In a BBS webpage, people post and comment. Good posts always get many commands. So posts are listed by "Title + commands number". So when you check the post list, you can easily find a good post by checking the command number instead, and you command if you think it is great too. So this is like a cycle, and good posts get out last. Posts are posted under different categories, like sports, music, and so on. Besides the original posting list, there is another list, ranking list. It is ranked by comment number, and it is a dynamic list showing the top 10 posts. Users get scores when post, comment, and if the posted involved into the first 10, they get scores too. When gets certain scores, people reach different "levels". The higher the level, the more utilities you have in this webpage. These are some basic norms.
There are sometimes when people post they comment themselves many times using another user name to get a high comment number to rank good and to get scores. But if every body do so, then people will not intend to share good posts, but only post some general posts and comment themselves all the time. So the norm is breached. So reaproches come. A new method comes out that no matter how many comments one may write under one post, they only account for one. If they want more comments, they have to register new user names. But to register a new user name, one must have a new email address haven't used in this BBS. So under so many constraints, nearly no one would choose to get many many user names to get commets. And this new method works well for the norm.
There are sometimes when people want to get more scores to get a higher level that they comment every post, no matter good or bad, and not actully share or write good posts. If everyone do so, there will be only many meaningless commets, with only one or two words, like"good"or"not bad", but not many good posts. So the norm is breached again. So reaproches come. Another new scoring method is generated. For example, a post getsyou 50 points, a comment 1 point, and when your post has invovled in to the top 10, you get extra, like 300 points, and the longer it stays in the top list, the more points you gets. So normal people who want to get points would mostly choose to find, share and wite good posts instead of comment some useless words after what others post. And this new method works well for the norm too.
People in the BBS webpage are anonymous, using only user name as identity, which is always virtual. Besides they have the same interest post under certain categories. They post articles, pictures and discuss about music issues under certain music category. And they conform certain norms that the BBS runs well. When most people work under certain norms, they have positive evaluation of others work and the whole web system. As people are all anonymous here, they work with more concern with their post and comments than other things. So this BBS web system runs pretty well these days.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
6.1 - Hunting the Loser Leviathan: My Experience with Darknexxus.com
Refusing to do Facebook this time and in an attempt to explore the Internet a bit more, I searched for a regulated site by typing “role-playing chat” in my Google toolbar (hoping that not many porn sites would come up too). Within the first couple of listed sites I found www.darknexxus.com, a cyberchatroom that encompasses a made-up world using avatars. At first, it was hard to discern this chat forum from a regular forum because everyone in the room seemed to be discussing normal topics; one in particular was Fight Club. However, a bit of searching through the site and asking a few of the people what this was all about quickly helped me find the Leviathan and the purpose of the site.
A Leviathan, as stated by Wallace, “simply might be a system of government that we empower to resolve disputes, justly we hope.” On this site, the Leviathan is stated clearly in the rules and standards. Essentially, it is comparable to a PG-13 movie rating. When you are in or out of the made-up character you must adhere to rules that don’t allow for vulgarity or sexual exploitation in anyway with some exceptions to words like “damn”, “hell” or “ass”. Monitored by site “administrators”( who could also be considered Leviathans), the players are allowed to create profiles that do not include sexual content. In most cases, a real-life picture and an “Anime” picture were set as a profile picture for a member of the forum. Each chat, I found, focused on a different type of made-up world or was just a normal chat with some regulations.
As mentioned before, one was what I though to be a Fight Club virtual lifestyle where each character played a role. Although Fight Club could certainly make a chat room more susceptible to vulgar content, I found that the members were conforming to the Leviathan’s set of standards and norms. Wallace says that conformity is “to a large extent the glue that keeps a group or even a whole society, together,” suggesting that conformity is a necessary.
Each person, in character, would act out a fight and out of character (OOC) would make reference to the movie--yes, these 13-year-old screen humpers are most likely poised a few inches from their computer screen, sporting an indoor-pale complexion with the vision of being some inked-up bad ass fighting in some alley behind an old crummy bar (sorry if this is you). Under the entirely random alias, “H (e) aven”, I tested the group’s cohesiveness and conformity by swearing a few times while I enacted a quick fight scene. Needless to say, I was quickly reproached or given the “arched brow” according to Wallace. Multiple group members asked me to not swear, or even told me that the rules were “no swearing”. One member, very hospitably, told me to “GET OUT”. Being faced with the labeling of a “nonconformist”, I apologized and explained that I was new. I noticed other unwritten Leviathans on the site as well. For example, almost anyone who left the room would not just leave but address everyone with some sort of “goodbye” whether it was in character (such as “Tyler Durden wins, I give up”) or out of character (“[Adelia] Night night, peeps.”) It was important to let people know when you are done playing the game.
The evidence of conformity supports the SIDE theory in all three categories discussed by Postmes, Spears, Sakhel and Groot. Because group identity was salient (social identity) and aesthetic anonymity (deindividuation) was also present, conformity, attraction to this particular chat forum, and social influence were prevalent. The fact that people conformed and aimed to stay in character to continue role-playing could support Postmes’ “efficiency priming” in the SIDE theory. In the Postmes et al., it asserts that the “results [of the study] indicate that anonymous group members conform to the standards set by a prime, whereas identifiable group members do not.” In my opinion, the norms that existed among role-players could also support the deindividuation aspect of the SIDE theory.
A Leviathan, as stated by Wallace, “simply might be a system of government that we empower to resolve disputes, justly we hope.” On this site, the Leviathan is stated clearly in the rules and standards. Essentially, it is comparable to a PG-13 movie rating. When you are in or out of the made-up character you must adhere to rules that don’t allow for vulgarity or sexual exploitation in anyway with some exceptions to words like “damn”, “hell” or “ass”. Monitored by site “administrators”( who could also be considered Leviathans), the players are allowed to create profiles that do not include sexual content. In most cases, a real-life picture and an “Anime” picture were set as a profile picture for a member of the forum. Each chat, I found, focused on a different type of made-up world or was just a normal chat with some regulations.
As mentioned before, one was what I though to be a Fight Club virtual lifestyle where each character played a role. Although Fight Club could certainly make a chat room more susceptible to vulgar content, I found that the members were conforming to the Leviathan’s set of standards and norms. Wallace says that conformity is “to a large extent the glue that keeps a group or even a whole society, together,” suggesting that conformity is a necessary.
Each person, in character, would act out a fight and out of character (OOC) would make reference to the movie--yes, these 13-year-old screen humpers are most likely poised a few inches from their computer screen, sporting an indoor-pale complexion with the vision of being some inked-up bad ass fighting in some alley behind an old crummy bar (sorry if this is you). Under the entirely random alias, “H (e) aven”, I tested the group’s cohesiveness and conformity by swearing a few times while I enacted a quick fight scene. Needless to say, I was quickly reproached or given the “arched brow” according to Wallace. Multiple group members asked me to not swear, or even told me that the rules were “no swearing”. One member, very hospitably, told me to “GET OUT”. Being faced with the labeling of a “nonconformist”, I apologized and explained that I was new. I noticed other unwritten Leviathans on the site as well. For example, almost anyone who left the room would not just leave but address everyone with some sort of “goodbye” whether it was in character (such as “Tyler Durden wins, I give up”) or out of character (“[Adelia] Night night, peeps.”) It was important to let people know when you are done playing the game.
The evidence of conformity supports the SIDE theory in all three categories discussed by Postmes, Spears, Sakhel and Groot. Because group identity was salient (social identity) and aesthetic anonymity (deindividuation) was also present, conformity, attraction to this particular chat forum, and social influence were prevalent. The fact that people conformed and aimed to stay in character to continue role-playing could support Postmes’ “efficiency priming” in the SIDE theory. In the Postmes et al., it asserts that the “results [of the study] indicate that anonymous group members conform to the standards set by a prime, whereas identifiable group members do not.” In my opinion, the norms that existed among role-players could also support the deindividuation aspect of the SIDE theory.
Assignment 6- " My safe word is code blue."
Initially, when I was attempting to think of online reproach episodes, all of the examples I thought of had something to do with noobs being pwned by l33t members of whatever online group they were both a part of. These episodes are relatively minor and generally don’t cause either party any sort of lasting harm. Unfortunately, online reproach can’t always fix the damage done by violating established norms. Take the case of Congressman Mark Foley. I doubt I have to go into too much detail about what he did. Congressman Foley turned out to be a pedophile who enjoyed talking to young congressional pages on instant messenger about explicit sexual topics. I think Foley was given a false sense of security by the nature of instant messaging. It’s synchronous, so when the boys didn’t give him negative feedback right away, he probable felt that his behavior was acceptable. In addition, instant messenger gives the impression that it is recordless even though it is most decidedly not.
Foley violated not only Internet norms, but possibly the law as well. A huge range of sexually explicit material is perfectly acceptable online, just not when it involves individuals below the age of consent. An ABC news blog was the first to break this story. From there, more information was posted on other blogs ultimately forcing Foley to resign from Congress. The collective raised eyebrows of a nation destroyed his credibility.
Another online reproach episode occurred last year, when a man named posted an ad to the Craiglist’s personals section pretending to be a female who was into BDSM and looking for a dominant male. (Disclaimer: I’m sure some of you have heard of this story and know the real name of the perpetrator. I am not going to write his name here because based on what I have found out about him online, he seems to be a professional troll. I don’t want this blog coming up when people search for his name on Google. I doubt he would have any qualms about coming to this blog and causing trouble. I will henceforth refer to him as the troll.) Not surprisingly, many men responded to the ad. The troll proceeded to post the contact information, personal emails, and pictures these men had sent him onto a website, enabling many of them to be easily identified. A mild uproar ensued, with bloggers tripping over themselves to condemn him. Internet vigilante justice ended up scaring him into backing down from his stunt. People posted his address online and he had several threats made on his life. It is unclear if he was actually assaulted in real life.
The troll violated several Internet norms. Most shocking to a lot of people was that he shattered their ideas of the Internet as an idyllic paradise where they had full control over their identities. In Wallace’s categorization of Internet reproach incidences, this would probably be considered an ethical violation. The troll violated Craigslist’s policies and threatened the whole community with his actions. The troll disregarded Craigslists “sign on the door” and misrepresented himself and his intentions. The troll committed the mortal sin, in the online relationships world at least, of gender swapping. The only way sites like Craigslist can stay alive is by having relatively accurate listings and fostering a sense of safety among its users.
Unfortunately, the troll’s Craigslist stunt prompted others to pull similar copycat stunts and seemingly hasn’t stopped him from trolling. As it says on the site where his “Craigslist experiment” was posted, “He did it for the lulz.”
I'm Warning You...(Assignment 6.1)
Ever since I began college with my Mac, I have reverted to using iChat rather than AOL Instant Messenger. And to be honest, there just has been something missing for me...alright not exactly, but thinking about AIM reminds me of the good old days back in high school, just sitting in front of the computer checking out profiles and such. AIM has many norms to abide by, one of which is being relatively polite and not berating others. For the most part, you are talking with your friends, so this is usually not a problem. Yet sometimes you get into an argument, or you are speaking to someone who you just met. Either way, when opinions differ and tempers flare, you are supposed to remain in control and not flip out and insult the other until they cry to their mothers.
