of the profiles on the site are filled out by parents, who are traditionally responsible for the search for and approval of potential husbands and wives. Among the more salient identity markers are Religion/Community (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Buddhist, Jewish, "No Religion," "Spiritual- Not Religious," and "Other), Education, Profession, and Lifestyle (diet, smoking and drinking habits). Arranged-Marriages are ideally between two members of the same caste or sect, and Shaadi.com certainly covers the gamut. Potential matches are also frequently judged by education level and profession, as well as the aforementioned "lifestyle habits," which are heavily informed by religious beliefs.
A few other things I learned about while creating a profile on the site:
• The alignment of the stars at one's birth determines if a person is a Manglik, and Shaadi.com inquires as to one is. In Indian astrology, Mangliks are destined for difficulties in marriage. In order to balance out these negative forces, it is often suggested that a Manglik marry another Manglik, based on the idea that two negatives make a positive. Astrology in general is quite important for many Indians, especially Hindus, when it comes to marriage, and Shaadi.com users may incorporate a variety of astrological readings in their profiles.
• Like pretty much every social networking site, one can fill in an open-ended "About Me" box. However, on this site, there is also a significant section called "About My Family." Shaadi.com offers a few pointers for users filling out this section, the first of which suggests describing the family's outlook and approach towards life. Early on in the registration process, one could select whether her "Family Values" are traditional, moderate, or liberal. Clearly, the degree to which one's family embraces more traditional or more liberal attitudes and values has a significant effect on the matrimonial process.
•
Admirably, the site also inquires about users' HIV status. Though
figures place the percentage of HIV-infected people in India at a seemingly minute 0.36%,
with the country's enormous population this amounts to between 2
million and 3.6 million Indians living with HIV. While there is some evidence that the rate of infection is currently declining, likely due to successful prevention and awareness campaigns, there is also plenty of evidence
to the contrary. Given the rampant fear and stigmatization of
HIV-positive individuals in communities everywhere, marking oneself as
HIV-positive on the site likely drastically reduces one's chances at
finding a spouse. However, as with both Mangliks and "Special Cases,"
another profile category wherein one can indicate mental and/or physical
handicaps, the site makes finding others who share their "condition" a
much easier process in many ways.
This semester, I am taking only one class as I complete my graduate thesis, the last class I will ever take at Wesleyan: Nationalism and the Politics of Gender and Sexuality with
Professor Kauanui. Like most of the classes I've taken, I'm to
conduct a semester-long research project, giving me the opportunity to
conduct another mini-ethnography related to online social networking.
As such, I'll be regularly posting my most pertinent and interesting
findings. Stay tuned!
Both MySpace and Facebook have become important sites for political campaigning. In 2006, Facebook launched a feature called Election Pulse, enabling members to indicate which candidates they support, learn about and discuss political issues, and gauge how candidates are faring among Facebookers through polls organized by state. MySpace, in turn, recently launched Impact Channel, fulfilling essentially the same functions as its Facebook counterpart but reaching an even greater audience. Furthermore, the Channel is heavily video-oriented, featuring a series of dialogues with the candidates in collaboration with MTV Networks. Visitors to the site are able to submit videos of themselves asking questions of the candidates, promoting a sense of being directly involved in political democracy. Similar collaborative endeavors between network television and online social networks include the YouTube/CNN presidential debate in June of 2007 and the Facebook/ABC presidential debate in January of 2008.
