Skip to main content

Home/ COMM 182/282 2011/ Group items tagged impression management

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Jennifer Bundy

Real name sites are necessarily inadequate for free speech « Social Media Col... - 4 views

socialmediacollective.org/...ily-inadequate-for-free-speech

free speech social media impression management names

shared by Jennifer Bundy on 21 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • . When people do this offline, they do it in situations: temporally and spatially bounded contexts for action.
    • Jennifer Bundy
      Jennifer Bundy on 21 Oct 11
       
      These sound like third place locations
  • Being online is being encoded and having that which is encoded available to some party other than those immediately present
  • Online is on-the-record. Offline is off-the-record.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • performance of impression management into the process of curation
  • Curation means selecting objects for display
  • Impression management means selectively presenting an idealized version of one’s self specific to that context.
    • Jennifer Bundy
      Jennifer Bundy on 21 Oct 11
       
      Impression management - the key word is "idealized". These sites are making things much more transparent, which might not be all bad
  • Collective
  • the myth of selective sharing
    • Jennifer Bundy
      Jennifer Bundy on 21 Oct 11
       
      They are inadequate for free speech only if you don't want to be associated with what you are saying, which is not an issue of the tool but rather a preference of the person. Many people own their statements in the public sphere (politicians, leaders, etc). Real name sites are just giving the average person the opportunity to do the same - people just have to realize that what they might be saying is available to anyone to hear
    • Liu He
      Liu He on 24 Oct 11
       
      Yes, real name sites do have a reason to exist on the Internet. Meantime, I remembered Facebook's Marketing Director, Randi Zuckerberg, claimed several months ago that anonymity on the Internet has to go away, because people behave a lot better when they have their real names down. And people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors. Is an Internet in which everyone has to use their real name necerraily be more polite?
  • , the curator won’t even give you the choice to begin with.
    • Jennifer Bundy
      Jennifer Bundy on 21 Oct 11
       
      I see how this applies to Google+ but not really Facebook or Twitter. Google+ doesn't give you the option to select, other then circles, who will see your posts. And I guess Facebook is moving this way too. Does he mean that these sites give people the option to search for you without you knowing? Like Twitter or Google+ will suggest people for you to follow? But in all of them you still have to accept the people as followers and you can control privacy so I have a hard time understanding how you don't have agency in that.
  • In addressed media we are trusting our recipient. In non-addressed media we are trusting our curator, not our recipient.
    • Liu He
      Liu He on 24 Oct 11
       
      Excellent point.
  • That’s a sea change of difference as we’re placing trust not in the hands of our known and targeted audience, but in the designers of these spaces and their algorithms.
    • Liu He
      Liu He on 24 Oct 11
       
      People like the dissidents in Egypt and Iran and Libya, whose like to use social networks to further their cause was made much more dangerous by Facebook's blocking of pseudonyms.
  • Reading posting, Google circles are only good for directing your broadcasts to limited private groups.
Liu He

"Incantations for Muggles: The Role of Ubiquitous Web 2.0 Technologies in Everyday Life" - 7 views

www.danah.org/...Etech2007.html

technology socialpractices magicofpeople architecture Boyd

shared by Liu He on 21 Oct 11 - Cached
  • Perhaps the magic is not in the technology, but in the practices that emerge from the seedlings we put out into the world? Perhaps our technologies are nothing more than pitiful efforts to replicate the magic that we do not fully understand.
    • Liu He
      Liu He on 24 Oct 11
       
      Look at history. Mankind has not changed biologically. But human society has been undergoing continuous development through the harnessing of information and knowledge in the form of various technologies. Can the technologies affect our value systems, power structures, everyday routines and environment?What drives this development? Will future society be divided between those living in either physical or virtual reality?
    • alperin
      alperin on 25 Oct 11
       
      JPA: Some would argue that we have started to change biologically. Our brains are adapting to technologies, we've been thinking of the wiring of our brain in a different way as it interacts with technology more and more.  I would also say that the answer to the question "can the tech affect our value systems, power structures, ...?" is a resounding YES. But the technology is not developing itself, we drive this development and I don't think it will ever be possible to disentangle those living in physical and virtual reality.
    • Liu He
      Liu He on 25 Oct 11
       