There are a few measures one can take to ensure that the AIM Leviathan rules supreme. The first is to block. If you are arguing with someone or they are being rue and/or inappropriate, you can threaten to block them. They cannot see you online or speak to you. This can work if the other values your online time together. If not, then the threat does not really have an effect. One of my fears as a child was getting blocked by some girl I liked, which led to a more conservative online strategy. For the most part it worked, and the only person who ever blocked me to my knowledge was my brother, who I was repeatedly calling a name normally used for a female dog because he told on me for watching television when I was supposed to be doing work. It was so worth it.
The second way of the Leviathan is my personal favorite, which is to "warn" them. Every member has a warning percentage, and every time you get warned your percentage goes up. When it reaches a certain point, you cannot talk to anyone, and if it goes higher, the program automatically quits. Therefore, if someone is being inaproppriate, you can warn them in hopes that they will get the message to cut it out. I do not know how effective this can be though, since you technically do not need any grounds to warn someone. My friends and I would "team up" on one person, and keep warning them until the program shut down. This might sound pathetic and childish, but we were 13- what could have been funnier?? The warn option on AIM is one part of the Leviathan.
The third Leviathan method is more drastic- reporting the individual to AIM or AOL, which could lead to further disciplinary action. In my entire AIM career spanning seven or eight years, I have only seen one person contact AIM to complain, and it was a mother who was furious that another 12 year old boy was talking inapproriately to her 12 year old angel. That is understandable. It sure takes a lot for someone to report another to AIM, so one would really have to push the envelope. Yet the option is there, a "sign on the wall" stating that inappropriate action can be punished if reported to AOL. This option helps keep the peace on AIM.
What is the moral of this story? Be wary, or you might get blindsided by a barage of warnings, and let me tell you- it could ruin your day.
There are a few measures one can take to ensure that the AIM Leviathan rules supreme. The first is to block. If you are arguing with someone or they are being rue and/or inappropriate, you can threaten to block them. They cannot see you online or speak to you. This can work if the other values your online time together. If not, then the threat does not really have an effect. One of my fears as a child was getting blocked by some girl I liked, which led to a more conservative online strategy. For the most part it worked, and the only person who ever blocked me to my knowledge was my brother, who I was repeatedly calling a name normally used for a female dog because he told on me for watching television when I was supposed to be doing work. It was so worth it.
The second way of the Leviathan is my personal favorite, which is to "warn" them. Every member has a warning percentage, and every time you get warned your percentage goes up. When it reaches a certain point, you cannot talk to anyone, and if it goes higher, the program automatically quits. Therefore, if someone is being inaproppriate, you can warn them in hopes that they will get the message to cut it out. I do not know how effective this can be though, since you technically do not need any grounds to warn someone. My friends and I would "team up" on one person, and keep warning them until the program shut down. This might sound pathetic and childish, but we were 13- what could have been funnier?? The warn option on AIM is one part of the Leviathan.
The third Leviathan method is more drastic- reporting the individual to AIM or AOL, which could lead to further disciplinary action. In my entire AIM career spanning seven or eight years, I have only seen one person contact AIM to complain, and it was a mother who was furious that another 12 year old boy was talking inapproriately to her 12 year old angel. That is understandable. It sure takes a lot for someone to report another to AIM, so one would really have to push the envelope. Yet the option is there, a "sign on the wall" stating that inappropriate action can be punished if reported to AOL. This option helps keep the peace on AIM.
What is the moral of this story? Be wary, or you might get blindsided by a barage of warnings, and let me tell you- it could ruin your day.
6: The Leviathon, how you run rampant through the forums
I always believed myself to be an individual until I realized that I actually do conform to many of the societal norms that exist on the Internet. One of the more obvious societal norms that I conform to exists on a little known site known as television without pity. More specifically, I engage in the forum called "Veronica Mars fanfiction."
One of the norms that exists is the fact that one must register in order to post in the forums. Along with the aforementioned norm exist the rules that dictate behavior in the forums. When registering for the account, one is presented with the rules to read. However, just in case one forget the rules ever, the rules are also outlined clearly in another forum titled "Dos and Don'ts." This forum goes through the rules for each and every section of the forums as well as the different actions one could take on the forums. For example, there are rules for starting new threads, for how to state opinions, and how to post spoilers among others. Although these rules are necessary in order to maintain decorum, some of them do require the users to give up individual freedoms so that the greater good of society is preserved.
There is a section entitled "Good Manners Dos and Don'ts," which includes the following statement as a rule, "DON'T talk about the boards on the boards." This statement blatantly violates the first amendment which allows individuals to speak their mind. However, in order to keep peace on the forums, this type of rule must exist. In the word of their FAQ, this rule exists since talking about the boards on the boards (which include talking about other threads, self praising oneself etc) causes the discussion to move away from something of substance.
There is also a FAQ that delves deeper into the reasonings for the rules that exist in the do's and don't's thread.
The Leviathon can be described in two ways. The first is that the users themselves are Leviathons since the site asks the members of the forums to report anyone who is breaking the rules. This is noted in the "Warnings, Bans and Trolls Dos and Don'ts" section of the rules. It can be done by posting on a thread known as "Troll Patrol." Since you can read the forums without an account (you only need one to post), guests can also email the moderators to report the "trolls". The second way is that the moderators and administrators also search through forums to find rule breakers.
Each user starts out with a note/warn level of zero. With each warning/note, the level increases. After a certain amount is reached, or if the same rule is broken repeatedly, the user is banned. There are essentially two types of warnings. They are called notes and warns. Notes are helpful hints that tell a poster that he/she has broken a minor rule. Once the poster acknowledges the note, there "note/warn level" goes back to what it was. However, the note remains there so that other moderators can view it. The other type of warning is more severe. They can result in you being banned from the site. They also increase your note/warn level, however they remain on the level presumably forever (unless a moderator removes it at his/her discretion). If a user is banned, then they are never allowed to post on the forums again.
In Chapter 4, Wallace talks about how "netiquette" is shown to us through a "sign on the door". In the aforementioned example, there is the forum of dos and don'ts as well as the FAQ that act as the specialty signs for newbies to learn the rules. There are also many reproaches that exist on this forum. Breaking the rules can cause you to get warned, banned but also severely criticized by other users on the forum.
Wallace describes the Leviathon as something that emerges so that orderliness can be maintained in an online space. As mentioned above, the Leviathon in the chosen online space can be both the users and the moderators. She mentions that it is easier for a Leviathon to emerge when the online space is eager to be moderated. This leads to why the troll patrol thread on the forums is one of the most visited one. Television without pity forum users want orderliness so that discussions stay on topic, and that no newbie ruins the experience
First comment
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/62-post-principles.html
Second comment
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/a61-and-you-thought-you-ran-show.html
One of the norms that exists is the fact that one must register in order to post in the forums. Along with the aforementioned norm exist the rules that dictate behavior in the forums. When registering for the account, one is presented with the rules to read. However, just in case one forget the rules ever, the rules are also outlined clearly in another forum titled "Dos and Don'ts." This forum goes through the rules for each and every section of the forums as well as the different actions one could take on the forums. For example, there are rules for starting new threads, for how to state opinions, and how to post spoilers among others. Although these rules are necessary in order to maintain decorum, some of them do require the users to give up individual freedoms so that the greater good of society is preserved.
There is a section entitled "Good Manners Dos and Don'ts," which includes the following statement as a rule, "DON'T talk about the boards on the boards." This statement blatantly violates the first amendment which allows individuals to speak their mind. However, in order to keep peace on the forums, this type of rule must exist. In the word of their FAQ, this rule exists since talking about the boards on the boards (which include talking about other threads, self praising oneself etc) causes the discussion to move away from something of substance.
There is also a FAQ that delves deeper into the reasonings for the rules that exist in the do's and don't's thread.
The Leviathon can be described in two ways. The first is that the users themselves are Leviathons since the site asks the members of the forums to report anyone who is breaking the rules. This is noted in the "Warnings, Bans and Trolls Dos and Don'ts" section of the rules. It can be done by posting on a thread known as "Troll Patrol." Since you can read the forums without an account (you only need one to post), guests can also email the moderators to report the "trolls". The second way is that the moderators and administrators also search through forums to find rule breakers.
Each user starts out with a note/warn level of zero. With each warning/note, the level increases. After a certain amount is reached, or if the same rule is broken repeatedly, the user is banned. There are essentially two types of warnings. They are called notes and warns. Notes are helpful hints that tell a poster that he/she has broken a minor rule. Once the poster acknowledges the note, there "note/warn level" goes back to what it was. However, the note remains there so that other moderators can view it. The other type of warning is more severe. They can result in you being banned from the site. They also increase your note/warn level, however they remain on the level presumably forever (unless a moderator removes it at his/her discretion). If a user is banned, then they are never allowed to post on the forums again.
In Chapter 4, Wallace talks about how "netiquette" is shown to us through a "sign on the door". In the aforementioned example, there is the forum of dos and don'ts as well as the FAQ that act as the specialty signs for newbies to learn the rules. There are also many reproaches that exist on this forum. Breaking the rules can cause you to get warned, banned but also severely criticized by other users on the forum.
Wallace describes the Leviathon as something that emerges so that orderliness can be maintained in an online space. As mentioned above, the Leviathon in the chosen online space can be both the users and the moderators. She mentions that it is easier for a Leviathon to emerge when the online space is eager to be moderated. This leads to why the troll patrol thread on the forums is one of the most visited one. Television without pity forum users want orderliness so that discussions stay on topic, and that no newbie ruins the experience
First comment
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/62-post-principles.html
Second comment
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/a61-and-you-thought-you-ran-show.html
Assign 6, Opt 1 - help forums for computer related problems - DONT repeat a question!
The online social space which I would like to discuss pertains to online computer help forums. With the advent of the internet, forums of both newbie’s and experts have arisen to provide an outlet for people to post questions and get various answers/suggestions in return. Not being a computer wiz, I frequently turn to such online forums which provide a question and answer type of set up for my computer issues. Though there is no one site in particular, I access these websites by googling my computer related problem. Over the years, my many computer problems have enabled me to observe quite a bit about these forums and the social norms which go hand in hand within them. These social norms are enforced by a certain leviathan, a set of codes and an unwritten government empowered by the masses of people who use the codes each day. When I first visited these sites it was merely as a spectator, however, as my computer issues got more detailed, it was time for me to make a post - I needed to hunt the leviathan in order to not be ridiculed within the seemingly tight-nit community of posters. Hunting the leviathan is something we as humans do by nature. It is our way of making sure we have a shot at being selected as the in-group and not banished from whatever online space your working within.
One norm found within these forums is the way in which it is mandated that people act. There is absolutely no socialization within these websites, no names are mentioned, no chit chat, no discussions about peoples days, and most importantly absolutely no repetition of questions. For whatever reason, people flip out when a question is asked twice. When someone does not conform to these rules, a flame war could potentially break out. This is the worst case scenario and could potentially result in people not answering your question for being so stupid to ask a persons name or not search through the archives, for example. What is more likely to occur however, is one of the “regulars” will explain the rules. As new members come about, the rules are shared again and again. If someone really struggles and attempts to not conform, a virtual arched brow is placed on the newbie (Wallace, 1999). When this arched brow is placed, the regulars simply wont answer your question and thus apply pressure on the newbie. In a sense they, without words, say if you don’t follow the rules, you will not be welcome here. Another factor which keeps people inline is the fact that people strive to become a “regular.” Some people’s voices and responses to a question are heard much louder than others. This is definitely a motivating factor to abide by the leviathan and provide new users with the best answers. This has to do with group polarization (Wallace, 1999). The in group has a common goal in mind and would prefer if no more regulars are admitted, whereas those not deemed regulars are more individual, and thus less respected. This can result in two seperate factions within the forum.