As the 2008 presidential election approaches, candidates have been rushing to capture the elusive yet desirable youth vote. Unsurprisingly, the Democratic party has been considerably more effective with its use of new social media to drive campaigns. In a recent CNN article, a Republican pollster is quoted as saying: "Our party is really behind in learning how to maximize this and use it to our best benefit. We were very proactive in learning how to use talk radio. When it comes to the Internet, especially social networking sites, we're really behind.” On MySpace, Barack Obama leads the popularity contest with over 240,000 Friends- not counting the thousands of friends who link to alternate Obama profiles created to represent each individual state in the U.S. His profile consists of a regularly-updated blog, YouTube videos of his past speeches, links to further information, photographs, podcasts, and various buttons linking to his other “online habitats” on sites such as YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
Such practices serve to humanize politicians and breach the disconnect felt by voters, and are particularly oriented toward the purportedly politically apathetic youth generation of the United States today. Members of online social networks, in turn, have begun utilizing the sites to display their support for particular candidates on their profiles (much like bumper stickers), research and discuss political issues, and run local campaigns in the form of Groups. For the record, I support Obama. And Kucinich.
A repost from my other blog, WebnographY, where I track changing attitudes and past research on online social networking. I thought it a pertinent topic for Iggli, as well. Enjoy
The following was initially a comment on danah boyd's recent post discussing Facebook's "slippery slope" of betraying its users, most recently with Project Beacon. Please share your thoughts if you have them!
"Trusting
Facebook users" are generally older folk- I think they're more open to
publicizing their online profiles because they're seeking to make
connections, they're gaining from the public exposure and excited by
all the novel possibilities. My ethnography of social networking sites
primarily re/presents the voices of college students- particularly
veteran Facebook users. The site started out as being a great little
niche environment, so people could exchange intimate messages and
upload photos from that crazy party where everyone was on a ton of
drugs and so on. Then it opened up, everyone was pissed, and that's
when attitudes toward Facebook started to shift.
Most
first-generation Facebookers have some degree of distrust/disgust for
the site, often a great deal of it. Yet they continue to use it because
it's become so firmly integrated into campus social life- it's a way to
easily invite people to parties and share photos from said parties, to
visually organize one's social network and keep track of alumni and old
high school buddies, to find out the sexuality or relationship status
of that boy you've been admiring from afar. It's crucial. If you're not
on Facebook, you're going to be somewhat out of the loop.
Such
important social practices generally take precedence over the egregious
invasions of privacy that most are highly suspicious of. The trend is
not abandoning Facebook- it's far too useful. However, the site's
reputation is definitely tainted, and some Facebookers are using the
site to form or join groups that promote awareness of Facebook's
privacy policies and petition for change. Most, however, are simply
becoming more savvy and protective of their online personas; it's
become increasingly common for me to be unable to access the profiles
of those I'm not friends with because of that practice. Others have
simply taken to deleting much of their profiles, leaving just an e-mail
address, a witty or ironic comment, and maybe a funny picture. There's
also a huge trend to apathetically accept that nothing can be done
about it, much like how a lot of young people feel about our government.
Again,
these are just observations of the changing attitudes among a specific
subset of Facebook users. They know what's going on (though I would say
that only the Tech-savvy blog-readers have even heard about Project
Beacon- but they know their information is being used for capitalist
endeavors), they're disgruntled that so much of what they do on
Facebook is publicly broadcast and forever archived. Regardless of how
they talk about it, however, they're still using it regularly for
everyday social practices. For many, it's become as habitual to check
Facebook as it is to check e-mail.
For the past two years or so, I've been conducting field research on
online social networks (MySpace, Facebook, and Tribe.net in
particular), and am now in the midst of writing up my
ethnography/thesis (tentatively titled "Webnography: An Ethnography of
Online Social Networks". Hopefully, by May I will be once again
walking to a podium, this time to receive my master's degree in
anthropology from Wesleyan University.
Cyberanthropology, as it's often called, is a relatively new field. Nevertheless, I'm entirely overwhelmed by the vast amount of information and research available online. For those interested in the field, I've put together a fairly well-organized assortment of links to past studies, pertinent blogs, and must-read books on the subject. You can get to it by clicking here.
I
chose to conduct my research in an area of human life that I felt I was
already a part of. I've little desire to study the "exotic other," as I
believe true knowledge starts with an intrinsic understanding, which is
then expanded through conversations with others, situating the topic
within the broader context of history and philosophy, and engaging in
dialogue with other researchers of the subject. While there are empirical studies out there, my own research is anything but. The only true claim to authority I have is over my own experiences.
