M2.2

There are many ways, I find, in which people negotiate their public and private personae online. As if participants have different levels of comfort as to what they share or don't share online. Some look to not participate at all while others are fully involved in an online display of themselves. The bell curve puts the majority within having a moderate participation in social surveillance due to rising social expectation. And with this rise in expectation there comes a fading of privacy implications.

Anders Albrechtslund of firstmonday.org, in his article describing participatory surveillance in online social networking is highly accurate in his description of the current online culture as a hierarchical panopticon. Traditionally a panopticon would be seen in the physical world as a kind of structure wherein a single person could reach a wide audience efficiently due to their equal perspective of them. Albrechtslund tacks on a hierarchy as he moves this concept into the digital realm of social media which I think is accurate. Online in social media each person is his or her own panopticon, however, each is not created equal. There are those who share almost every aspect of their real lives, like a new breed of celebrity.

Whats more is when I consider that in this digital realm we still live in an age of capitalism and even though our panopticon isn't a real structure it is still owned by companies such as Facebook and Twitter who hold great influence and power over their users just through ownership, Cohen, author of The Valorization of Stirveillance warns. A further example of this power can be thought of and conceptualized in this fact, popular free picture texting app Snapchat is now valued at around $500 million USD for an app with no revenue. This is solely due to the prospect of future monetization.

Websites and apps such as Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat are merely platforms for living a digital life and just as in real life your social circles are in flux either at your will or not. In my online life I choose to lean towards more disclosure online and I find myself doing it as more of a going-with-the-flow than anything. This social digital world becomes strikingly similar to the real social world. With this similarity considered I believe room for managing anonymous digital lives is shrinking and the social expectation of having an online persona, one that is true to the self, is increasing.

M2.1

I am very transparent or at least try to be, when it comes to what I share about myself online. I can somewhat be easily be found online, if someone is looking for me and has a few details about me like my name, country, age, etc. A line is drawn however, at the basic more personal details like address and phone number. So, while it might be easy to track me down online (which is intentional) I, and I hazard to guess most people, tend to be more comfortable having this virtual/physical barrier in place. Clearly exemplifying a separation of an online life and an offline one.

For the purpose of making as much of a connection as possible, with as little effort as possible, much of what I post is fanned out across multiple social media platforms, usually leading to a primary message. I believe this is the model for most of the social media we encounter in our daily lives. In my case, a link to this blog post will be posted on my Twitter account with a short description. The same would go for Facebook. Both Twitter and Facebook (among others) act as social media hubs where information is rapidly shared via links to news media, blogs, videos and other media ready to be consumed.

My online life and offline life are different by consequence of being online and offline (stay with me here), however, I am not pretending to be anyone different. The difference is a product of the interaction interface. Offline, we all have less time to react and must rely on given knowledge thereby giving way to a more true self coming through via face-to-face and real-time interactions. Online, there is time to react and more precisely craft reactions, responses and our representations of the self.

Maintaining alternate personas online is, to me, wasted time. It's time better spent being you, even if its just your own representation of yourself as opposed to your true self. Turkle explains interactions (specifically face-to-face interactions) are the best ways in which we can come to know our own true selves.

Again, I leave out real world contacts as to avoid unwanted online solicitations to come sweeping into my offline life. But, the intentional openness and ease to contact me, that I write about above, is still there. If you're looking to get into contact with me it will not be difficult. It's a kind of fight against the isolated social world, the illusion of a real one, that Turkle writes about in her New York Times article. To me, it is very 1984esque and I get the urge to toss my phone into Niagara Falls, yet it's still here in my pocket. Why? I cannot deny its power as a connective tool. While not perfect, I think as time goes on a balance will be struck, limiting social isolation and promoting more and more meaningful connections.

All in all, my online representation of myself is as true to life as possible. As online surveillance of an online self grows, its inevitable that real world connections will stem from initial online connections more often as online based social media grows and is increasingly popularized.

Pro Turkle tools, Anti Social Isolation apps

I've come across two beautiful examples of social technology that help to break down the isolations brought on by many other social technologies, that I, of course want to share with my COMM 2F00 co-pilots. And, right around the time when the readings for this module couldn't be more relevant (the universe is wonderful like that).

1) Glide. Glide is a video messaging app for mobile devices that allows you to send only video messages between contacts. Sounds familiar right? Wrong. What makes Glider so perfect and so "Turkle" is that it sends your messages as you're recording them. There are no re-takes, its all live. So you and your friends get to experience more of the real versions of each other in all your blunders.

2) Grouper. Grouper is a web service that gets groups of people together for face-to-face social interaction. There is no guess work as to why you're meeting, everyone involved is like minded to the fact to simply hang out with real and new people. While it's clear that Grouper is hinting at the fact its also a great platform for meeting people of the opposite sex with high possibility of relationships forming, it is still none the less an excellent example of social technology in use to bring people together in the real world and promote real relationships as opposed to mere connections.