It is this leviathan which allows these internet forums to continue to work. When I first started using these forums, I was skeptical. Why would someone do research for me on a problem they weren’t having? It was all about the leviathan, I just didn’t know it ‘till now.
One norm found within these forums is the way in which it is mandated that people act. There is absolutely no socialization within these websites, no names are mentioned, no chit chat, no discussions about peoples days, and most importantly absolutely no repetition of questions. For whatever reason, people flip out when a question is asked twice. When someone does not conform to these rules, a flame war could potentially break out. This is the worst case scenario and could potentially result in people not answering your question for being so stupid to ask a persons name or not search through the archives, for example. What is more likely to occur however, is one of the “regulars” will explain the rules. As new members come about, the rules are shared again and again. If someone really struggles and attempts to not conform, a virtual arched brow is placed on the newbie (Wallace, 1999). When this arched brow is placed, the regulars simply wont answer your question and thus apply pressure on the newbie. In a sense they, without words, say if you don’t follow the rules, you will not be welcome here. Another factor which keeps people inline is the fact that people strive to become a “regular.” Some people’s voices and responses to a question are heard much louder than others. This is definitely a motivating factor to abide by the leviathan and provide new users with the best answers. This has to do with group polarization (Wallace, 1999). The in group has a common goal in mind and would prefer if no more regulars are admitted, whereas those not deemed regulars are more individual, and thus less respected. This can result in two seperate factions within the forum.
It is this leviathan which allows these internet forums to continue to work. When I first started using these forums, I was skeptical. Why would someone do research for me on a problem they weren’t having? It was all about the leviathan, I just didn’t know it ‘till now.
6.1 YouTube comments are so BAD
(NSFW, lots of swearing) http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1771556
http://xkcd.com/202/
Ladies and gentlemen, today I have decided to write about the world of hurt and pain that is YouTube comments. Emerging in the world of the “social” internet, user generated communities are worth their weight in gold. However different communities have very different standards. This Collegehumor video illustrates a certain type of etiquette that is kept by internet commentators and highlights (explicitly) many stereotypes that the users have established for themselves. Interestingly enough, stupid YouTube comments have arguably become a norm for those visiting or entering the YouTube community. When compared to other “Web 2.0” online communities (Digg, Reddit, Blogs), I would say YouTube is equivalent to an immature ten year old racist. There is no mercy once you post your video on YouTube. Bigotry, slander and racism are found in almost every video with ten or more comments. A few intelligent comments will be made until nearing a tipping point where one person will cross the line and the comments will soon plummet into a back and forth of personal attacks. Anytime anybody writes anything pro-American it will be followed by fifty comments that are anti-American and so forth. Users will not hesitate a second to call a video fake or point out the flaws in somebody’s best performance.
While there is no overall group identity for commentators, opinionated comments cause other users to respond, and often have an effect on the opinions of users just watching the video. Raised eyebrows come down hard and often for comments that do not follow the norm. However, in some cases this seems to provoke users (trolls) to cause trouble and say things just to piss other people off. This ties in with SIDE theory in that users’ opinions on issues are based on their own real life group identities and the community often groups to ridicule others’ individual differences. However, individual focus and group focus is very situational. For example a user may sympathize with a user being publicly ridiculed by the community but ridicule another video and sympathize with the YouTube community. Anonymity also plays a very large part in the polarity of the comments. Because users do not have permanent identities associated with their usernames, they are visually anonymous and their comments can express any type of bias without the normal social consequences. My question is whether YouTube moderates their comments and their reason behind doing (or not doing) so. A Leviathan policing every YouTube video and removing bad comments is unlikely and probably the reason why so many deprecating comments exist. I have read that CBS arranged a deal with YouTube to remove undesirable comments from their only their videos. This then brings about the issue of free speech and whether YouTube comments are the property of the video’s original poster or the property of the commentators themselves. Hobbes said that if there is no Leviathan, the community will disintegrate and I think YouTube is a very good example of a space that drastically undervalues social boundaries and norms.
A6,1 WoW
I am a World Of Warcraft player and I have conformed to the leviathan which exist is the online MMPROG gaming community. The WoW leviathan for most new gamers is not quiet as clear as one would hope. Yes there is a set of rules posted on Blizzards Entertainments website noting rules to abide by, but for the new gamer exited about playing WoW they most of the time will not read these first. There is also a list of rules the first time you log in, but who has time for that. Most of the time gamers will learn the WoW leviathan from other gamers through playing the game just as we all do. As in the case of the French restaurant example Wallace uses, when eating at a French restaurant for the first time, one may become confused and not know what to use for what. One in that case would just look around and she what other people are doing and using and do the same. Therefore they will have conformed to the social norms of the French restaurant. In the Case of WoW there is often what people call the “Barrens Chat.” The Barrens Chat is an example of what not to do when playing WoW if you wish to conform to the social norms and fit in as a respected player. Another aspect of WoW in which people have to conform is during instances runs. Rage Fire Chasm or the Deadmines are example of some of the first instances that low level characters will run while playing WoW. Each of these require a group of playing to play together and each perform certain task in order to prevent dieing, if one player decides to do their own thing and not listen the group will wipe and the run will be a failure. One last aspect of WoW in which people must conform is when joining a guild. All guilds are different on WoW, and each official guilds usually have a website in which they list the norms they expect each player to abide by. If a player does not they will be kicked from the guild and possibly ruin there characters good name, perhaps making future playing more difficult because others will not want a non conformer to be part of there playing enjoyment.
Assignment 6: NSFW!
The online convention I'd like to discuss is the NSFW tag. NSFW stands for "Not Safe For Work" and is generally prefixed to links that contain content you might want to view in the privacy of your own home. That includes images and videos containing nudity, heavy graphical violence and explicit swearing.
The norm is as follows: If you are posting a link to any type of content described above, you should be putting a "NSFW" warning somewhere near the link which prevents people from for example looking at pornography in the workplace.
People learn this norm mainly by seeing it in action. Links with the tag will contain the explicit content so eventually NSFW will become associated with it. If you post links to nudity or violence without the tag you will also learn very quickly about it because a very large amount of people will complain about it. They will specifically request you label such links as NSFW in the future.
The Leviathan in this example is undeniably group user feedback. At this point in the age of the internet, people have learned not to click on random links from websites they do not know. So, the majority of clicking is done either from sites everybody trusts (say, cnn.com) or from forums/news aggregators with communities and the ability to comment on user submitted content. A great example of this is Digg.com. Sure, you can post whatever link you would like on that page. However, as users check it out they will instantly recognize that the content is bad and will do two things. First, they will flag it as inappropriate and report your entry to the administrators for removal. Second, they will make posts within your entry specifically telling people not to click on the link. And that's the Leviathan.
When you go to digg.com, if an entry has a lot of "diggs" (good votes) you automatically know that the content behind that link is good because 100's of other people have looked it over. Better still, if you don't trust it you can read the comments before clicking on the link. This provides that safe feeling we all look for in the Leviathan. So a NSFW link without the tag would very quickly be "dugg" down, flagged and commented on saying that it is actually NSFW.
On the theoretical side, all places that want you to use the NSFW tag are well-established online communities so clearly group dynamics are in play here. First, most group members will know to use the tag. Should somebody fail, the idea of conformity tells us that the older group members will reproach the newbie and teach him the right way, or lock them out of the group if it's a repeated offender. Next, very quickly the concept of group polarization makes a small reproach grow in magnitude. One "famous" user might comment on the NSFW post and complain about the lack of the tag. Very quickly many other group members will chime in on the importance of the tag even if they never planned to open the link in the first place. Generally most people would want the NSFW tag to be there, but might not care enough to comment. In a group setting though this becomes amplified.
Finally, the Leviathan itself is a group leviathan. This means that the exact rules are completely specific to the group setting. One forum might ban any offenders of the NSFW tag rule. Another might give a person three strikes.
6.1 Hunting Leviathan on eBay
eBay has single-handedly changed the way the world shops for goods, every kind of item, no matter how rare, is just a mouse click away. People no longer have to search long and hard for an incredible discount or an extraordinary antique, it is all there for you to find in the eBay community. It is a website with millions of members; composed of buyers and sellers who interact on various blogs, stores, groups, and chats that enable them to become one interconnected group of people. Numerous norms have developed with regard how to behave on this site. People’s desire to fit in and be accepted to this group and avoid punishment and ridicule ensures that people will conform to these established norms. Of particular interest are the buying and selling norms that exist, for all purchases are made on the basis of trust. Sellers must trust that the people buying their goods will actually pay them in a timely and efficient manner and buyers must trust that they are purchasing the authentic goods that sellers post.
In order for these norms to be followed, there must be some sort of regulation to ensure adherence to the “laws” of eBay. People are willing to conform to social conventions and adhere to laws that restrict our behaviors in order to ensure that “we live in a predictable and safe world, interacting peaceably and fairly with other humans” (Wallace 69). Thomas Hobbes proposed the concept of the Leviathan, an amorphous being to whom we defer to decide what behaviors are acceptable. MacKinnon argues that even though there is little internet regulation, a Leviathan still exists “because we want the Internet to flourish and sense it will not unless we build framework of trust and establish means to ensure compliance with, at least the very least, netiquette” (Wallace 69).
The “framework of trust” is built off of eBay’s own Leviathan, user feedback. This mechanism ensures that users will conduct a fair and honest trade and will build peoples trust in the system. Once a transaction is made, the user is typically asked to leave feedback about the seller (if the item shipped, was in good condition etc) and about the buyer (if paid immediately) and as a result, a person develops their identity on eBay based on their feedback score. A star and a number next to a person’s username, which is displayed to entire community, represent the score, which reflects all of their previous transactions. This feedback mechanism ensures that people will behave according to the group norms, since people with higher scores are looked more favorably upon and usually get more business. As stated above, it is human nature to want to be accepted by a group and avoid shame and ridicule; this situation is no different.
EBay also ensures that people understand the rules of buying and selling by making them read and agree to the user agreement before a person can become a member of the eBay community. In a sense, it is the “sign at the door” that teach the users how to behave appropriately and understand the social norms that are expected of them. For example it reminds users that they should pay on time for a good they purchased and to not post false or defamatory information. If these norms are violated, there are still mechanisms to ensure that a person will be penalized. For example, if a person lies about an item and conveys misleading and inaccurate information, when the buyer receives this item that they were misled about, the seller will in turn receive a negative feedback, lowering their score. Clearly there are reproaches for violating the eBay norms and the negative feedbacks acts as the arched eyebrow. The Leviathan keeps people acting in accordance with the norms set by the group and guarantees that there will be repercussions for those who stray from these norms.6: E-maiLeviathan
In chapter 4, Wallace describes how e-mails tend to follow a norm of informality. In terms of the earlier days of e-mail, I believe that this would have been considered true. But as e-mail becomes an increasingly prevalent communicative form, I believe that the conventions of informality described in chapter 4 become a little more accurate in some regards, and a little less accurate in others.