"Language is a virus from outer space."
-William Burroughs
In the words of Marshall McLuhan, "the medium is the message". In other words, we're not really saying anything new - how could we? What is changing, however, are the tools for communication. Each new medium takes on qualities of those which came before it, and extend our possibilities for communication. Thus, in the case of communication on the Internet, we experience the permanence and distantiation from time and space that print media has allotted for, as well as the immediacy and convenience afforded to us by the telephone. We are furthermore enabled to broadcast ourselves in a way that television could never quite encompass, even with "reality" programming. Unlike any previous private communications medium, our experiences on the Internet are enhanced by images, video, and sound.
"Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories."
-Laurie Anderson
Perhaps the greatest danger to writing about the Internet is that of technological determinism- the belief that technology determines
changes in society. On the contrary, societies develop technologies
that are always being shaped by the culture they're embedded in. We are
not a society being altered through our technologies- rather, we are
human beings engaging in the same activities through the use of
evolving tools (hence the "campfire" metaphor, above). The modern age, however, has arguably transformed humankind's way of thinking and perceiving in ways that have yet to be fully determined. Understanding where we are, where we've come from, and where we are going is an important endeavor, I believe, if we are to understand the implications of modernization and the future of this planet.
Over the past few months, I've been discovering ways in which the
dead live on on the Internet. The project was a rather emotional one; I
was besieged by the guilt of voyeurism, morbid late nights spent
transfixed by the raw humanity of it all, and at times so overwhelmed
by the heartbreaking significance of remembrance of the deceased that I
could not hold back tears. What follows are bits and pieces of the
final research paper, entitled Online Social Networks As Vehicles of Individual and Collective Remembrance. The full paper can be found here, if you're interested!
This past winter, my grandmother was
diagnosed with the cancer that led to her eventual death the following
spring. A devoted mother of 14 children, they together grappled with
many difficult spiritual and medical decisions throughout her illness.
One evening, I witnessed firsthand the incredible unity and strength
that comes about in the toughest of life’s challenges, and the capacity
for technology to extend our possibilities. Ten of my aunts and uncles
took part in a conference call to discuss plans and options: my mother,
a nurse, gave medical advice; my uncle Joe, manager of a medicinal
supply company, arranged the delivery of a special bed; my aunt Mary,
who works for an insurance company, discussed insurance options; my
uncle Jack, a devout Christian, had been researching spiritual healing
centers; my grandmother herself interjected often with words of love,
faith, and strength. However, it became apparent to me that some voices
were not being heard, and my father later commented on the high expense
of conference calls. Fueled by a desire to help, I realized that I
could tap into my specific area of expertise, online social media. In a
matter of hours, I set up a public wiki and encouraged my family
members to write in the communal blog, help in the creation of an
extensive address book, and arrange visits on a digital calendar .
The wiki was quickly adopted by a substantial majority of my
family, including the many out-of-town grandchildren. It became a
source of ongoing updates about my grandmother’s condition, and the
calendar proved particularly useful for organizing a continuous stream
of visits and appointments. When she passed away this past spring, my
family continued to regularly update the blog with tales of their daily
struggles, fond memories of the past, inspirational quotes and Biblical
passages. They also posted photographs and videos. The site became a
living memorial in some ways. Fundamentally, however, the wiki remained
a tool for ongoing communication pertaining mostly to present
circumstances, as well as a convenient address and phonebook. For the
past six months, it has been the source of daily updates about my
grandfather and his care, my grandmother’s presence relegated to
archived posts and photo albums. Such a shift exemplifies the need to
move on, to collectively heal through renewed emphasis on what is
happening in the present moment, while also preserving and
commemorating the past.
