In Danah Boyd’s essay she analyzes MySpace and its use to teenagers in this day and age. Her analysis, however, is done in a very general way and it doe
s indeed focus on MySpace, which isn’t the social site used the most here at Brown. My “weak link”, Sam, and I decided to examine one another’s Facebook profiles, doing a little of comparing and analysis, attempting to learn a bit more about another. Now I’m a frequent user of Facebook, just like so many of my fellow Brown classmates. My profile has quite some information; with one screen shot it wasn’t even possible to see my whole profile, even with all my profile boxes collapsed. When I first saw Sam’s Facebook profile, which I couldn’t even access without him inviting me, I immediately realized how much less information he seemed to have, in comparison with me. Looking at my profile [above right] I wasn’t even able to take a full screen shot of what I wrote for my “Information” box. Then I saw Sam’s “Information” [lower left] there was a considerable less amount of information. This somehow relates to Boyd’s reference to “impression management.” While I choose to write an extremely long novel in my 
profile description to create a certain kind of impression, Sam chooses to hardly write anything at all. Thus which creates a better impression, a lot of information, or lack there of? Perhaps we’re aiming for difference audiences, thus our descriptions appeal to different people. Boyd also discusses how conversations, which were originally in private spheres, merge into the public sphere, through the use of comments, in Facebook called a The Wall. Many teenagers use comments and The Wall, constantly sending messages “back and forth, creating a form of conversation…taking social interactions between friends into the public sphere for others to witness.” Sam, however, doesn’t even have The Wall on his profile, not really bringing conversations to the public sphere, which is something I apparently do. Considering the differences between our profiles it is definitely apparent that we have different uses for this particular social network site. Sam’s Facebook profile definitely does differ from the description of a regular MySpace profile, as described in Boyd’s essay. Sam’s profile is indeed private, not much information, no public conversations and no pictures of him displayed on his profile. He seems to have strong control over what people see of his profile/being. My profile, however, seems to be a lot of exposure, the opposite of Sam’s. I can’t say if exposure or ambiguity is better when it comes to social sites, but it definitely does reflect on how different we socialize. [To look at a full screenshot of each of our profiles follow these links: Sam’s Profile, Jamilya’s Profile]
Sam's:Jamilya and I thought it might be interesting to comment on/describe each other's Facebook profiles in order to show how profiles can be differently constructed using the same networking site. This difference shows that we have a different way/approach to online networking.
Before going into detail in explicating the construction of Jamilya's (I'll use J.) profile, it is important to note that it is open to anyone belonging to the Brown University network. Therefore, I could view her profile (i.e. see/understand "who she is" because in Boyd's terms, "[people] write their being into existence") without even knowing her. The fact that it was "open" to me let me gain specific knowledge into who she is even though I might not have met her.
J. has filled out most of the basic "generic form." This primary form consists of her school, sex, hometown, year of birth, networks she belongs to, sexual orientation, religious and political views. She has not filled out the latter two. She has, however, personalized the generic form by not including the year of her birth even though she filled out the date and month of her birthday. This act of answering a question partially could be read by some as concealment. One could, for example, wonder why the year has not been included if the rest has. Questions arise, connotation ensues, and conclusions are made.
Online profiling leads to hyper-interpretation. One could also question why some questions in the basic form have not been answered and posted on the profile. The fact that they exist and left blank signifies something because one had to deliberately choose not to answer the questions. This is not to judge J. of what she decided to include/exclude, it is just to point out the decision making that happens when one creates an online profile and how it can have interpretive consequences, negative or positive.
Aside from the basic generic form, J. has many Facebook applications. They are too complex to analyze in detail so I will just say that the fact that J. has applications shows that she has strong interactions with an online network. Especially so when the applications require participation of friends. One such application is "Bumper Sticker." This application allows people to post stickers on her profile for her and the public's (limited to Brown) enjoyment. J. and her friends can interact with each other by sharing funny things on a public page. What happens when these stickers are viewed by an unknown public to her? Interpretation, and then conclusions. If one has stickers of pets, one will interpret those as being a sign that she and her friends like pets. Since the stickers are removable by the profile owner, the act of "doing nothing" shows that she also likes pets (to a degree unknown to us, unless there is repetition which would signal a high degree of liking). This is, I admit, slippery terrain to analyze because maybe she hates pets and just didn't remove the sticker before I saw it. However, this does not matter, because what matters is that a reader interprets what he sees, regardless of the intention(s) behind the presence/absence of elements.
From all this, what I can say is that social networking happens through the communication with others whether voluntarily or not (someone at Brown who does not know J. can sort of figure out who she is/what she is like in the same way as her online friends); and by exchanging and sharing (or not sharing) information that is always subject to interpretation.
Interpretation seems to me to be the most important aspect to online networking, which is why my Facebook is so bare. However, I cannot escape interpretation because the fact that my profile is bare can be interpreted just as well. Perhaps not having a Facebook is also subject to interpretation....
--Sam E. and Jamilya R.C.--
No comments:
Post a Comment