One of the ways in which I believe e-mail is less informal than it is described to be in chapter 4 is when the subject of the correspondence is business-related. I know that when I e-mail people at my summer jobs I stick to a much more formal style than I would if I were writing to my sorority chapter through a listserv. And the writing style I employ when writing to my sorority would still be more formal than if I were telling my best friends from home a story over an e-mail chain.
When it comes to knowing and understanding the norm in an online setting, it helps to consider Virginia Shea’s first basic rule of “netiquette,” which is to “remember the human” (p. 64). When I first contacted a possible employer about a summer job, I was not sure exactly how to address her. She instructed me to e-mail her, and before this instance I had only used e-mail for informal correspondence. When I wrote my first e-mail to her, I assumed that it was safe to stick with a formal writing style because I was hoping to make a valuable business contact. I was slightly surprised to see that her response was much less formal than my initial e-mail, but it was still appropriate for a business interaction, nonetheless. In this case it certainly helped to remember that a human was on the other end of this online interaction.
The Leviathan of e-mail is difficult to pinpoint because individual relationships can vary very much from correspondence to correspondence. There is no actual enforcement of standard e-mail practice. I would have to say that, at least in my personal experience, I am my own Leviathan, and that my tone and approach to each e-mail I write varies depending on who is behind the other computer screen, reading.
comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-my-safe-word-is-code-blue.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-hunting-leviathan-on-ebay.html
One of the ways in which I believe e-mail is less informal than it is described to be in chapter 4 is when the subject of the correspondence is business-related. I know that when I e-mail people at my summer jobs I stick to a much more formal style than I would if I were writing to my sorority chapter through a listserv. And the writing style I employ when writing to my sorority would still be more formal than if I were telling my best friends from home a story over an e-mail chain.
When it comes to knowing and understanding the norm in an online setting, it helps to consider Virginia Shea’s first basic rule of “netiquette,” which is to “remember the human” (p. 64). When I first contacted a possible employer about a summer job, I was not sure exactly how to address her. She instructed me to e-mail her, and before this instance I had only used e-mail for informal correspondence. When I wrote my first e-mail to her, I assumed that it was safe to stick with a formal writing style because I was hoping to make a valuable business contact. I was slightly surprised to see that her response was much less formal than my initial e-mail, but it was still appropriate for a business interaction, nonetheless. In this case it certainly helped to remember that a human was on the other end of this online interaction.
The Leviathan of e-mail is difficult to pinpoint because individual relationships can vary very much from correspondence to correspondence. There is no actual enforcement of standard e-mail practice. I would have to say that, at least in my personal experience, I am my own Leviathan, and that my tone and approach to each e-mail I write varies depending on who is behind the other computer screen, reading.
comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-my-safe-word-is-code-blue.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-hunting-leviathan-on-ebay.html
6.1: Moderator says, "Silence!"
I decided to venture to an internet chat room for this assignment. I have always noticed that while in a chat room, there is always a “moderator” to monitor the doings of chatters. The moderators act as a leviathan (or the thing that punishes you for violating rules) for chatters in these rooms.
The norms in a “clean” or friendly room are usually the same. No swearing, no inappropriate behavior, and no being annoying to fellow chatters. If anyone violates these rules, the moderator is allowed to punish or ban chatters. In the chat room that I entered, the moderator had the option of “silencing” chatters, so that they could not chat for a certain amount of time.
The moderator is the leviathan because they regulate punishment to bad chatters. People follow the rules that are set because they are the norms, and they could potentially be ejected from the chat room by the moderator. The non-conformist or inappropriate chatter can also face being mocked or looked down upon. Sometimes, other chatters can be a leviathan as well, by reporting to the moderator inappropriate behavior by other people.
Also, in a clean chat, if there is a chatter that is inappropriate, they may get the “raised eyebrow” from chatters who are following the norms of staying within the boundaries set by the rules. The chatters who conform to the standards feel more group identity, because they are compliant to the chat room norms.
The leviathan of every online or social situation presents consequences if rules are not obeyed. If the leviathan did not exist in this type of chat room, the rules would probably not be enforced or followed. Norms that would usually have consequences if violated would not be mandatory to obey. And, if chatters did not uphold norms by scolding those who disobeyed, all heck would break loose.
The norms in a “clean” or friendly room are usually the same. No swearing, no inappropriate behavior, and no being annoying to fellow chatters. If anyone violates these rules, the moderator is allowed to punish or ban chatters. In the chat room that I entered, the moderator had the option of “silencing” chatters, so that they could not chat for a certain amount of time.
The moderator is the leviathan because they regulate punishment to bad chatters. People follow the rules that are set because they are the norms, and they could potentially be ejected from the chat room by the moderator. The non-conformist or inappropriate chatter can also face being mocked or looked down upon. Sometimes, other chatters can be a leviathan as well, by reporting to the moderator inappropriate behavior by other people.
Also, in a clean chat, if there is a chatter that is inappropriate, they may get the “raised eyebrow” from chatters who are following the norms of staying within the boundaries set by the rules. The chatters who conform to the standards feel more group identity, because they are compliant to the chat room norms.
The leviathan of every online or social situation presents consequences if rules are not obeyed. If the leviathan did not exist in this type of chat room, the rules would probably not be enforced or followed. Norms that would usually have consequences if violated would not be mandatory to obey. And, if chatters did not uphold norms by scolding those who disobeyed, all heck would break loose.
6.1 I just wanted to shout it from on top of a mountain, But I didn't have a mountain, I had a newsroom and a camera.
This lovely quote in my lovely title is from a lovely little movie called Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. You may say, “Psh! or bah humbug Matt! What does this have to do with Jeffery’s wonderful COMM 245 class?” My answer…“Everything.”
This beautiful passage, from a timeless classic, captures the far too ignored Facebook social norm of public disclosure and its direct relationship to wall posting and messaging. I hope, despite my vagueness up until now, that everyone already understands this Facebook norm. If you read this and have no idea what I am talking about and believe I am a raving lunatic, you are about to get a little crash course on Facebook Etiquette 101: The Beauty of the Facebook Message.
If you use Facebook, you know that there is a distinct difference between the wall post and message feature—this is the norm. Wall posts are primarily for little, trivial banter that much of the Facebook community has access to. On the other hand, Facebook messages prove to be much more conducive for private, more serious discussions. This notion of varied levels of privacy is exemplified when concerning or more romantic exchanges via Facebook. When “Facebook Flirting” is in its infancy, wall posts are very common, “Hey Girl! You looked Smoking Last nite : ) !!!” This conforms to Facebook’s social norms and conventions. However, when the relationship continues to develop and more personal information becomes disclosed, it is customary to take the “Facebook Flirting” to the more private, and intimate Facebook messaging stage—or be as daring to actually call one another. Individuals come to know this norm through the everyday trial and error of flirting or relationship development occurring on Facebook. Conforming to the norm provides the most desirable results. If in your efforts of having a back and forth wall post conversation, you cross the line of what is acceptable to post for the general public (of Facebook) to see, you will be punished. This can come in the form of a reprimand from the other party—I can’t believe you wrote that!! ASS—or in a complete termination of the relationship—your once romantic prospect will never talk to you again! If you decide to go sappy or nitty gritty with details in a wall post, you WILL pay the price. Keep onlookers from gagging and save the FDA (Facebook displays of Affection) for the private messages.
This norm concerning wall posting and messaging essential makes us, Facebook users, what Hobbes and Wallace call the Leviathan, moderator which upholds norms and decorum. Additionally, according to Wallace’s description and analysis of the Leviathan, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook employees who monitor the social network site serve as this moderating “mortal god” (pg. 69). It is viewed as disrespectful to post anything too personal on somebody’s wall and Mr. Zuckerberg and Facebook users understand that, and continue to help enforce norm of keeping the private, private. This need for Leviathan is increased because no one really initially has any control of what another individual can post on your wall. This vulnerability increases our desire for a moderator in the not so fleeting cyberspace world of Facebook.
The SIDE theory also supports and explains Facebook’s user’s efforts to uphold “netiquette” in the social network site. With increased group identity salience—the Facebook community—and our increased visual anonymity, we are more likely to conform and uphold the social norms, such as proper wall post and message etiquette. The visual anonymity of Facebook is still high because, despite photos, there is still the evident veil that CMC provides in interactions.
This beautiful passage, from a timeless classic, captures the far too ignored Facebook social norm of public disclosure and its direct relationship to wall posting and messaging. I hope, despite my vagueness up until now, that everyone already understands this Facebook norm. If you read this and have no idea what I am talking about and believe I am a raving lunatic, you are about to get a little crash course on Facebook Etiquette 101: The Beauty of the Facebook Message.
If you use Facebook, you know that there is a distinct difference between the wall post and message feature—this is the norm. Wall posts are primarily for little, trivial banter that much of the Facebook community has access to. On the other hand, Facebook messages prove to be much more conducive for private, more serious discussions. This notion of varied levels of privacy is exemplified when concerning or more romantic exchanges via Facebook. When “Facebook Flirting” is in its infancy, wall posts are very common, “Hey Girl! You looked Smoking Last nite : ) !!!” This conforms to Facebook’s social norms and conventions. However, when the relationship continues to develop and more personal information becomes disclosed, it is customary to take the “Facebook Flirting” to the more private, and intimate Facebook messaging stage—or be as daring to actually call one another. Individuals come to know this norm through the everyday trial and error of flirting or relationship development occurring on Facebook. Conforming to the norm provides the most desirable results. If in your efforts of having a back and forth wall post conversation, you cross the line of what is acceptable to post for the general public (of Facebook) to see, you will be punished. This can come in the form of a reprimand from the other party—I can’t believe you wrote that!! ASS—or in a complete termination of the relationship—your once romantic prospect will never talk to you again! If you decide to go sappy or nitty gritty with details in a wall post, you WILL pay the price. Keep onlookers from gagging and save the FDA (Facebook displays of Affection) for the private messages.
This norm concerning wall posting and messaging essential makes us, Facebook users, what Hobbes and Wallace call the Leviathan, moderator which upholds norms and decorum. Additionally, according to Wallace’s description and analysis of the Leviathan, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook employees who monitor the social network site serve as this moderating “mortal god” (pg. 69). It is viewed as disrespectful to post anything too personal on somebody’s wall and Mr. Zuckerberg and Facebook users understand that, and continue to help enforce norm of keeping the private, private. This need for Leviathan is increased because no one really initially has any control of what another individual can post on your wall. This vulnerability increases our desire for a moderator in the not so fleeting cyberspace world of Facebook.
The SIDE theory also supports and explains Facebook’s user’s efforts to uphold “netiquette” in the social network site. With increased group identity salience—the Facebook community—and our increased visual anonymity, we are more likely to conform and uphold the social norms, such as proper wall post and message etiquette. The visual anonymity of Facebook is still high because, despite photos, there is still the evident veil that CMC provides in interactions.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Assg.6 opt. #1- Leviathan on Myspace
Besides the Facebook phenom, Myspace has always been the site for social networking. From the media that Myspace has encountered over its existence, Myspace has become very popular in the public eye. Myspace allows users to create their own page for fellow users to look at. They can write about their interests ( movies, music, activities), personal life, jobs and academics. It gives users a chance to describe themselves for users who are either their friends or unknown individuals who they would like to meet. They can also add pictures which can depict themselves in the best view possible that would make them attractive to others.
