Week 4 - Topic 1 - Blanchard B/D/F

There are definitely different roles people can take on as members of a community. Lurkers are part of a community because, as described by Nonnecke and Preece 1999 “others become so familiar with the community that they feel they belong to it in-spite of their bystander behaviour.” (Preece, 2001, Online Communities, page 87) However, because they aren’t actually participating are they taking on a role within the community? As part of a community it’s fair that people want to know what’s happening, but without contributing I don’t believe they can be seen as an active member, although there is no doubt they do exist. Linking in with ‘Virtual Settlement’ it seems to emphasise the need for interaction. The discourse of online communities does entail interaction and some kind of dialogue. “… public interaction among a minimal number of participants.” (Blanchard) XXXXX

However, as a counter point, community can be in the eye of the beholder, people have the choice to make what they want to out of what is being offered to them. Alike what was mentioned in interaction in last weeks blogs, people have a longer amount of time to contribute to the communities’ topics etc. An example of this can be for new forum/online community users who “want to assess the community’s ambience and get a feel for the style of interaction.” (Preece, 2001, Online Communities, page 100)

Week 4 – Topic 1 - Blanchard A/C/E

Right, I am merging some of the questions together but have identified the different points I’m making!

Communities in my opinion can be classed as a collection of likeminded people, with similar interests who are able to offer advice and support for other members of that community. There are so many various groups online; it’s hard to say that they are all communities because the word ‘community’ implies more than just an interaction of a group of people, it seems to involve more ‘togetherness’ which is why it may be hard to apply it to online communities because the technological aspect diminishes the real-life connection which has been associated with communities for so long now. XXXXX
This isn’t to say that online communities do not exist because they quite clearly do; it’s just a case of distinguishing between actual communities and online groups.
XXXXX
In relation to McMillan and Chavis (1986) and their 4 characteristics, with reference to the fourth one I can agree with their need to have a “spirit of community” (Blanchard) but I don’t 100% agree with the need to have an “emotional connection.” I think there needs to be a certain link between the members, but I wouldn’t say it’d be as much as emotional, but just to have enough interest to be involved throughout the community. However, this could just be me still relating emotion to more real life situations as I wouldn’t say I have ever really felt a sense of community online. I am part of/ a member of Facebook etc, but I wouldn’t class that as a community. The closest I have to a community online is to be part of the Lincoln network, but that comes with being a student at the University, to me a community can be more of a choice you make to get involved with.
XXXXX
This can be linked to the Julie/Julia Project as it was found that “81% of the respondents were female at an average age of 38 years of age.” I think this shows how online interaction will sometimes consist of people of the same gender and age, because they are likeminded in their interests. Personally I don’t really think of this as an online community, I would class the project as a group of people with an interest in the project, wouldn’t you?

Week 4 - Topic 1 - Lister C/D

Following on from my previous blog, are people given too much freedom on the net? I think that the ‘dangerous materials’ that are online agree with the statement that there is too much freedom given, and creates a negative portrayal of the internet. I wouldn’t say that these materials are too prominent on the internet, because they aren’t plastered all over the internet, but they can be accidently found which is why there should be precautions taken i.e. blocks on websites to protect children from finding these sites. Although internet users are aware of these dangers, it is still scary for online users and people interacting. Is a new public sphere online creating more dangers online?

I think anyone online can produce different online cultures, but how much are they actually influenced by other factors that are already existent online? There are so many websites, forums, groups online that it’s easy for people to influence and manipulate others. The internet as a medium allows for everyone and anyone to put their views and opinions online, it’s not like other Medias where there is only one source of information being circulated. However in terms of ‘ordinary’ net users, I wouldn’t say they are necessarily taken as seriously in what they are saying even though they have the ability to voice it.

