This is a humorous article which examines the phenomenon of college students giving up Facebook for lent. Articles like this really show how social networking sites have become part of the zeitgeist. Instead of giving up fried food or soda, many students are opting to give up logging on to instant messenger and Facebook.com. A surprising twist is that the clerics interviewed for the article actually support this; they say that giving up something like Facebook not only constitutes a true sacrifice but also frees up one’s time for other things. However, certain students were worried that they would feel utterly cut off from their social networks and friends during this period, missing out on birthday reminders, events, wall posts, etc. The way that this article presents Facebook as, “the connective tissue of undergraduate life” shows how ubiquitous this social network is and how important it has become to many of its members, who often spend hours on the site each day or week. However, in giving Facebook up for lent, there is also the connotation that it is something unhealthy that one is addicted to. One student admitted that she felt better not being on Facebook and wasn’t stalking people as much (only in the online sense of course). This article illustrates how important Facebook has become to many college students and when they give it up, even for just 40 days, there is the sort of discomfort that goes along with abandoning what has become a part of your identity, social life, and daily routine.

 

In this project, I will be examining how online social networks affect identity formation in their members. I am interested in both how people present themselves online and how that virtual persona/world affects their identity formation (for example, the phenomenom of taking a photograph simply because you want it to be your facebook picture). Online relationships/interactions and virtual popularity are also key issues for my project. I will predominantly be focusing on the Website Facebook.com, but for research, I will be looking at pieces that examine social networks, online privacy, virtual/computer mediated relationships, online popularity, and representations of self on the Internet/"virtual personae." Some helpful Websites for information on Facebook.com and its background: This first article discusses Facebook's critical success factors and why many of its features appeal to its users. (http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2006/05/facebooks-critical-success-factors.html). This next blog is entitled "Facebook: The Complete Biography," and it is just that. It provides a good overview of the history of Facebook and its corporate culture (http://mashable.com/2006/08/25/facebook-profile/). And finally, the source of it all: http://www.facebook.com. Check out the blog and the privacy information without signing in.

This New York Times articles discusses the Website FakeYourSpace.com which essentially sells its clients “friends” on social networking sites like Friendster.com, Facebook.com, and MySpace.com. The fact that this service exists illustrates not only how ubiquitous and popular social networking sites are but also how important they are to users. People will actually pay to appear more popular to those who might be checking their profiles online. Clearly, these networking sites have become an integral part in the identity formation and subjectivity of their users. The reason that this particular site was in the news was because they used pictures (of the “fake” friends) without a license to do so. The photos came from iStockPhoto.com and that company asked the founder of FakeYourSpace.com, Brant Walker, to stop using their photos. He complied and the Website was only down for 4 days. This is not the only site of its kind, nor are these types of services restricted to online social networks. One can also pay a fee to have messages left on his cell phone from “friends.”

This article highlights not only the interesting phenomenon of attractive “friends” on an online network increasing one’s value in the virtual and real world, but also the moral ramifications of such fakes. As long as the photographs are legally licensed, there are no legal problems, but the clients still have to see the falsity and superficiality of what they are doing. The service only costs 99 cents per month, so if it became popular enough (it already has 50,000 hits per month) , it ironically could actually negate the distinction between what the article calls, “cyberlosers” versus “social-networking magnets.” I wish the article had included quotes from actual users saying how they felt about the service (how frequently they use it/how many "fake" friends they have, how satisfied they are with it, do they feel it actually makes a difference in how their actual online friends perceive them).

 

This book is a sweeping look at the Internet and how it has changed the way that we view the world (a common cliché in Internet scholarship). Where I did find this book interesting though was in its discussion of privacy and the Internet.  Also the witty tone of the book (one chapter is entitled “Saddam, O.J., and the Unabomber” and is about the Internet and pop culture) makes it an easy book to get into. The later chapters (starting with Ch. 12) discuss the trade-off between technology/access and privacy. Many people, especially in the older generations who have not grown up with the Internet, still think of the Internet in terms of the “Big Brother” metaphor. There is definitely a trade-off and some of the “Big Brother”-ness of the Internet (and social networks where often very personal information is revealed) is often inevitable. Something this book does not directly discuss is how generational this discomfort is. Younger generations who have grown up with the Internet, instant messenger, and online social networks are far more comfortable with a lack of privacy than older generations.
            There is also another type of privacy that deals with the Internet: the privacy of being anonymous and creating an identity online. Chapter 13, “Nobody Knows You’re a Dog (or do they? Privacy issues and the Internet)" uses the image of the dog in front of the computer from the New Yorker cartoon to question how anonymity and privacy have changed. The author argues that maybe it used to be the case that “nobody knows you’re a dog” but now, they not only know you’re a dog, but they also know your favorite food and where you went walking yesterday. Applying the author’s point to social networks, it’s interesting that there is discomfort with a loss of privacy when in many cases, information is provided voluntarily. Of course, when it is appropriated for other uses, discomfort can ensue, but I think that (in many cases at least) with so much of one’s identity based on the Internet, it creates a double edged sword: you have to divulge information in order to create an online persona, but that also makes you vulnerable. I know that I am uncomfortable when Google puts up advertisements that correspond to my Gmail messages; and yet I still love my Gmail. In addition, Facebook.com has many privacy controls and options, but people were still livid when it added the “Live Feed” function. Of course, you could go to options and turn it off, but there erupted multiple groups on the site that were angry at this invasion of privacy. This book, especially the sections on privacy, were interesting in that they opened up more questions about how social networks interact with our lives both on and offline and how privacy or lack thereof can be a motivator for how identity is presented.

