This article suggests that the burgeoning amount of emails, instant messages, tweets, and texts we receive  are becoming a harmful and prohibitive cacophony of hyper-communication. So why can’t people reduce the amount of messages they send (and receive)? Well, they could be addicted (“e-compulsion”). In such instances researchers notice decreased attention spans, increased stress, and decreased productivity (Alarming statistics! Read the article).

The most frightful thing to consider? What if what we’re doing – emailing about – day-to-day really impacts our life in the long-term? Robinson brings to light an argument by Winifred Gallagher, authored of Rapt, that “humans are the sum of what they pay attention to: What we focus on determines our experience, knowledge, amusement, fulfillment. Yet instead of cultivating this resource, she says, we’re squandering it on ‘whatever captures our awareness.’ To truly learn something, and remember it, you have to pay full attention.”

As noted by Robinson, it pays to pay attention to attention.

Note an example of a blogging “no-no” which the FTC provides:

“Assume…the consumer joins a network marketing program under which she periodically receives various products about which she can write reviews if she wants to do so. If she receives a free bag of..new dog food through this program, her positive reviews would be considered an endorsement under the [new guidelines]” (60).

Five years and 150 million users later, Facebook is still the topic of heated debate. What does this construct say about our society? What impact is it having? What social mores is it changing? These questions, and others, will continue to be posed and considered for years to come and, fortunately, Facebook will keep delivering material for speculation. Take, for example, the “25 Random Things” note racing through this social network’s veins like some epidemic virus. The object is to fill out a list of 25 things about yourself, a blend of the private and the personal, and publish it to your friends. They are then supposed to fill out a list about themselves in turn, and pass it on. As John Timpane of the Philadelphia Inquirer observes, after one person sent this note to ten others, and those ten sent the note to ten of their friends, “soon Facebook – a virtual living room where people hang out and tell everyone else what they’re doing and thinking – is awash with personal revelations, admissions, info once kept private.”

The question here is, is this practice evincing narcissism or simple hyperconnectedness? A sin indulged, or a new virtue evolving? As Timpane so astutely noted, you can call this narcissism if you want, “but it might be that the train left and you weren’t on it.” What then? If we take this hyperconnectedness as a new, evolving virtue, what does it mean, you know, for the future? Some “old garde” critics might see this and demonize it as the unhealthy practice of a group of individuals gone wrong. However, we can no longer dispute that this bandwagon is a vast majority of individuals; not just a faction which can be chatted about idly but largely ignored. They carry real weight.

Still a DoubtingThomas? Just direct your doubt to Detroit, where automakers are realizing that their only hope is to beg and plead for the attention of the “Millennial” generation: individuals to whom connectedness is the primary virtue for a life lived well. Whereas Baby Boomers sought out “horsepower, wide tires and dual exhausts,” carmakers are now recognizing that in order to appeal to millenial consumers – those born between 1982 and 2000 – they have to turn out models which emphasize technological connectedness, like “email capabilities, hookups for iPods, laptop computers and other gizmos.” And the time to make these appeals are now: “Ford estimates that by 2010, the 16-31 demographic will make up the largest chunk of the car-buying public,” and these unsuspecting millenials are not brand-loyal yet, so they make easy prey.

While I was researching and writing a thesis entitled “Facebook: Encouraging Authentic or Inauthentic Identity Construction?,” I have to admit belonging to that “old garde” I mentioned earlier. I couldn’t help but look around and see so much gone wrong; healthy communicative praxis abandoned; narcissism abounding. But, I’m willing to concede I may have been wrong. Perhaps what I, and others, saw as egocentrism might have been the individual lens refocusing on community. John Timpane demonstrates he has sharper eyes than mine as he chastises, “That communal aspect is what so much commentary misses about ‘25 Random Things.’ It’s not just a list; it’s a communal exercise.” Timpane quotes an unscientific survey of 30 such lists, and notes that it uncovered nothing “vicious or unkind.” Instead, one of his sources characterizes the 25 Random Things list as ’surprisingly supportive, sweet, even encouraging…’ [a nuturing thing friends do].”