Although there is a certain freedom in creating a personal profile to represent yourself, there are certain restrictions to what may or may not be posted. Nudity is a major area that cannot be shown on a profile. Any vulgar pictures or explicit nudity is not allowed to be presented on a page. This is a basic concept that is taught by society and is carried down into the network world. No where do you see naked billboards or naked pictures in general public magazines/newspapers. This is understood and is taught in society from adolescence. Nudity is seen as indecent exposure and has a very negative connotation to it. Online networking is pretty much society but online with the same principles and social norms. Along with nudity, comes discriminating bias attacks against another individual. Nor can you threaten or harass another individual for all the same reasons.
A Leviathan is present on Myspace to monitor the actions of its users. Officially the leviathan is Tom, the creator of Myspace. He takes charge in peoples accounts and monitors illegal or offensive actions on Myspace. Tom has the authority to delete accounts and make certain aspects of a profile not viewable to the public. He makes his presence known by sending out occasional bulletins to the network. Tom also sends a message to a new user when they first create an account on Myspace just so that everyone is aware of the social norms used on Myspace. This keeps everyone on the same page so that there is no excuse to not be aware of the regulations. It is very important that Tom keeps his presence known to keep order. It gives people a sense of security that they can report inappropriate behavior to keep the comfort level on Myspace because it is supposed to be a network of friendship. His presence also forces people to conform to the regulations because it is a constant reminder. Besides Tom, the users of Myspace serve as an unofficial leviathan. They can report illegal or offensive material posted on people’s profiles to Tom. They serve as regulators to Myspace because Tom cannot be everywhere at every present moment. The users make Myspace the environment they want it to be and so report what to them seems out of the norm for that environment. As other users see the norms that other are carrying on, they too conform to those norms and so the trend continues. Once and a while an individual arrives who doesn’t wish to conform to the social norm, but the Leviathan (either Tom or other users) regulate and fix the problem.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/61_hunting_leviathan_on_ebay.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/6_e_maileviathan.html
Although there is a certain freedom in creating a personal profile to represent yourself, there are certain restrictions to what may or may not be posted. Nudity is a major area that cannot be shown on a profile. Any vulgar pictures or explicit nudity is not allowed to be presented on a page. This is a basic concept that is taught by society and is carried down into the network world. No where do you see naked billboards or naked pictures in general public magazines/newspapers. This is understood and is taught in society from adolescence. Nudity is seen as indecent exposure and has a very negative connotation to it. Online networking is pretty much society but online with the same principles and social norms. Along with nudity, comes discriminating bias attacks against another individual. Nor can you threaten or harass another individual for all the same reasons.
A Leviathan is present on Myspace to monitor the actions of its users. Officially the leviathan is Tom, the creator of Myspace. He takes charge in peoples accounts and monitors illegal or offensive actions on Myspace. Tom has the authority to delete accounts and make certain aspects of a profile not viewable to the public. He makes his presence known by sending out occasional bulletins to the network. Tom also sends a message to a new user when they first create an account on Myspace just so that everyone is aware of the social norms used on Myspace. This keeps everyone on the same page so that there is no excuse to not be aware of the regulations. It is very important that Tom keeps his presence known to keep order. It gives people a sense of security that they can report inappropriate behavior to keep the comfort level on Myspace because it is supposed to be a network of friendship. His presence also forces people to conform to the regulations because it is a constant reminder. Besides Tom, the users of Myspace serve as an unofficial leviathan. They can report illegal or offensive material posted on people’s profiles to Tom. They serve as regulators to Myspace because Tom cannot be everywhere at every present moment. The users make Myspace the environment they want it to be and so report what to them seems out of the norm for that environment. As other users see the norms that other are carrying on, they too conform to those norms and so the trend continues. Once and a while an individual arrives who doesn’t wish to conform to the social norm, but the Leviathan (either Tom or other users) regulate and fix the problem.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/61_hunting_leviathan_on_ebay.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/6_e_maileviathan.html
6.1 AIM Adventures
My mom is superwoman in so many ways, and chatting with her on AIM is an adventure. I never had the opportunity to talk to my mom online until I left for college- my family always had only one computer. I can specifically recall the day when I taught my mom how to IM. She happened to get her friend’s screen name via e-mail and wasn’t quite sure what to do with it. She definitely experienced what I would call technology shock because she couldn’t believe she was typing back and forth with her friend.
Initially, my mom didn’t know a thing about the norms of AIM lingo. BRB, GTG, and LOL were definitely not in her vocabulary. She used capital letters to start off every sentence and periods to end them. Instead of typing one word responses, I would get complete sentences or even whole paragraphs. Every word was spelled out with perfection- there were only you’s and no u’s.
But my mom was a fast learner, and in no time she was sending those instant messages like a pro.
It’s obvious that these norms aren’t spelled out for AIM users, but people learn them because of the people they chat with. The situation is comparable to how people learn “cool” trendy phrases (that’s hardcore, I’m hella happy, you're mad crazy) in face to face communication- and your group of friends, who you talk to, and what your idea of ”cool” is usually determines what phrases you will stick with.
The interesting thing about AIM lingo is that it’s entirely homogeneous. Everyone knows what LOL means, and if they don’t it’s easy to learn quickly. What enforces the use of such lingo? Because AIM is meant to be “instant,” one leviathan that hovers over AIM users is the convenience factor itself. It takes a lot less time to use abbreviations rather than spelling everything out, so the convenience factor is almost a “self leviathan” in that people use the lingo in order to save themselves the extra time and effort.
Another leviathan that contributes to the use of AIM lingo is the idea of being accepted into the group. My mom rapidly adopted AIM norms because it was how I talked to her online, and since she knew that I knew what I was doing, she followed my example. However, AIM does not have a particular overseer that enforces the use of such languuage. Rather, as Wallace states, "in unmoderated settings, the Leviathan would emerge with more difficulty were it not for human willingness to conform." Both offline and online, we choose to use certain phrases, not because our friends make us, but because we want to fit in. Convenience and acceptance interplay as important leviathans in governing the use of Aim lingo.
It’s not that I would have stopped talking to my mom on AIM if she didn't incorporate the norms of AIM (my mom will be cool to me no matter what). But she got the hang of it, and now if she decides to enter the world of chat rooms, she'll be well equipped to fit right in.
Comment 1
Comment2
Initially, my mom didn’t know a thing about the norms of AIM lingo. BRB, GTG, and LOL were definitely not in her vocabulary. She used capital letters to start off every sentence and periods to end them. Instead of typing one word responses, I would get complete sentences or even whole paragraphs. Every word was spelled out with perfection- there were only you’s and no u’s.
But my mom was a fast learner, and in no time she was sending those instant messages like a pro.
It’s obvious that these norms aren’t spelled out for AIM users, but people learn them because of the people they chat with. The situation is comparable to how people learn “cool” trendy phrases (that’s hardcore, I’m hella happy, you're mad crazy) in face to face communication- and your group of friends, who you talk to, and what your idea of ”cool” is usually determines what phrases you will stick with.
The interesting thing about AIM lingo is that it’s entirely homogeneous. Everyone knows what LOL means, and if they don’t it’s easy to learn quickly. What enforces the use of such lingo? Because AIM is meant to be “instant,” one leviathan that hovers over AIM users is the convenience factor itself. It takes a lot less time to use abbreviations rather than spelling everything out, so the convenience factor is almost a “self leviathan” in that people use the lingo in order to save themselves the extra time and effort.
Another leviathan that contributes to the use of AIM lingo is the idea of being accepted into the group. My mom rapidly adopted AIM norms because it was how I talked to her online, and since she knew that I knew what I was doing, she followed my example. However, AIM does not have a particular overseer that enforces the use of such languuage. Rather, as Wallace states, "in unmoderated settings, the Leviathan would emerge with more difficulty were it not for human willingness to conform." Both offline and online, we choose to use certain phrases, not because our friends make us, but because we want to fit in. Convenience and acceptance interplay as important leviathans in governing the use of Aim lingo.
It’s not that I would have stopped talking to my mom on AIM if she didn't incorporate the norms of AIM (my mom will be cool to me no matter what). But she got the hang of it, and now if she decides to enter the world of chat rooms, she'll be well equipped to fit right in.
Comment 1
Comment2
Nearly Nude? A no no...
-Connect to theoretical issues discussed by Wallace in Chapter 4
A few months ago, I logged onto facebook to discover on my feed that a friend of mine from middle school had recently uploaded pictures. Curious to see how Mindy was doing after several years apart, I clicked on her album. Immediately I was faced with dozens of pictures of Mindy in very revealing clothes, or shots of her which led me to believe she had nothing on. In some pictures, Mindy was covering herself with her hands, so, apparently that's not porn? Needless to say, I was shocked that my seemingly conservative, clarinet playing friend had posted such photographs.
I later found out that Mindy, who is a heavier girl, had actually participated in a photo shoot for a magazine "big beautiful babes" and had posted the "non-pornographic" ones on facebook for all to see. She was very proud of her accomplishment. I soon found that I was not the only one with the "raised eyebrow" after encountering these images. Several of my friends from home had seen the photos and could not stop gossiping about Mindy's boldness. "I can't believe she did that! How embarrassing! Does she realize everyone is talking about her?" In this situation, Mindy had crossed the line. She had blatantly disobeyed a social norm: don't go nearly nude on facebook.
This particular social norm is established for us by facebook itself, which allows no pornographic photographs and also, by the users of facebook who realize that nudity online, like in person, is inappropriate and crass. Nudity is very personal and many people do not wish to see others most "private areas", pun intended. When the viewer faces nudity, he is immediately embarrassed and ashamed for looking (sometimes) and experiences cognitive dissonance. To lessen that dissonance, people convince themselves that they were not in the wrong for looking, the person was in the wrong for posting. When a social norm has been established and broken, discomfort ensues.
The leviathan often keeps people in check from breaking a social norm. In this case, the leviathan is to avoid being gossiped about or judged by friends and strangers. People "resist" uploading nearly nude photographs to avoid the scorn of their peers and remain consistent with the social norm that nakedness is reserved for private times.
According to SIDE, Mindy should have been the most likely to conform to these social standards since she was visually anonymous and part of a group (the facebook community). By revealing herself in this manner, Mindy, according to Wallace, disrupted a fundamental element of the facebook community by being a non-conformist. Since Mindy failed to read the sign or ignored the rule, group members of facebook escalated their pressure to ensure conformity by simply raising a virtual eyebrow, reminding the offender that certain behavior that certain behavior is not acceptable. One girl I know posted on Mindy's wall: "Wow, that's a lot of skin." aka- we don't need/want to see it.
#6- The Leviathan for Harry Potter Fans
In taking on the assignment, I had a difficult time finding an online space with a Leviathan. Eventually, I came across a Harry Potter forum at Mugglenet.com, which I had heard was famous for its dedicated fans. However, instead of looking at the Harry Potter-related posts, I decided to look at the “Department of International Magical Cooperation" forum, which was the current events forum. On this particular forum, posters took a break from analyzing Harry Potter to discuss real world affairs.