The Internet is a complex new medium that allows for the intimacy,
interactivity, and convenience of speech as well as the permanency,
permeability, and immateriality of writing. The principal aim of this
project is a phenomenological exploration of the ways in which these
unique facets of the Internet have expanded the process of remembering
the dead. Specifically, I have examined examples of “online shrines” on
the social networking sites MySpace, Facebook, and Tribe.net,
positioning them as vehicles for individual and collective remembrance
of the dead. Each of these three sites differs significantly in terms
of demographics, site features, and normative practices, and thus each
will be analyzed in its own section. My analysis of this phenomenon is
supplemented by online news articles, Internet forums, conversations
with my friends, and literature from a variety of disciplines
(philosophy, media studies, anthropology, sociology, linguistics, and
cognitive psychology). Furthermore, this analysis incorporates a
variety of perspectives in the aim of providing a more complete
framework for understanding the complexities inherent to new
technologies, which blur pre-existing boundaries of space, time,
privacy, communication, representation, and memory.
The increasing ubiquity of online social networking in the
everyday lives of the youth has resulted in the public archival of
personal information as a normative practice. Despite popular discourse
that perpetuates a distinction between “virtual” cyberspace and “real
life”, it is evident that people are integrating technologies of the
Internet into their lives as extensions of everyday communication and
identity performance. By virtue of its embeddedness in the everyday
interactions of young people, the Internet is in some respects a “cool”
medium (Levinson 2000: 113). To invoke another McLuhanism, “the medium
is the message”- that is, media develop as extensions of ourselves,
shaped by changing cultural conditions that are in turn affected by
these new technologies. In his book discussing the impact of electronic
media on social behavior, Joshua Meyrowitz (1985) writes that “one of
the reasons Americans may no longer seem to ‘know their place’ is that
they no longer have a place in the traditional sense of a set of
behaviors matched to physical locations and the audiences found in them
(7)”. Electronic media have altered our perceptual fields by extending
them beyond the realm of direct, face-to-face interaction. In turn, the
relationship between physical place and our social environment has been
considerably weakened, allowing for the emergence of new pathways and
horizons of experience.
Though death is a universal inevitability of humankind, and though
it may come at any time, it is precisely for these reasons that we go
about our everyday lives without consciously factoring in its imminent
possibility. If we did, we would forever be locked in existential
stasis. To act is to direct oneself toward some future possibility- of
happiness, reward, prestige, love, security, and on and on. Thus, when
we “type ourselves into being” online, we are motivated by such
possibilities and often fail to factor in that we are creating traces
of ourselves that will outlive their creators. However, just as traces
of a deceased individual persist to exist in the remembrances of others
and through objects such as graves and photographs, so too do they
persist in the ethereal realm of the Internet. Like traditional
memorial services, the sites of these traces can serve to connect
previously unaffiliated individuals through their shared grief. The
Internet expands this possibility of connection, for it is in many ways
easier to articulate deeply felt feelings to strangers through the
anonymity, convenience, and immateriality of online communication.
Though it is not particularly pleasant to ponder the traces we leave of
ourselves after death, this project has hopefully illuminated the ways
in which online profiles evolve into ongoing sites of commemoration,
suggesting that we take into consideration how we choose to represent
ourselves through them.
Every so often, I try out little social experiments on sites like MySpace and Facebook. For awhile, my online profile(s) featured a kooky little drawing I'd made, and I continued to consistently update the content with little bits of poetry. While I found the profile picture below to be quite unique and creative, in the interim I received only three friend requests (from musicians) and no messages whatsoever.
Old MySpace Profile Pic
So, the other day, I thought I'd toss things up a bit and post a shot of me from last summer, when I did a couple of photo shoots with nearby Boston photographers:
New MySpace Profile Pic
To my amusement, since I've put up this photo I've received over two dozen friend requests and more than a couple of messages from a combination of interested men, bicurious females, party promoters and sleazy "modeling" agencies.
