New Media Research Studio

Click To Watch

Summaries galore!

First up, Dana Boyd‘s piece on SNSes (Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What?). I will somehow relate this to SNL’s Weekend Update with Seth Myers, more specifically his piece about Michael Phelps, in class.

Boyd tries to bridge the generational gap between youth who are growing up with the Internet entrenched in their lives, and older people/educators. She doesn’t want conservative educators to think of “social technologies as a product of the devil.”

Back in the day, kids hung out at the park/mall/cafe – all unmediated publics. Now, more hanging out occurs on SNSes, aka mediated publics, which are set apart by 4 things:

• Persistence. Unless deleted, online data sticks around for decades.
• Searchability. A few keywords later, your mom knows where you are and what you’re doing.
• Replicability. Copy + paste is crazy effective. Content is easily doctored.
• Invisible audiences. Who is really looking at the information?

According to Boyd, the two audiences that are the most annoying to kids are those in power (parents, teachers, bosses, authorities), and those who prey on users (portrayed by the media as sexual predators, but are really spammers and scammers). On the other hand, they also are having to learn how to control what is public and what is private. Boyd believes the web waters are being navigated by both the older and the younger generations. But seriously, the older generation needs to know:

• Youth web space is for hanging out, yo. Kids do not want to be regulated as though they are in classrooms.
• Risky behavior online means risky behavior offline. The Internet is usually mirroring reality.
• No lecturing, please. When questions about online conduct arise, it is important to remember that there are no black & white rules.

She then goes on to give some advice to educators, encouraging them to engage in conversations by creating online profiles and speaking the language of SNSes. Don’t be lame on those profiles, and don’t start searching for students. Be a responsible model, but don’t be a dictator. Yeah, you tell’em Boyd…

Second, Clay Shirky’s Gin, Television, and Social Surplus.

Shirky says that when people went from wide rural spaces to cramped urban environments in the industrial revolution, the change was so sudden that they didn’t know what to do. Naturally, they drank. Gin.

That lasted for a while, until they realized having a ton of people close together is actually a good thing – people could make libraries and museums, elect leaders, have better education. Truly society-transforming stuff.

A parallel that Shirky draws is that in the 20th century, there was a change from little free time to lots and lots of free time. What to do with the extra minutes? Sitcom to the rescue. TV was the new gin. That lasted for decades. Only now, as TV shows become unbearably predictable, do people finally realize that the free time can actually be used in better ways, as made possible by the Internet. TV was a one-way street, while Internet was three-way; not just consumption, but production & sharing as well. Think Wikipedia.

We are facing the next wave of true societal transformation, and the proof is in the next generation. Those growing up nowadays expect a three-way kind of interaction with media. They see a screen and naturally feel for the mouse.

Third, Shirky’s speech Here Comes Everybody.

“Group Action Just Got Easier” would be the caption for his speech because he points to how coordination and synchronization is facilitated by the Web. Shirky explains through several examples how the use of the Internet is changing communication on every level of this ladder:

1. Sharing (least amount of individuals’ commitment)
2. Conversation
3. Collaboration
4. Collective Action (greatest amount of individuals’ commitment)

As more methods of experimenting with the Internet occurs, it becomes clear that the magnitude of group action (from message boards to petitions) is made possible because of how the Internet makes it possible to quickly connect those with something in common. On that last rung, Collective Action, the commitment is greater because one starts putting the group before the interests of the individual.

He expands on these ideas in A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy.

A group meeting has certain tendencies, which can be seen both online and at neurotics’ group therapy:

1. Sex Talk. Flirtatious and salacious talk turns the conversation away from what might have been a sophisticated purpose.
2. ID-ing an Enemy. Having a common enemy makes banding together easier.
3. Worship. To a religious degree, to the point where critique is not allowed.

These things get in the way of progress, and usually some kind of rules/conditions must be put in place. In this way the online world and the political world are alike; we needed a Constitution, and Wikipedia needed moderators.

He focuses on this because of the explosion of social software and the growing ubiquity of the Web. You and everyone you know has access, and this creates assumptions that whatever is offline could and should be online too.

To design an efficient piece of social software, 3 things you have to accept:

1. The technical issues and the social issues are inextricably intertwined. One cannot assume that the users will definitely behave a certain way. How they might use the software is up in the air.
2. Members are different than users. Members are committed enough to maintain a site. They are the core group.
3. The core group’s rights trump individual rights (sometimes). The few in a core group cannot be drowned out by the millions of casual/guest/random users.

4 things you should incorporate:

1. Handles, or basically an ID that you can build your reputation on. Switching from username to username or faking an identity should carry a penalty.
2. A way for members to have an “In Good Standing” status. Karma, “member since,” sponsor/invite only networks are some options.
3. Ease of use for the group, not one new user. Rules for what a newbie can and cannot do.
4. Move the group away from large scale: the higher the value, the lower the scale. Ex) 900 friends, and out of them you value 30 close ones, and the kidney would maybe go to 1-2. Keep this in mind when designing.

According to Shirky, social software is diffcult to make, sort of like running a county.
Everyone’s got some rights.

Possibly Relevant Posts:

• Past As Prelude, Kind Of (0) | Angela
• Artificial Stupidity – looks like we won’t be scroogled. (4) | Angela
• I <3 The Hive Mind (0) | Lily Q