Upon entering the forum, it was immediately clear as to who acted as the Leviathan: the moderators. The moderators’ two posts at the top of the forum were sticky notes informing visitors of the rules for posting in the forum. One post instructed users on “how to have a pleasant conversation on any topic.” The other post was very specific in giving guidelines for posting: visitors were prohibited from making “rude or offensive comments directed at a person’s beliefs” and from showing “direct disrespect toward any public figure.” Visitors were discouraged from breaking the rules by being warned that the forum was “a heavily moderated and policed area.” The moderators also notified users that if they gave other posters problems, they would be removed from the forum. Moderators further enforced the rules by examining and approving newly submitted threads before posting them publicly.
In chapter four of her book, Wallace discusses under what circumstances Internet users depend on a Leviathan. She explains that people are willing to give up some of their freedoms and obey a Leviathan “in order to preserve the value and energy of the medium itself” (69). In the case of the Harry Potter forum that I observed, the posters were all courteous to each other; they often challenged each other’s points, but they were careful not to attack each other’s views. The posters were willing to give up some of their posting freedoms in order to avoid a hostile environment. Thus, the forum was a space conducive to intelligent and calm reasoning and debate. As Wallace notes, “the presence of some authority figure can have a calming influence and insures participants that a means is available to resolve disputes” (70). Because the posters on the current events forum knew that the moderators were supervising their posts, they refrained from making rude remarks. Visitors were able to focus on the topics being debated and write posts without fear of being involved in a flame war.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2067668948567925587
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=1860690808380843605
Upon entering the forum, it was immediately clear as to who acted as the Leviathan: the moderators. The moderators’ two posts at the top of the forum were sticky notes informing visitors of the rules for posting in the forum. One post instructed users on “how to have a pleasant conversation on any topic.” The other post was very specific in giving guidelines for posting: visitors were prohibited from making “rude or offensive comments directed at a person’s beliefs” and from showing “direct disrespect toward any public figure.” Visitors were discouraged from breaking the rules by being warned that the forum was “a heavily moderated and policed area.” The moderators also notified users that if they gave other posters problems, they would be removed from the forum. Moderators further enforced the rules by examining and approving newly submitted threads before posting them publicly.
In chapter four of her book, Wallace discusses under what circumstances Internet users depend on a Leviathan. She explains that people are willing to give up some of their freedoms and obey a Leviathan “in order to preserve the value and energy of the medium itself” (69). In the case of the Harry Potter forum that I observed, the posters were all courteous to each other; they often challenged each other’s points, but they were careful not to attack each other’s views. The posters were willing to give up some of their posting freedoms in order to avoid a hostile environment. Thus, the forum was a space conducive to intelligent and calm reasoning and debate. As Wallace notes, “the presence of some authority figure can have a calming influence and insures participants that a means is available to resolve disputes” (70). Because the posters on the current events forum knew that the moderators were supervising their posts, they refrained from making rude remarks. Visitors were able to focus on the topics being debated and write posts without fear of being involved in a flame war.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2067668948567925587
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=1860690808380843605
Assignment 6.1, The Facebook Leviathan, because we're all conforming to it
I don't mean to be repetitive by discussing Facebook in this blog post, but I feel that it is an important internet phenomenon to discuss when considering an internet Leviathan, because it is really the only online community that I'm a part of (besides this blog), and because we are most likely all a part of it. While I could have discussed our blog in this post, I feel as though the Leviathan is all too obvious as being our TAs and Professor Hancock, and I think it is more interesting to study a network which hasn't designated as clear of a Leviathan, but more so creates and abides by its own Leviathan, which is the way I consider Facebook to function. I find Facebook to be such a fascinating example, because we all act as our own Leviathans to a certain extent. That being said, I think that an important element of the Facebook Leviathan includes photo "tagging," which applies to the essential elements of the internet Leviathan that Wallace discusses in Chapter four of the text, namely, our willingness to conform.
Facebook, as an online social network, is an interesting phenomenon first of all, because it essentially lacks the initial "sign on the door" element that Wallace discusses. When you join the Facebook network, there is no list of rules that introduce you to the environment or help to acclimate you to the established norms of the online atmosphere. On the other hand, when you join the Facebook network, you essentially have to learn the rules of the game from the other people in the network, which is not as easy as it is to learn the rules of the proverbial French restaurant that Wallace discusses, in which case you simply look around and see which fork everyone else is using. Instead, on Facebook, you have to add other people as friends and integrate yourself into the network as much as possible for you to be able to witness how other people are acting and interacting in the medium. You cannot enter the network as an anonymous "lurker," because you can only witness the actions of others once you have in some way earned the right to become Facebook friends with them. It is in this sense that the internal Leviathan plays an important role.
If you join the Facebook network, you must have some desire to be a part of the group, and to be a part of the group you have to know that there are some things you must sacrifice, such as your anonymity and/or right to make all your own rules, in order to be an accepted part of the group. For example, you cannot violate the norms that are already established regarding the Facebook "netiquette" of tagging photographs of other people. If you break from the expected norms, then this will most likely lead to what Wallace describes as the second method to encourage online conformity, which she calls the online "Arched Brow," or use of reproach on others. This is the form of punishment used in this online environment, in which one person lets another person know that they are breaking the established norm, and that they should alter their actions to conform to the group. With the photo tagging example, it is expected netiquette that if someone posts a photo album on their Facebook profile, they are to "tag" all of the people that appear in that album, so that those photos will also appear in all of the profiles of the people that are in them. If, for instance, someone was to post a photo album on their profile and not tag their friends, a common form of reproach for this would consist of one of those friends to post on that person's Facebook wall that they want those pictures to be tagged. This is usually communicated in a playful or friendly way, so that the reproach comes across as saying that person is to tag the photos, but that the mistake is not too big of a deal, and is simply not to be repeated.
This is the sort of reproach that is most common in the Facebook environment, because there is no rule-book, and no centralized authority on Facebook that monitors the actions of all its members, making sure that everyone follows the established conventions. This is because the medium is constantly changing, and people have to continue to adapt to it, and it would be too difficult to designate a specific set of rules for everyone to follow. Instead, people want to be able to be a part of the network and have freedom to do what they want with Facebook to a certain extent, which is possible only because every member of the network acts as everyone else's Leviathan. If people want to have certain freedoms and rights to use Facebook as they wish, then they also have to be willing to sacrifice complete freedom, due to a general willingness to conform if it means preserving a functioning online group environment. In this sense, the Leviathan establishes itself in all the members, because everyone has to be willing to conform to the group to a certain degree so that the environment can be maintained. So everyone takes on the minor role of monitoring everyone else's actions (which the News Feed makes all too convenient for us) to make sure that the network will flourish peacefully. If this desire for a Leviathan didn't come from within, then the Facebook network should fall apart because there would be no overarching authority present to monitor everyone else's actions. The fact that all the members of Facebook are willing to be theirs and everyone else's Leviathan speaks to what Wallace identifies as a general willingness to conform in a group-oriented CMC environment, because we would all rather take on this role to ensure that Facebook can carry on, rather than refuse to take on this role and watch Facebook (heaven forbid) perish before our own eyes.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-leviathan-for-harry-potter-fans.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-hunting-leviathan-on-ebay.html
Facebook, as an online social network, is an interesting phenomenon first of all, because it essentially lacks the initial "sign on the door" element that Wallace discusses. When you join the Facebook network, there is no list of rules that introduce you to the environment or help to acclimate you to the established norms of the online atmosphere. On the other hand, when you join the Facebook network, you essentially have to learn the rules of the game from the other people in the network, which is not as easy as it is to learn the rules of the proverbial French restaurant that Wallace discusses, in which case you simply look around and see which fork everyone else is using. Instead, on Facebook, you have to add other people as friends and integrate yourself into the network as much as possible for you to be able to witness how other people are acting and interacting in the medium. You cannot enter the network as an anonymous "lurker," because you can only witness the actions of others once you have in some way earned the right to become Facebook friends with them. It is in this sense that the internal Leviathan plays an important role.
If you join the Facebook network, you must have some desire to be a part of the group, and to be a part of the group you have to know that there are some things you must sacrifice, such as your anonymity and/or right to make all your own rules, in order to be an accepted part of the group. For example, you cannot violate the norms that are already established regarding the Facebook "netiquette" of tagging photographs of other people. If you break from the expected norms, then this will most likely lead to what Wallace describes as the second method to encourage online conformity, which she calls the online "Arched Brow," or use of reproach on others. This is the form of punishment used in this online environment, in which one person lets another person know that they are breaking the established norm, and that they should alter their actions to conform to the group. With the photo tagging example, it is expected netiquette that if someone posts a photo album on their Facebook profile, they are to "tag" all of the people that appear in that album, so that those photos will also appear in all of the profiles of the people that are in them. If, for instance, someone was to post a photo album on their profile and not tag their friends, a common form of reproach for this would consist of one of those friends to post on that person's Facebook wall that they want those pictures to be tagged. This is usually communicated in a playful or friendly way, so that the reproach comes across as saying that person is to tag the photos, but that the mistake is not too big of a deal, and is simply not to be repeated.
This is the sort of reproach that is most common in the Facebook environment, because there is no rule-book, and no centralized authority on Facebook that monitors the actions of all its members, making sure that everyone follows the established conventions. This is because the medium is constantly changing, and people have to continue to adapt to it, and it would be too difficult to designate a specific set of rules for everyone to follow. Instead, people want to be able to be a part of the network and have freedom to do what they want with Facebook to a certain extent, which is possible only because every member of the network acts as everyone else's Leviathan. If people want to have certain freedoms and rights to use Facebook as they wish, then they also have to be willing to sacrifice complete freedom, due to a general willingness to conform if it means preserving a functioning online group environment. In this sense, the Leviathan establishes itself in all the members, because everyone has to be willing to conform to the group to a certain degree so that the environment can be maintained. So everyone takes on the minor role of monitoring everyone else's actions (which the News Feed makes all too convenient for us) to make sure that the network will flourish peacefully. If this desire for a Leviathan didn't come from within, then the Facebook network should fall apart because there would be no overarching authority present to monitor everyone else's actions. The fact that all the members of Facebook are willing to be theirs and everyone else's Leviathan speaks to what Wallace identifies as a general willingness to conform in a group-oriented CMC environment, because we would all rather take on this role to ensure that Facebook can carry on, rather than refuse to take on this role and watch Facebook (heaven forbid) perish before our own eyes.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-leviathan-for-harry-potter-fans.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-hunting-leviathan-on-ebay.html
6.1 Hunting the Leviathan in CKI
There are a number of online groups that allow members to form some type of group identity and participate in online discussions whether they are synchronous or asynchronous. One such group exists on the Circle K International (CKI) website. CKI is an international organization for college students to perform service, develop leadership, and celebrate fellowship. On the CKI website there is a member forum that allows members to post and share ideas with one another from around the globe.
In the member forum there is a general air of professionalism and respect. Although the language isn’t necessarily formal throughout all of the various threads, it still has a degree of professionalism by using terms associated with the organization, referring to various members by the title/position that they hold in the organization, and by keeping all of the topics related to CKI. Secondly, all of the posts adhere to the norm of remaining respectful and by phrasing any issues as constructive criticism.