Week 4 – Topic 1 - Lister A/B

Online communities allow for people to feel empowered as there is the option for such a varied number of users to get involved. “There’s always another mind out there.” (Lister, page 173) This emphasises the point of cultural variety, and although online communities are criticised for not being localised, at the same time people who may not agree with their surrounding groups, can go online and find likeminded people and be part of a community.
It is here where the internet can provide a ‘public sphere’ because people can interact by talking of societal issues etc from all over the world. However, it’s been argued that as a public sphere online has become too much and isn’t taken as seriously as before, this is identified by Habermas 1989 “mass media has played a key role in the dissolution of a healthy public sphere by replacing a discourse of critical reason with entertainment and spectacle.” (Lister, 177) This is obviously applying mass media to the internet.XXXXX
This is a counter point in what Lister says about a “lack of diversity” (174) there is however the factor of ‘disempowerment’ as there is a “lack of diversity of age, ethnicity and social class.” (174) still apparent. It can be argued whether communities are real because they don’t necessarily mirror a real life community. XXXXX
Moreover, as mentioned in blogs from last week people are able to voice their opinions and beliefs without the added pressure of in real life where sometimes you are ‘put on the spot.’ Therefore people are more empowered in that they can express themselves freely; however are people able to express themselves too freely, can online interaction create too much empowerment??

Week 3 - Topic 1 - D and E

However much new media and online is a major part of our culture in today’s society, I don’t think cyber-identities can constitute for an alternative ‘normal social reality.’ In saying this, as new media progresses I’m not saying that one day the ideology of ‘normal social reality’ won’t become that of an online ‘normal social reality’ but as it stands now, people in my opinion living as solely a cyber-identity aren’t living in reality. As formerly discussed users on cyber identities are often portraying different characteristics to what they would be doing in the real world. Although being online allows an escape and withdrawal from society, it can’t replace the real world. Cyberspace isn’t a “separate or distinct realm… (it’s) part of our already existing social reality.” (Lister page 168) This ‘second paradigm’ explained in Lister furthers my views as Cybersociety isn’t a separate world, therefore it can be retreated to but not lived in as such. XXXXX
When it comes to relationships online there is no question that they exist and are real, but they aren’t the same as offline relationships because there is no ‘meatspace.’ Online users can build relationships online, but a relationship online, and one offline are different. Obviously they can be combined, there is a great deal of evidence that relationships start off online, and then become offline. This section from ‘Who Am Me?’ I think distinguished why offline and online relationships differ (it’s a bit lengthy sorry!)

“It is as if they are seeking to underscore that although today's machines may be psychological in the cognitive sense, they are not psychological in a way that comprises our relationships with our bodies and with other people. Some computers might be considered intelligent and might even become conscious, but they are not born of mothers, raised in families, they do not know the pain of loss, or live with the certainty that they will die.”

Sorry if that’s a bit deep guys but I think it portrays that online relationships may involve a connection, but it doesn’t necessarily have the emotion from a real life offline relationship, consequently showing their disparity.

Week 3 - Topic 1 - B and C

“Some people are leading double or multiple lives in cyber-space, even with different gender identities.” (Jones: Cybersociety 2.0: 1998) Being able to not be seen allows people to experiment with their own personalities, in a way that they would not do so in a ‘meatspace’ situation. I think it can give people confidence to say things they wouldn’t say, and generally express themselves in a way they don’t feel they can do in real life. Personally, I can see this in a positive way until people online lie about their identities. To an extent I understand why people do this, and it does allow people to disconnect and experience new identities, as described again in the lecture its can create a “better self.” However, I agree with the post-modern views - “technological embodiment of a post structualist theory” (Lister page 167) when the element of escapism is taken over when seen to be real-life. Moreover, when screen-names etc aren’t just an expression of another part of someone’s personality, but are in fact a false identity. This is evident within the case study in Lister page 168, the “Cross Dressing Psychiatrist.” Although an experiment, when it genuinely goes on so much over the internet I think it becomes a problem. What we can’t see for ourselves makes it hard to trust!
XXXXX
With reference to the lecture, in real-life people do have to ADAPT their personalities to suit certain situations, whereas online I think the difference is that people can CHANGE their personalities and sometimes transform them into different people, i.e. changing their age, sex, gender etc which people can not possibly do in real life situations.