Or was I wrong? Timpane quotes an email he received from Christine Rosen (whose work I respect a great deal), in which she affirmed “narcissism is narcissm: ‘For all of their apparently casual tone, these lists are not filled with random things. They are carefully and deliberately crafted efforts to market their makers as quirky and appealing people. The revelation of one person’s quirks can be endearing, but the broadcasting of hundreds of thousands of people’s quirks quickly devolves into tedious mass solipsism.’”

Of course, her logic is unassailable on at least one count: these 25 “random” things couldn’t possibly be random. In order to make that true, each individual would have to write down a host of personal things piled up in their closet and then somehow – by roll of the die, a random number generator, or spin the bottle – randomly select things to publish. I sincerely doubt anyone took that much effort into constructing their list, so we have to regard the “25 Random Things” note as a persuasive, meticulously articulated artifact.

Timpane also quoted family therapist Sara Kay Smullens, who suggested “people can fly to Facebook or other sites to avoid their flesh-and-blood family and friends. ‘It can be a substitute, one that doesn’t work, for an intimacy they can’t find in real life.’

I have to beg your forbearance as I reveal that for a handful of years, I was addicted to science fiction novels. I’m convinced everyone has that phase sooner or later. In any case, this situation reminds me of a motif running throughout Joan D. Vinge’s sci fi novel, Dreamfall. This book involves a struggle between futuristic humans and an alien race of humanoids with psionic powers (telepathy, telekenesis, etc – what good sci fi thriller doesn’t?). The main character of the book is a half-breed, partially human, partially endowed with some telepathic ability. As a result of his half-breed composition and a history of abuse from both camps, he has a mental “shield” erected constantly. When walking among groups of his mother’s people (the telepaths), he is snarled at, criticized, and avoided, because his mind is “closed off” from everyone else. Through this exchange, readers learn that this alien community has survived for generations with open hearts and open minds, total exposure between and among people, with nothing hidden.

Now, jumping back from science fiction into reality, I can’t help but notice some similarities here. Pre-Web 2.0, we were as disconnected as disconnected could be. We spoke on the phone, wrote letters, enjoyed each other’s physical company, but that was more or less it. Since the launch of Web 2.0, we have felt a compulsion to dig deeper, to find intimate secrets about ourselves and reveal them, whether through away messages or status messages which speak to our emotions at the time (and who can hide their emotions when in the throes of them, and when there aren’t any repercussions – such as judgement – from physical contact), or from blank “About me” and “Interests” sections which beg to be filled with details about our identity. No matter that we never had to address these questions before, and that maybe we were giving in too much (after all, just because a question is asked does not mean you have to answer it – but that’s a sickness the human race has faced in aeternum, and a topic for another day). We had questions to answer and we were damned if we weren’t going to give in, without due hesitation and deliberation to determine what is “right.” In the last twenty years or so, we have been two totally different species of humanity.

But back to an earlier question, where I asked: what does all of this mean for the future? This is where my science fiction reference come into play. The issue I’m most intrigued by now is: Who’s going to be the outcast? The one who shares all, or the one who shares none? Turn to Ayn Rand’s Anthem if you want, or the hundreds of novels written about the struggle between individualism and community. I, myself, will turn back to Psion, the first Joan D. Vinge novel in the trilogy which produced Dreamfall: In that book, the protagonist is taught an aphorism he can never quite shake, and which has haunted me from the first time I read it 12 years ago:

“In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is stoned to death.” 

Does this describe the relationship between you and your social network(s), as you perceive it? No? Does the idea make you uncomfortable, then? Can you dispute it?

Williams makes a few poignant observations from a humanistic perspective, but those are really background noise to his major assertions: that Web 2.0 might be a bubble about to pop; that we might begin to see select Social Networks go belly-up, because they simply aren’t turning a profit (or in some cases, making any money whatsoever); and that some Social Networks might start charging users for basic services, such as video uploads.

At thirteen years of age and living just four-doors apart from each other, Sarah Drew and Megan Meier were your typical girl friends in your typical Missouri town living their typical teenage lives. Megan and Sarah even experienced a typical falling-out, when chats about boys turned into name-calling, bickering and, eventually, silence.