These two norms are not clearly stated anywhere on the membership forum; they need to be learned by the members who post. This forum has been a part of the CKI website since the 90’s and it seems to have remained pretty consistent with these two norms over time. According to the Social Identity Deindividuation Effect (SIDE) Theory members of an online group are most likely to conform when a group identity is salient and they are visually anonymous. These two elements are both present on the CKI member forum. First, you need to login with your CKI Member ID number to gain access to the forum; serving as a reminder that this forum is part of this organization or group that you are a part of. Also, once you’re on the forum the logos and other images associated with CKI are clearly visible again reinforcing the idea that you are a part of a group. Secondly, you are most likely not with another individual posting on the forum when you make your post, increasing your visual anonymity. Furthermore, most members posting on the forum do not know one another personally; although some may have met for a few moments at our annual International Convention, it’s safe to assume that the members posting are mostly visually anonymous. Because the group identity is salient and the members are visually anonymous they are much more likely to conform to the two main norms for the membership forum.
These two norms seem to be strictly adhered to by most of the members posting on the forum. As Wallace argues in chapter four, we as individuals of an online group often have to act as the leviathan to enforce these norms by continuing to set a good example by conforming to these norms of professionalism and respect. However, there are times when individuals break ranks with the group and violate on of these norms. Interestingly in these cases the individual attacking a post knows the person who had made the original post; making them visually identifiable rather than anonymous. Also, it seems in these flaming posts that the individual has lost site of the goals and intentions of the organization, suggesting that their individual identity is much more salient than their group identity. This is exactly what SIDE theory predicts when individual identity is salient and when individuals are visually identifiable, they are least likely to conform to the group norms.
In some of the more extreme violations of the norms one the CKI International President (another college student who is elected at International Convention) has stepped in and stopped a flaming wars reminding both posters that we should remain constructive in our criticisms and keep a professional air on the forum. The International President also has the ability to lock a topic if he/she feels that it is not appropriate for discussion. However, instances of the International President stepping in to serve as the leviathan are very rare and the norms are fairly strongly adhered to with the members conforming the group norms and acting as the leviathan.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-leviathan-for-harry-potter-fans.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-my-safe-word-is-code-blue.html
In the member forum there is a general air of professionalism and respect. Although the language isn’t necessarily formal throughout all of the various threads, it still has a degree of professionalism by using terms associated with the organization, referring to various members by the title/position that they hold in the organization, and by keeping all of the topics related to CKI. Secondly, all of the posts adhere to the norm of remaining respectful and by phrasing any issues as constructive criticism.
These two norms are not clearly stated anywhere on the membership forum; they need to be learned by the members who post. This forum has been a part of the CKI website since the 90’s and it seems to have remained pretty consistent with these two norms over time. According to the Social Identity Deindividuation Effect (SIDE) Theory members of an online group are most likely to conform when a group identity is salient and they are visually anonymous. These two elements are both present on the CKI member forum. First, you need to login with your CKI Member ID number to gain access to the forum; serving as a reminder that this forum is part of this organization or group that you are a part of. Also, once you’re on the forum the logos and other images associated with CKI are clearly visible again reinforcing the idea that you are a part of a group. Secondly, you are most likely not with another individual posting on the forum when you make your post, increasing your visual anonymity. Furthermore, most members posting on the forum do not know one another personally; although some may have met for a few moments at our annual International Convention, it’s safe to assume that the members posting are mostly visually anonymous. Because the group identity is salient and the members are visually anonymous they are much more likely to conform to the two main norms for the membership forum.
These two norms seem to be strictly adhered to by most of the members posting on the forum. As Wallace argues in chapter four, we as individuals of an online group often have to act as the leviathan to enforce these norms by continuing to set a good example by conforming to these norms of professionalism and respect. However, there are times when individuals break ranks with the group and violate on of these norms. Interestingly in these cases the individual attacking a post knows the person who had made the original post; making them visually identifiable rather than anonymous. Also, it seems in these flaming posts that the individual has lost site of the goals and intentions of the organization, suggesting that their individual identity is much more salient than their group identity. This is exactly what SIDE theory predicts when individual identity is salient and when individuals are visually identifiable, they are least likely to conform to the group norms.
In some of the more extreme violations of the norms one the CKI International President (another college student who is elected at International Convention) has stepped in and stopped a flaming wars reminding both posters that we should remain constructive in our criticisms and keep a professional air on the forum. The International President also has the ability to lock a topic if he/she feels that it is not appropriate for discussion. However, instances of the International President stepping in to serve as the leviathan are very rare and the norms are fairly strongly adhered to with the members conforming the group norms and acting as the leviathan.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-leviathan-for-harry-potter-fans.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-my-safe-word-is-code-blue.html
6,1 If I write one more damn thing about facebook.....
That's right people. I refuse to do facebook! I think it has been used in every post I have put up and it is time to make a stand. So have that facebook with your name in the top left corner and when i put my arrow over you for some reason a tiny house appears to the right. Take that! But let me digress. Woo sah....woo sah....anywho...why not do a blog about myspace. WOO HOO!
I am in search for the Leviathan, which for some reason makes me think of Star Wars (any Star Wars buffs out there let me know why I'm thinking that), on mysapce. The Leviathan is an "amorphous entity that defines what behaviors will be accepted and whcih will be punished." (hancock, a lecture sometime) Now unlike that f-word, which I have recently decided to not use anymore, there are no applications. There are no poke wars, graffitti walls, and can you believe there is now an application for baby making!!!!! Oh f-bomb, you silly kama sutra you. No myspace has no applications, however, when myspace first burst onto the scene, it was all about PIMPING YO PAGE!!!! Anybody, high five, c'mon. Yes, for some reason this Leviathan FORCED us kids to pimp out our page. As soon as my account was confirmed I was changing my background, putting up pictures, and posting videos on my page. I had to stay on my grind, keep my stuff faresh! When someone had pimped out there page, it was hot! If you had just a blank one though, people avoided yo page like the clap! It's safe to assume that the Leviathan of myspace is none other than your clique/ring of friends. You conform to their norms which is pimping a page instead of perhaps just having a blank one. And now to the theory/ies....
I believe one theory that applies to myspace and peoples want to hook it up it the SIDE Theory. This theory has two parts, the Social Identity and then the Deindividuation effects. Social identity applies to the kids who conform to the norm and pimp out their page. They pimp out their page because the group they are a part of or the ring of friends they surround themselves with did it. In terms of the deinviduation effects, these are the people in online communities that are visually anonymous. That coincides with one part of deindividuation effects. However, deindividuation effects is disproved in another part. In lecture, we discussed how with deindividuation effects, individuals have a positive reaction to other people's normative behavior. With myspace, these individuals who remain visually anonymous are sometimes the people who put viruses on someone else's page, causing their page to crash which leads to creating another page.
Stupid facebook. "I don't know how to quit you." (Brokeback Mountain)
I am in search for the Leviathan, which for some reason makes me think of Star Wars (any Star Wars buffs out there let me know why I'm thinking that), on mysapce. The Leviathan is an "amorphous entity that defines what behaviors will be accepted and whcih will be punished." (hancock, a lecture sometime) Now unlike that f-word, which I have recently decided to not use anymore, there are no applications. There are no poke wars, graffitti walls, and can you believe there is now an application for baby making!!!!! Oh f-bomb, you silly kama sutra you. No myspace has no applications, however, when myspace first burst onto the scene, it was all about PIMPING YO PAGE!!!! Anybody, high five, c'mon. Yes, for some reason this Leviathan FORCED us kids to pimp out our page. As soon as my account was confirmed I was changing my background, putting up pictures, and posting videos on my page. I had to stay on my grind, keep my stuff faresh! When someone had pimped out there page, it was hot! If you had just a blank one though, people avoided yo page like the clap! It's safe to assume that the Leviathan of myspace is none other than your clique/ring of friends. You conform to their norms which is pimping a page instead of perhaps just having a blank one. And now to the theory/ies....
I believe one theory that applies to myspace and peoples want to hook it up it the SIDE Theory. This theory has two parts, the Social Identity and then the Deindividuation effects. Social identity applies to the kids who conform to the norm and pimp out their page. They pimp out their page because the group they are a part of or the ring of friends they surround themselves with did it. In terms of the deinviduation effects, these are the people in online communities that are visually anonymous. That coincides with one part of deindividuation effects. However, deindividuation effects is disproved in another part. In lecture, we discussed how with deindividuation effects, individuals have a positive reaction to other people's normative behavior. With myspace, these individuals who remain visually anonymous are sometimes the people who put viruses on someone else's page, causing their page to crash which leads to creating another page.
Stupid facebook. "I don't know how to quit you." (Brokeback Mountain)
BLOCKED-- Unable to reach out online..... Assignment #6
Hi all,
While we have come to many different conclusions about interaction in computer-mediated spaces, one thing that can be agreed upon is the fact that the virtual world allows us to both reach more (both in numbers and information) people. Years ago we could only reach one another by mail and telephone, therefore the time differences were much larger in which we received information. Most of us have only known how to easily communicate by text message, email and instant messages and know we can reach someone quite easily if needed. Expanding, much of the communication between teachers and students occurs through emails and college applications are slowly becoming internet based ( thus decreasing the immense amount of mail).
In thinking about how we communicate today I was reminded of an incident when I was applying to college. Trying to chose colleges is hard as we all know thus I tried to email as many of the possible professors as I could in order to get a better sense of the environment. As the replies were extremely important to me, I became extremely distressed when I didn't receive replies for multiple professors. Why would a professor not reply to a prospective student?
It turned out that many college list serves have the ability to block certain emails. In this way they are controlled and regulated by a program which acts as a leviathan. Many of the email address blocked end in @aol.com or questionable sites. The social norm and standard online that seems to be enforced by the email controller is the idea that X-rated material and viruses should not be sent or viewed on the internet. Also these email controllers prevent what society has labeled SPAM mail, which again is viewed negatively. SPAM, while not always a problem has become recognized by society as both mischeivous in the sense that creators enact virtual deception which can lead to various forms of fraud and identity theft, as well has annoying.
Up until recently many people did not have ways to control the amount of SPAM or X-rated materials that were sent to their accounts. Now, with various blocking programs, and AOLs ability to mark all hazardous emails as SPAM the virtual world has a leviathan to regulate at least some of the information on the internet.
In relating much of my observation and discussion back to Wallace's overview of theoretical issues of group dynamics on the internet I found that her mention of " the sign on the door....netiquette" sits in tandem with the issues surrounding SPAM mail. For many of us who are knowledgeable of the interenet, we know when mail is fake, hazardous and/or SPAM. However in Wallace's issue she discusses how those who are unfamiliar with the medium will have to learn how to participate. Many newcomers to the email area are not aware of the infinite number of SPAM emails they will receive, and more importantly do not understand that these senders are deceiving them. As Wallace points out, sometimes in order to learn the rules of the game you must be punished. Consequently, many newcomers find themselves suffering from identity theft and fraud because they believed a SPAM email. Followig such episodes the subject then becomes more aware of their environment and falls into the rule of the group dynamic.