Week 3 - Topic 1 - Open Architechture

The net can be seen as “open architecture” in the sense that it is constantly open, and there are no plans for it to finish being built. Additionally, it is open for all users of the internet to add and build on. In my opinion, the internet has become more “open” as it has progressed because the online population are constantly contributing to the internet as a whole, networks are expanding. “The quantity of human labour and ingenuity that has gone into building net-based communication systems in a very short space of time is unprecedented.” (Lister page 164.) This quote sums up how the expansion of networks and online communicating or CMC has worked in unison to create such a massive online construction. XXXXX

Within this construction I think there is something that could be described as a hierarchy of authority within the structure of the internet today. Big businesses and more established sites will have more power within what they are adding onto the internet, they are the sites which were able to initially start building upon the foundations of the internet. However, with the large expansion of different networks more and more sites and networks are able to contribute to the “architecture”. There is so much information on the internet; unlike other media information is supplied in so many more ways rather than just one channel.

In relation to Lister … Is the internet just one big architectural base? Or has by users being given their chance to build upon this base, created many more?

Week 2 - Topic 1 - "non linear/multi linear"

You can literally click on a link and it could take you anywhere around the world. I’ve been doing some background reading and it seems that a lot of people think that the web is set out “non linear” and with no structure. I found a quote particularly interesting by Wise (2000) in “Cybersociety” by David Bell … “hypertext was developed to reflect the nonlinearity of human thought processes – and the complexity of maps that trace links clearly illustrates this.” I disagree with this, maybe because I don’t see the net as complex at all…

I agree with Lister in that the web isn’t non linear, it gives readers a “Multi linear experience.” (Lister page 27) Although people argue that its non-linear when compared to other mediums like reading a book, which is seen as “sequential reading and writing” (Lister page 27) but you can still skip chapters when you don’t want to read particularly about something, websites are still understandable. An example of this can be how magazines can now be read online; they are still set out in a way that the viewer/reader will recognise. I usually read heat online http://www.heatworld.com/2 and it mirrors the actual magazine. This is also evident with online newspapers. Just because one link doesn't follow on from another isn't complex, it just allows for people to pick and choose what they want to read, they can still read link after link, like a chapters of a book.

Week 2 – Topic 1 - Interactive Websites, Immersive & Extractive

Interactivity can be seen as the distinction between old and new media. Websites are now interactive for a number of different reasons, and unlike new media the audience become “produsers” (Lecture 2) meaning that don’t only have to look and take a medium at face value, like reading a newspaper, they can now use new media to edit and express their opinions within a matter of seconds.

Habbo Hotel would be one of my first uses of interactive media. For those of you who don’t know what Habbo hotel is, it’s a interactive online game where you create your own character within this ‘cyber town.’ There are many similar websites, and I personally would apply this type of interactivity to Lunenfeld’s ‘immersive interactivity’ notion because it is “simulation 3D worlds” (Lister page 21) which users live in as their characters. However, a negative of this type of interaction is obviously the fact that people live their lives as their characters and get engrossed within these 3D worlds. I would distinguish this from “extractive” interaction as I would describe extractive interaction as taking what you want and need from a website, not necessarily getting involved within the site.

Week 2 - Topic 1 - "newness of media"

Is technology keeping up with the demands of society, or does society have to keep up with the developments of technology?

People have argued that capitalist societies are what has produced new media, but nowadays is this necessarily the case? Now technology is shaping society to some extent because its constant developments now need us having to upgrade to keep up with technology. Although it hasn’t happened yet, people are turning to digital within the next few years and they haven’t got a choice in this, therefore is this an example of us having to keep up with technology. As a whole society we have not chosen for this to happen, the developments of technology are enabling us to use media for the better by going to digital.

Obviously this is just one example, and it is still the case that our society does have a constant demand for new media, (our demand for new media could be an example of why it is still called new media, because we need the reassurance that it’s still new and exciting?) but it still shows that technology is advancing at a faster pace. XXXXX

I’m not sure, but the fact it has to be new could link in with the next point of “ideology of progress.” As a society I think progress within new media is a requirement, people want or “have” to have the latest technology. Civilisation has to keep up with the latest trends, that’s part of the new media culture in my opinion. If technology stopped progressing, what would happen to the ideology of progression??