I think I liked the situation better before... now I just feel like your average MySpace slut. I'll probably be changing my picture soon. Even though the rest of my profile stayed the same, it would seem that, on MySpace at least, your profile pic says it all. And hot chicks reign over actual content, any day of the week.
Come visit me on MySpace, and let me know if you got to the "actual content"!
This redhead is getting pretty pissed off- not only at the increasingly exploitive surveillance of people around the world, but also with widespread apathetic acceptance of blatant privacy violations. Get a grip, people! Stop bitching about spam on MySpace or dysfunctional applications on Facebook and learn a thing or two about user controls! You're not being nearly as victimized as you'd like to believe.
Lesson #1: No, you can't track who views your profile on Facebook. Not even Trakzor will help you- it's just another useless Facebook application. I get a high proportion of hits to my blog, WebnographY, from those seeking to find the answer to this question. The answer is no. The only way you could possibly ever tell was if whoever was reading your profile just happened to have installed the same dumb application. Odds are slim it's someone you were hoping would be "stalking" you... sorry!
... oh, and don't worry- no one can tell you're refreshing their profiles every two minutes unless you click on a Trakzor link.
Lesson #2: Craft a Limited Profile on Facebook, and use it for family members, co-workers, and anyone else you'd prefer not to be exposed to photos of your most recent debacles. A few months ago, my father assured me not to worry about my Facebook, 'cause "there's nothing too bad on there". Turns out my sister had left herself logged into her account on his computer, granting him free reign to scour through the little details of our college lives. Craft a Limited Profile and check "Show Limited Profile" to any Friend Requests from those who are even the least bit untrustworthy, including your little sis.
Lesson #3: Regularly browse through all tagged photos of yourself. This one is really important, especially for all you high school MySpacers who don't see a problem with posting photos of that last kegger. You just don't know if your principal's created an account and is jotting down your names, as my high school principal did before he called a dozen kids into his office. And, though you may be quite proud of your latest nude photo shoot, I assure you that you are being judged. Harshly. At the very least, make such photos "Friends Only" instead of revealing your titties to the world at large!
Unless you're into that sorta thing, you little exhibitionist, you.
Lesson #4: You've got more control than you realize. Tired of reading headlines about high school friends you haven't spoken to in 5 years? You can control what updates are shown to you- all it takes is a bit of fiddling around with settings and preferences. Sick of getting bitten by vampires and having your brains eaten by zombies? Click on the invitation, scroll down the page a bit and click "Block Application" on the right-hand side of the screen. Poof! No more blood/brain loss! On MySpace, you can choose to moderate your comments, meaning that you get to review what's being posted on your profile and accept or decline messages. Friend tagged an embarrassing photo of you? De-tag it. Don't want just anyone to find you? Change your name to an alias.
Lesson #5: Take a note out of Tribe.net’s book: lean on intimately-established networks of trust. Find smaller social networking sites where you can engage in thoughtful discussion about your eclectic interests with those of equal passion and intelligence. Smaller sites ensure you won't get spammed, phished, and friended by the bitch who talked shit about you in high school. Remember, it's up to you to control how you spend your time on the Internet. You can waste it in the underwhelming pursuit of diminishing your self-confidence through comparison to others, or you can engage your mind and creativity by chasing after the most whimsical of fascinations.
Thought I'd keep it short and limit it to 5 tips; please post comments and/or questions below, and I'll address them in a follow-up post!
A few things I've learned throughout these past few years spent primarily sucked into the ether of the Internet:
1. Attempting to write a thesis on online social networking can be extremely difficult when one's primary method of procrastination is perusing MySpace and Facebook. At the same time, how convenient! Inspiration abounds!
2. Distance from said ether is vital for perspective: technological determinism, glorification of technology, addiction, and screen-phobia are all very tangible threats to mental clarity.
3. At the end of the day, the extent to which my creative production outweighed my consumption of craptastic information is directly correlated to my sense of inner peace.
4. There is no replacement for human connection, with the notable exception of good television.