If only that had been the end of their typical friendship. Instead, in the summer of 2006, Sarah’s mother, Lori Drew, got involved. Aged forty-seven at the time, Lori created a MySpace profile for a fictional boy, Josh Evans. She sought out and “friended” Megan Meier online “in an attempt to woo [Megan] and extract information from her to determine if she had been spreading gossip about [her] daughter.” [1] For weeks, Lori Drew, her daughter, and a co-worker fabricated a romantic relationship with Meier until, in October 2006, things got ugly. Attacking Megan’s self-esteem, “Josh Evans” wrote “I don’t want to be friends with you anymore because you’re not nice to your friends.”[2] Shortly after Megan replied, asking what he meant, she realized that “Evans” had publicly posted messages she had written to him, where they could be viewed by all of her friends at school. As a result, these “friends” began posting bulletins making fun of Megan.

The last message “Evans” wrote was simply and cruel: “Everybody in O’Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.”[3] The final message Megan would send to Josh, or to anyone, was chillingly short: “You’re the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over.”

And so she did. Twenty minutes after Megan sent this message to the person she knew as Josh, the “totally hot” sixteen year old who had been courting her for weeks, her mother discovered her hanging from a belt in her closet; a macabre image made tragically ironic by the fact that Megan had struggled for years with a depression caused, in part, by feeling overweight. [3]

At the time, Megan’s parents knew nothing of Josh Evans. Weeks later, Mrs. Grills, the single mother of Ashley Grills, who worked for Lori Drew and sent messages on behalf of Josh Evans at her direction, approached the Meiers with terrible news. She shared with them what had only recently come to her attention, that Lori Drew and her daughter Sarah had created the identity of Josh Evens in order to inflict emotional pain on Megan – and that they had convinced Mrs. Grills daughter, Ashley, to “join in the joke.”[3] Before the ambulance had even left the Meiers’ house with Megan’s body, Ashley received a call from Lori Drew telling her that something had happened to Megan and that it was best not to mention the MySpace account they had created. Ashley, fortunately, did not have so barren a conscience. Later, under immunity granted by the US Attorney, she testified to the truth of the Drews’ sickening scheme.

On Wednesday, November 26, 2008, a little more than two years after Megan’s death, a federal jury in Los Angeles convicted Lori Drew of three misdemeanor charges of computer fraud. As a result, Drew faces up to three years in prison and up to $300,000 in fines. She was acquitted of the more serious charges.[5]

The costs of the game Lori Drew played are immeasurable: one young girl’s life; on couple’s daughter, a marriage (Megan’s parents are getting a divorce, unable to grapple with the guilt they face); the solidarity and happiness of two families. And for what? Vengeance? Simple malice?

As difficult, and sad, as it might be to realize, the costs are not as significant as are the glaring issues we must face as a society. Megan Meier is not the only young girl who has been assaulted online – and nor will she be the last. According to a Pew Internet Project study released in 2007, one-third (32%) of online US teens have been victims of cyberbullying. [6]

Anyone who might have suggested that online content is insignificant, or that our presence online is trivial, must surely be convinced that is not the case. We create our own realities through language, through interaction with others. We are all intimately familiar with the physical, face-to-face reality-construction that was all our parents knew. It has only been for an incredibly short period of time that identities, relationships, and other aspects of our lives have been created, maintained, and/or supported by online activities. And we are simply unprepared.

Joseph Mele, a former instructor at the National Crime Prevention Institute, once observed that lighting an area reduces the threat of crime there.[7] At the core of observation is the understanding that when people feel they aren’t being watched, they feel invincible, untouchable, and able to do anything they desire – even if it is going to hurt someone else. Is it such a leap of the imagination to think of the Internet as just a very large, dark expanse in which people may feel at liberty to do as they wish? Of course not – that’s just common sense. What will take more effort, however, is to determine where the root of the problem lies.

Is it up to social networking sites to protect us from online marauders? Is it up to the government? Should one, the other, or both establish squads of people relentlessly combing through our online communication in order to track down those with bad intentions. Is the invasion of our privacy a price we’re willing to pay for security?

Or is it up to schools to ensure our children approach online activities as responsible members of a community? Perhaps Online Citizenship courses should be required fare during high school, or earlier.

Or is this an issue to be fought within the home? Maybe it is parents who should be teaching their children about citizenship – and how it should still exist in cyberspace.