This essay focuses on people’s tendency to create alternate selves in cyberspace; the author calls them “virtual personae.” As she sees it, this act is reflective of the fact that the self is not unified (as Freud imagined it in the ego) but is actually fragmented and split (more of the Lacanian school). The author brings in psychoanalytic theory in order to present the lack of a unified self in a positive way. She posits that the internet (and social networks, online communities, chat rooms, Multi-User-Domains) is actually helpful in reconciling the many parts of the self and helping them develop. She argues that the internet age is not fragmenting the self, it has just concretized and illustrated this trend which was already happening. What she calls “the multiplicity and flexibility” of self is actually a liberating thing with the potential to help the self function healthily in a variety of circumstances. Sometimes these online personas can even help a person work through repressed parts of themselves. The author is careful not to be advocating a sort of multiple personality syndrome; she emphasizes that in order for the multiplicity to be productive, the individual must be very self-reflective and aware.
            I found this article to be a refreshing change from some of the more cynical pieces I had read about identity and the internet. It’s encouraging to think that the fragmentation that people talk about in terms of online identity formation and multiple forms/representations of self could actually be a way to come to a greater realization of self. Rather than fragmented, it is optimistically “adaptive” and “flexible” (647). Of course this is not the case for all internet users who create virtual personae; some people could hide behind these identities rather than learn from them. In that way, the argument is a little bit idealist. Thinking about the author’s argument in terms of contemporary social networks online, there is definitely the possibility for defining oneself in a certain way on one’s profile and exploring other parts of the self in that process, but I think that especially with adolescents (much of the Facebook and MySpace demographic), they are often not ready to reconcile the multiplicity of selves and simply use the networks to project a certain image. It might take more time for them to self-consciously ask themselves why they are trying to create a certain virtual personae, and maybe then they will reach the potential that this article discusses.

 

This book examines online personas and how people are perceived online versus in person. It also focuses on the discrepancies between those two identities and how relationships change when people who have “known” each other online meet face-to-face. The book does a sweeping study of the internet and relationships, both online and offline, discussing how the internet has changed our interpersonal dynamics. The chapters I found the most useful were : Ch. 3, “Internet Discussion Lists and Forms of Address” which examines group dynamics in social networks and the trends of lurking and flaming, and the different implications of oral speech in person versus written speech on the internet; Ch. 8, “Changing Social Concepts of Community” which provides a case study of a social network which decided to meet face-to-face and how that changed the group dynamics; and Ch.11, “The Presentation of Self in Internet Environments” which defines a person’s net persona and how it may differ from his actual self, highlighting the performative aspect of social networks when presenting the self.

 

The book at times is a little too general, presenting ideas that are a little obvious, but Ch.8 was especially useful for me, as I am looking into identify formation online and how that affects one’s perception and performance of self. This chapter looks at the VC-L social network, a small group of people who belonged to the online network to discuss politics. After deciding to meet, the dynamics of the group changed dramatically. Popularity politics and insecurities came out which were never present before. After meeting, people were disappointed by their expectations of what certain people would be like. The social network was not the same afterwards and suffered from smaller membership. I am interested in how this might apply to current social networking sites on a larger scale, like Facebook.com. Facebook is an interesting hybrid because people often meet before becoming Facebook friends, but one may learn more about the new “friend” by his Facebook page than by the actual face-to-face encounter. The same dynamics of popularity, self-consciousness, and expectation come into play here. Ironically, they could also be reversed in the case of Facebook. A person might meet someone, Facebook “friend” them, and then be disappointed by their lack of other Facebook friends or lackluster profile. This book brings to the forefront the ideas of identity formation online and the conflicts that can occur when online and offline relationships collide.