      Yes, you are correct! So does that mean even we don't fully understand the potential of ourselves? What does the author mean when he say the "magic" of technology? Is it by adapting to technologies that we "re-wire" our brain and discover the "magician" in ourselves?
  • If you want to understand the success of a social technology, you can't stare at the technology. You need to understand the social practices that make it flourish. Technologies succeed when they support what people already do, what they want to do, and what they're required to do. Technologies become ubiquitous when people stop thinking them as a technology and simply use them as a regular part of everyday life.
  •  Life stages are not simply biological - they are socially constructed, legally enforced, and architecturally bounded. Life stages are generalizations - they do not apply to everyone, but at the same time, they are constructed as "normative" by society. This is why Hollywood can make movies called "The 40-year-old Virgin" and everyone laughs. Because life stages are primarily socially constructed, they are bounded by culture.
  • ...23 more annotations...
  • I want to address four key life stages that i think are relevant to folks interested in social media: 1) Identity formation and role-seeking (aka youth)2) Integration and coupling (aka 20somethings)3) Societal contribution (aka "adults")4) Reflection and storytelling (aka retirees)
  • Life stages are not simply biological - they are socially constructed, legally enforced, and architecturally bounded. Life stages are generalizations - they do not apply to everyone, but at the same time, they are constructed as "normative" by society. This is why Hollywood can make movies called "The 40-year-old Virgin" and everyone laughs. Because life stages are primarily socially constructed, they are bounded by culture.
  • Should we build technology to promote what we believe should be people's priorities? Or should we build technology that supports the priorities that most people have?
  • The spells of technology are complicating the magic of people. Architecture is getting altered. While people adapt the technologies to meet their needs, their lives have to adapt to the ways in which the technology alters reality. It's a confusing time and technology is playing a huge role in the confusion.
  • The reason that i bring these corporate practices up is because they really affect how systems are designed, deployed, and allowed to evolve. If you want to think about people, you need to understand how technological and corporate decisions interface with people's lives and practices. Who are the real stakeholders? The users or the stockholders?
  • when people engage with technology, amazing things happen. The magic isn't the technology... it's the stories and connections, the sharing and ideas. It's the way these technologies serve people's lives. More importantly, it's the way technologies serve the lives of *everyday people*, not just technologists.
  • This is quite different from the society that you and i were used to growing up. We were used to having walls. We assumed that the norms were set by the environment and that you behaved differently in synagogue than in the pub and that was AOK. Context was key but context depends on there being walls. Online, there are no walls. The walls have come crumbling down. You can cross through spaces with the click of a few keystrokes and it's impossible to know what speech will spread where. The moment a conversation spreads, it changes contexts.
  • So how do we cope? Most people go with the ostrich solution. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist, right? If you don't see the strangers staring at your virtual existence, they don't exist, right? The other proposed solution is being a luddite - avoiding all technology. Either way, we're talking avoidance.
  • If you want to understand the success of a social technology, you can't stare at the technology. You need to understand the social practices that make it flourish. Technologies succeed when they support what people already do, what they want to do, and what they're required to do. Technologies become ubiquitous when people stop thinking them as a technology and simply use them as a regular part of everyday life.
  •  I want to address four key life stages that i think are relevant to folks interested in social media: 1) Identity formation and role-seeking (aka youth) 2) Integration and coupling (aka 20somethings) 3) Societal contribution (aka "adults") 4) Reflection and storytelling (aka retirees)
  • Should we build technology to promote what we believe should be people's priorities? Or should we build technology that supports the priorities that most people have?
  • Problem is that technology is more often the property of a corporation, not the passion of an individual. Corporations have different incentives, often umbrella-ed under the mythical "shareholders." Shareholders want monetization and growth. Monetization requires that a particular group obsess over your technology, either to willingly dish out fees to use it or to be so active that they might click on ads. Growth demands that you can't really target a niche population - you need to go for the masses.
  • The reason that i bring these corporate practices up is because they really affect how systems are designed, deployed, and allowed to evolve. If you want to think about people, you need to understand how technological and corporate decisions interface with people's lives and practices. Who are the real stakeholders? The users or the stockholders?
  •  when people engage with technology, amazing things happen. The magic isn't the technology... it's the stories and connections, the sharing and ideas. It's the way these technologies serve people's lives. More importantly, it's the way technologies serve the lives of *everyday people*, not just technologists.
  • This is quite different from the society that you and i were used to growing up. We were used to having walls. We assumed that the norms were set by the environment and that you behaved differently in synagogue than in the pub and that was AOK. Context was key but context depends on there being walls. Online, there are no walls. The walls have come crumbling down. You can cross through spaces with the click of a few keystrokes and it's impossible to know what speech will spread where. The moment a conversation spreads, it changes contexts.
  • This is quite different from the society that you and i were used to growing up. We were used to having walls. We assumed that the norms were set by the environment and that you behaved differently in synagogue than in the pub and that was AOK. Context was key but context depends on there being walls. Online, there are no walls. The walls have come crumbling down. You can cross through spaces with the click of a few keystrokes and it's impossible to know what speech will spread where. The moment a conversation spreads, it changes contexts.
  • So how do we cope? Most people go with the ostrich solution. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist, right? If you don't see the strangers staring at your virtual existence, they don't exist, right? The other proposed solution is being a luddite - avoiding all technology. Either way, we're talking avoidance.
  • perhaps we lose track of what friendship and connection mean
  • if we stare solely at the technology, we lose track of the true magic that exists around us
  • US-centric
    • alperin
      alperin on 25 Oct 11
       
      ugg. forgive my annoyance. but why does all the commentary we come across excuse itself in this way? I suppose I should be happy that, at least, boyd acknowledges it.
  • impression management
  • Techno-dreamers
    • alperin
      alperin on 25 Oct 11
       
      this is me!
  • The value of Twitter has to do with baseline co-presence
    • alperin
      alperin on 25 Oct 11
       
      i like this concept. 'baseline co-presence'
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20▼ items per page