Frankly, we’re only going to make progress if everyone fight’s the good fight: our social media providers, our government, and – most importantly – those people who have a direct influence on how we develop as human beings. That is a true position of leadership: to show those looking up to you that the time for kind words or no words at all is all the time – that there is never an excusable lapse for libel.

———

[1] “Cyberbulling case goes to jury,” UPI.com. [Link].

[2] “Lori Drew charged over MySpace suicide,” Fairfax Digital, May 16, 2008. [Link].

[3] “MySpace hoax ends with suicide of Dardenne Prairie teen,” Suburban Journals, November 11, 2007. [Link]

[4] “Verdict in MySpace Suicide Case,” NY Times, November 26, 2008. [Link].

[5] “In the wake of MySpace verdict, could social networks do more to protect consumers?” Los Angeles Times, November 26, 2008. [Link].

[6] “Cyberbullying and Online Teens,” Pew/Internet, June, 2007. [Link].

[7] “Inhibiting Crime Through Design.” [Link].

]]> http://ashleywollam.com/archives/245/feed 0 http://ashleywollam.com/archives/202 http://ashleywollam.com/archives/202#comments Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:11:14 +0000 Ashley Wollam http://ashleywollam.com/?p=202

You may have noticed a good deal of hullabaloo in the press about the advent of Mobile Banking: the new technology enabling consumers to control their financial assets from their mobile phone (texting to transfer funds, schedule a payment, check balances, et cetera).

As exciting as that is, banking is not the only activity people engage in on-the-go. ABI research reports that 46% of those who use social networks have also accessed a social network through their mobile phone (70% of those had visited MySpace  and 67% had visited Facebook). Interestingly, when asked why they had logged in via their mobile, 50% acknowledged checking for comments and messages, while 45% logged in to make status updates – that is, projecting what they were doing or feeling to their online audience.

Social media users have surely not hit a glass ceiling there. Bluhalo reports that social media are “becoming a key element of presidential campaigns.” In fact, the Democractic candidate, Barack Obama, is leveraging social media to encourage his 1.9 million online supports not just to raise money, but to volunteer their time and talents to further his camapign. Time will tell if Republican candidate, John McCain, should have done the same with his 150,000 online supporters.

But back to the thought of mobile-activity. It seems that a burgeoning segment of Americans are finding it necessary to establish a stable place for them to exist, while remaining free to move about in their daily lives. How much of this is desire, and how much of this is need? How much of this is practical, how much of this is excess? To what degree will this change in the coming years? While this recent development definitely harks to fantastic technological advancements, my concern lays somewhere in the gray of “just because we have it, doesn’t mean we need to use it.” Maybe I can better express my concerns by posing three probing questions:

1. How many people view their online presences as Voltaire’s garden? A little sanctuary which we must cultivate on our own to be our stable place in an ever shifting, changing world? (“One just needs to cultivate one’s garden…’tis the only way to make life endurable.”)
2. For how many people are these online presences much like Dorian Gray’s portrait? The outside remains fixed and beautiful, while the insides rot away due to inattention and superficiality. (“It often seems to me that art conceals the artist far more completely than it ever reveals him.”) (Sorry for the double-whammy allusions to high-brow lit.)
3. For how many people, does this desire to “connect” via their cell phones indicate an addiction, an unhealthy urge to always be online, rather than in your physical reality? I’m reminded of my September 13, 2008 post, “Can You Put Down Your Mouse? Your Cell Phone?”, where I noted that Internet Addiction is on track to be included in the next edition of the DSM as a legitimate disorder. Don’t forget that the symptoms of internet addiction include excessive use and anxiety when the device is inaccessible, among other things.

When it comes down to it, I suppose what I’m trying to say is that I worry the millenial generation is becoming more obsessed with themselves than their predecessors, the watershed narcissists of Generation X, because of how accessible and addicting social media has been shown to be. What does this turning inward suggest for our communities? For our relationships? For ourselves?

Or maybe I’m worried for nothing, and just too much a sycophant of Jack Kerouac’s, who urged us to remember “No man should go through life without once experiencing healthy, even bored solitude in the wilderness, finding himself depending solely on himself and thereby learning his true and hidden strength.” I can’t help but think that is damn good advice.

