wrong side of the virtual tracks

Social networking sites are a lot like your neighborhood bars. They’ve each got their own atmosphere, crowds, and you choose which one you'd like to be at based on your preference for either of those qualities. This is a great way of assessing the types of (potentially like-minded) people you may meet on these sites; however, this site selection usually gives way to an "us vs. them" mentality. in Boyd’s article, "Viewing American Class Divisions through MySpace and Facebook" the "us" and the "them" become the "hegemonic" and "subaltern" teens - or what the rest of the America would call the "good" and "bad".

 Boyd’s discussion of social networking sites reveals a very scary comparison that is leveled against today's teens. The idea that those who conform to societies rules are good and those that do not are bad can't be good for teenagers as they develop their sense of self and, furthermore, isn't a maxim that is completely true. The fact that this "good vs. bad" dialog has been translated to teen’s online socializing behaviors is even more startling.

 And yet, as arbitrary as this internet-age social code seems, I have witnessed it exactly as Boyd portrays it. I came of age around the same time that Friendster, the first social networking site of its kind, hit its peak. At the time, the novelty of connecting with friends over the internet far outweighed the hipness of its aesthetics or exclusivity. Actually, that’s not entirely true. At the time, Friendster had little to no competition so there were no hipper/better sites to flock to. But, in the years that followed the competition appeared and Friendster was left in the dust. Facebook emerged as the go to place with those for a .edu email account and MySpace was the catch all for everyone else who wanted profiles but lacked credentials. In Boyd’s article she points to a number of reasons for the social divide between Facebook and MySpace (aesthetics, interest in bands, etc.) but I think these elements are all symptomatic of their beginnings. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was a Harvard student replicating the university’s internal website for profit. The fact that it persisted as a site for “.edu-havers only” for years after its inception is key to understanding its ivory tower outlook today.

 Even now that Facebook has opened its gates and allowed entrance to high school students and the middle aged alike, the elitist current has not flagged. I could write a dissertation on the disadvantages of being Facebook friends with my mother. I could also note the fact that online communication between me and my hometown friends (who still reside in the lower middle class enclave famous for Pat Benetar and the number of pubs per capita we grew up in) is limited to MySpace messages and infrequently checked emails, all for lack of computer access. It may seem like a lot of work must be done in order to change people’s opinions about these sites and the people who use them, but I wonder if that is all that important. In as much as self-imposed caste systems are limiting, they are still self-imposed.

the twitter on twitter

well...if david pogue says twitter isn't the time-sucking, ego-driven, of-the-moment internet phenomenon it appears to be...then may i'll reconsider my stance.

my gripes aside, he does raise the same interesting point that boyd did in her article on blogging. namely, that twitter can be "precisely what you want it to be".

pogue defines his twitter as being useful for somethings that would not "merit a full blog or article post." to that i would say, 'does a blog really have to be that involved in order for you to consider posting it?'

having all of these technologies that do, essentially, the same thing (facebook's status message is comparable to a twitter feed, twitter feeds resemble short musings in a blog post...) seems redundant (eliminating redundancies is what i do. i've got the cataloger's gene.). i can justify having a facebook that displays personal information within a network of people who are likely to need that information (it's been a helpful tool for making dinner/drink dates with old friends. whether or not they showed up for those meetings is another story all together.) in addition to having a blog where i upload content (something more involved than that status message). they connect me to people in different ways.  the facts are on facebook (name, location, phone, email. leave a brief comment at the sound of the tone), the thoughts are on the blog (the who, what, where, when and why of my life. no character limit).

but, it looks like i've just talked myself into a corner trying to define what these technologies are. in trying to make them distinct things, i've uncovered that, yes, they can be anything.