]]> http://ashleywollam.com/archives/202/feed 0 http://ashleywollam.com/archives/163 http://ashleywollam.com/archives/163#comments Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:50:08 +0000 Ashley Wollam http://ashleywollam.com/?p=163 In the way of an update on my earlier posts regarding businesses using social networking tools, I wanted to direct readers to an article by Dion Hinchcliffe, who does a great job of covering the various platforms for creating online communities.

Read “Ten leading platforms for creating online communities.“

As Robin Gareiss of Network World observes, SNS such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and MySpace present a swath of opportunities and hurdles for employers. Contrary to what you might expect, many companies are taking the issue of SNS head on. Gareiss notes that “about 26% of businesses use [SNS], and another 28% are evaluating or planning to use them” while another “46% of companies [have] no plans” for SNS.

What’s the position of your organization?

In considering the SNS question, businesses must decide what practical value, if any, an SNS would add. Some businesses (42%) have quickly and decisively determined that SNS would only waste employees’ precious time, and so block them (Nemertes, quote by Gareiss). In addition to the potential time and productivity vacuum, these businesses worry that SNS might deconstruct the professional relationship employees might otherwise maintain with their colleagues by having less fettered access to personal information, thoughts, desires, and self-disclosures.

Other businesses, however, are finding SNS to be invaluable in promoting their products/services and providing their employees with an additional, more flexible interface for connecting with clients and business partners (Gareiss). In fact, some of these companies prefer using SNS because “they like mixing business and personal relationships” and feel that “knowing more about their colleagues or customers builds tighter bonds” (Gareiss). Furthermore, some researchers assert that allowing employees to use SNS can even promote productivity (Challenger). One survey assessing companies’ stances on SNS found that 10% of respondents believed SNS are “invaluable marketing, networking and sales tools,” while another 6% actually encourage their employees to have a presence on these sites (Challenger). A survey by the Institute of Corporate Productivity quoted by Challenger revealed that 52% of workers use SNS to “keep connected with internal and remote staff,” while another 47% use SNS to “identify and build relationships with potential customers and to showcase their skills.”

With an equal amount of data supporting the decision to block SNS as to promote their use, the question for businesses really comes down to what vision they feel more comfortable with: do they envision increased success by fashioning their business into an island unto itself, or do they envision greater success through working to establish a corporate pangea, through which businesses are connected as never before? Or is it even fair to reduce the issue to such a simple binary?

Regardless of what businesses may (or may not) decide,  SNS are not waiting for general acceptance. It seems a new business-oriented SNS rises to the fore daily.  Jay Campbell of Travel Management highlighted two new business SNS this week: i-Meet, a “worldwide professional and social network for meeting and event planners,” and American’ Expresses’ Business Travel Connexion, a network for travel professionals. Other SNS populating the business-oriented neighborhood include Ryze, which describes itself as a helping “people make connections and grow their networks…to grow your business, build your career and life, find a job and make sales;” APSense, a “Free Business Social Network where people get paid to come together to share their business;” and VOIS, declares itself to be “one of the faster growing, publicly-traded global social networking communities” which “encourages its members to promote themselves and their businesses by using VOIS social commerce tools.”

Together, these SNS are forming a movement for sCommerce (social commerce). The fate of sCommerce will likely be determined by whether the majority of businesses will buy into sCommerce as something they can efficaciously leverage, or if they will just see it as an empty, unfulfillable promise.

_______

See

• Campbell, Jay. “New Social Networks Emerge for Travel, Meeting Professionals.” Travel Management. 08.13.2008. [Click here].
• Challenger, James. “Are Social Networking Sites Good for Business?” California Job Journal. 08.10.2008. [Click here].
• Cheshire, Lee. “Teens Grow Wary of Social Networking.” Growth Business. 08.11.2008. [Click here].
• Gareiss, Robin. “Social Networking at the Branch.” Network World. 08.12.2008. [Click here].
• Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. “Internet’s Broader Role in Campaign 2008: Social Networking and Online Videos Take Off.” 01.11.08. [Click here].

Take, for example, this metaphor from Tim Barker of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

“Social networks are the bars and nightclubs of the Internet.

Some cater to folks looking for a quiet evening on the town. Others offer a spot to share a quick story and a cold beer after a long day at work. And then there are those places where you can usually count on someone drinking too much and taking off their clothes.”

Very apt.