While we have come to many different conclusions about interaction in computer-mediated spaces, one thing that can be agreed upon is the fact that the virtual world allows us to both reach more (both in numbers and information) people. Years ago we could only reach one another by mail and telephone, therefore the time differences were much larger in which we received information. Most of us have only known how to easily communicate by text message, email and instant messages and know we can reach someone quite easily if needed. Expanding, much of the communication between teachers and students occurs through emails and college applications are slowly becoming internet based ( thus decreasing the immense amount of mail).
In thinking about how we communicate today I was reminded of an incident when I was applying to college. Trying to chose colleges is hard as we all know thus I tried to email as many of the possible professors as I could in order to get a better sense of the environment. As the replies were extremely important to me, I became extremely distressed when I didn't receive replies for multiple professors. Why would a professor not reply to a prospective student?
It turned out that many college list serves have the ability to block certain emails. In this way they are controlled and regulated by a program which acts as a leviathan. Many of the email address blocked end in @aol.com or questionable sites. The social norm and standard online that seems to be enforced by the email controller is the idea that X-rated material and viruses should not be sent or viewed on the internet. Also these email controllers prevent what society has labeled SPAM mail, which again is viewed negatively. SPAM, while not always a problem has become recognized by society as both mischeivous in the sense that creators enact virtual deception which can lead to various forms of fraud and identity theft, as well has annoying.
Up until recently many people did not have ways to control the amount of SPAM or X-rated materials that were sent to their accounts. Now, with various blocking programs, and AOLs ability to mark all hazardous emails as SPAM the virtual world has a leviathan to regulate at least some of the information on the internet.
In relating much of my observation and discussion back to Wallace's overview of theoretical issues of group dynamics on the internet I found that her mention of " the sign on the door....netiquette" sits in tandem with the issues surrounding SPAM mail. For many of us who are knowledgeable of the interenet, we know when mail is fake, hazardous and/or SPAM. However in Wallace's issue she discusses how those who are unfamiliar with the medium will have to learn how to participate. Many newcomers to the email area are not aware of the infinite number of SPAM emails they will receive, and more importantly do not understand that these senders are deceiving them. As Wallace points out, sometimes in order to learn the rules of the game you must be punished. Consequently, many newcomers find themselves suffering from identity theft and fraud because they believed a SPAM email. Followig such episodes the subject then becomes more aware of their environment and falls into the rule of the group dynamic.
Assignment 6: The Leviathan on Facebook
As Facebook becomes more popular, new applications are being added so people stay interested. The Facebook “wall” has been a popular application for a long time. This allows people to write messages on their friends’ walls for the public to see.
Another application that was created soon after the “wall” was the “status” application, where people can put up a type of away message which would inform others what you are doing at the moment. However many people use the “status” application to write whatever they want, including the way they are feeling at the moment. They can either use netiquette to avoid insulting their friends, or they can be intentionally rude to those who they are friends with on facebook through these applications. An experiment about group polarization in CMC found that participants in a situation where team unity was emphasized, who were in separate rooms, had a sharp increase in group polarization. This finding applies to the “status” and “wall” applications on Facebook because we use computers to write these messages in separate places, knowing that our friends on facebook have the ability to see our messages. Because of this, we tend to stick to the norm and try to act respectful.
Yet newer applications including “Advanced wall” and “Graffiti” allow people to be even more expressive because it allows a person to draw pictures on Facebook walls. In this situation the Leviathan are the Facebook moderators who passively monitor the network for offensive content. Regardless of this Leviathan’s presence, it enforces the norm in a laid back manner. People conform to respectful standards because they are aware of the lack of anonymity in these applications. All of these postings are presented so that the person who wrote on a friend’s wall is not anonymous. For example, when I write on someone’s wall it says “Robin Luckow wrote at 2:58pm on October 1st, 2007 …” with my profile picture next to the image. This makes the person aware of their actions and will make them more likely to conform to respectful standards. For example, I know that many employers look at their potential candidates’ Facebook profiles before hiring them to see what they are like. If there are obscene wall postings or graffiti drawings on one’s profile, this might affect the employer’s opinion that person and can determine whether one is hired or not. This can have an enormous effect on what one posts on their profile or on other people’s profiles.
Also, Wallace says that people are realizing “our contributions to the net are not as fleeting, nor as difficult to trace, as many had supposed”. If a person draws an offensive picture, it is likely that the illustration will remain on the profile. Therefore, people who write on Facebook walls or draw on Graffiti walls generally conform to the principles of human decency.
Another application that was created soon after the “wall” was the “status” application, where people can put up a type of away message which would inform others what you are doing at the moment. However many people use the “status” application to write whatever they want, including the way they are feeling at the moment. They can either use netiquette to avoid insulting their friends, or they can be intentionally rude to those who they are friends with on facebook through these applications. An experiment about group polarization in CMC found that participants in a situation where team unity was emphasized, who were in separate rooms, had a sharp increase in group polarization. This finding applies to the “status” and “wall” applications on Facebook because we use computers to write these messages in separate places, knowing that our friends on facebook have the ability to see our messages. Because of this, we tend to stick to the norm and try to act respectful.
Yet newer applications including “Advanced wall” and “Graffiti” allow people to be even more expressive because it allows a person to draw pictures on Facebook walls. In this situation the Leviathan are the Facebook moderators who passively monitor the network for offensive content. Regardless of this Leviathan’s presence, it enforces the norm in a laid back manner. People conform to respectful standards because they are aware of the lack of anonymity in these applications. All of these postings are presented so that the person who wrote on a friend’s wall is not anonymous. For example, when I write on someone’s wall it says “Robin Luckow wrote at 2:58pm on October 1st, 2007 …” with my profile picture next to the image. This makes the person aware of their actions and will make them more likely to conform to respectful standards. For example, I know that many employers look at their potential candidates’ Facebook profiles before hiring them to see what they are like. If there are obscene wall postings or graffiti drawings on one’s profile, this might affect the employer’s opinion that person and can determine whether one is hired or not. This can have an enormous effect on what one posts on their profile or on other people’s profiles.
Also, Wallace says that people are realizing “our contributions to the net are not as fleeting, nor as difficult to trace, as many had supposed”. If a person draws an offensive picture, it is likely that the illustration will remain on the profile. Therefore, people who write on Facebook walls or draw on Graffiti walls generally conform to the principles of human decency.
#6, 2: Inappropriate Facebook Behavior
Everyone knows that there are certain standards to follow on Facebook, and when someone doesn’t conform to the norm, they have to expect that someone will express their opinion in the form of a reproach. Although the norms are not clearly stated, they are expected. One thing that really bothers me on Facebook is when someone says that they have a birthday that is different from their real date of birth. The birthday notification is extremely helpful and considered to be reliable. However, when someone puts a fake birthday, it questions the reliability and can ultimately make you look foolish. About a month ago, I looked at the upcoming birthdays and saw the name of a person whose birthday was clearly not on that day. When the day of the faux birthday arrived, I saw that there were multiple wall posts wishing a happy birthday. Obviously these people were not the closest of friends but until there was a response on the wall saying, “Dude, it’s not your birthday,” those people that posted were made to look like fools. After the reproach calling for the truth was written, the birth date was changed to the real one almost immediately after. The norm that was breached in this situation was factual errors. This person was called out on their wrong and therefore, felt compelled to change it, which shows that the reproach was successful. Although this may have just been a joke, the reproach may have been in line with the need to conform to the rest of Facebook users. As far as I know, almost everyone gives their real birthday and therefore, especially after being targeted for it, there is a need to conform to the norms.
Another instance of incorrect Facebook behavior is when a certain “friend” invites you to join too many groups and to participate in too many events. When this person that I am not even close to is constantly asking me, and I have no interest in anything, there is only one way to get rid of this annoyance. Since most times these invitations will just be sent to every friend, and it won’t be realized that every time my response is a rejection, the only solution is to defriend this person. Although it may seem extreme, I have no need for all these unwanted invitations and I don’t even know why we are “friends” in the first place. The norm that was breached in this situation is bandwidth waste. Her requests to me are completely unnecessary and useless and her presence on my newsfeed about her creation of each group or event just adds clutter. Therefore, my reproach is in the form of a defriending, which is ultimately a success because she is no longer present in my Facebook world. In this manner, I am a moderator of my own Facebook account and I can choose who I want to see and hear information from. Although there is no “sign on the door” indicating that I think this is wrong, if someone continuously does something I don’t like, defriending is a quick and easy way to rid them from my online life.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=7492893383630072167
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=4910663533871410075
Another instance of incorrect Facebook behavior is when a certain “friend” invites you to join too many groups and to participate in too many events. When this person that I am not even close to is constantly asking me, and I have no interest in anything, there is only one way to get rid of this annoyance. Since most times these invitations will just be sent to every friend, and it won’t be realized that every time my response is a rejection, the only solution is to defriend this person. Although it may seem extreme, I have no need for all these unwanted invitations and I don’t even know why we are “friends” in the first place. The norm that was breached in this situation is bandwidth waste. Her requests to me are completely unnecessary and useless and her presence on my newsfeed about her creation of each group or event just adds clutter. Therefore, my reproach is in the form of a defriending, which is ultimately a success because she is no longer present in my Facebook world. In this manner, I am a moderator of my own Facebook account and I can choose who I want to see and hear information from. Although there is no “sign on the door” indicating that I think this is wrong, if someone continuously does something I don’t like, defriending is a quick and easy way to rid them from my online life.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=7492893383630072167
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=4910663533871410075
#6 Option 1: Hierarchy in an online community
When we were studying about Group Dynamics last week in lecture, I thought about the online community I was in for years and tried to find whether characteristics of Group Dynamics and theoretical issues were actually valid in my community. And, I thought it would be great if I can talk about my community on blog.
I want to briefly introduce my community and the website where my community is in. The name of this community is 日本(Japan)TV. As the name implies, members of this community enjoy watching Japanese TV programs, listening to Japanese pop-songs and reading Japanese books. The website this community is in is called “daum.net.” There are hundreds of communities on various topics.
These days, I only go to日本TV to read articles about Japanese singers, but I used to spend lots of time searching for new community to join, participating in discussion and reading posts from the others. As I get exposed to more communities, I realized there is similar norm that people recognize and conform. Among many different standards for each type of communities, I want to talk about hierarchy existed in most of the communities. Let’s say there is one person who just joined a community. He is expected to acknowledge that in terms of hierarchy, he is on the lowest rank. As he becomes more active in the community, based on the standard set by each community, upgrade on his rank is determined. Although the privileges of higher rank would differ by community, they are usually more control on the material that would be on the post or being granted to have an access to more material in the community. At first, when I just joined a community for the first time, I had no idea there would be restriction on me on accessing and displaying posts. When I looked around the community and tried to access the postings on the wall, I received an error message saying I was not eligible to read the information and it said there is an announcement on the top of the wall which I was expected to read thoroughly to adjust to the community. So, I went back to the wall to read the announcement and was informed of the existence of hierarchy, upgrading rank and following privileges. The way this hierarchy worked was as follows: the administrators would form a hierarchical system before they start accepting new members and require members to notify them if they fulfill the commitment required for certain level of the hierarchy.
At first, I did not see the point of enforcing this rule. However, soon I was able to see why administrators had set this kind of rule. As SIDE said, Social Identity encouraged more positive group dynamics. As one spent more time in one community, he became to know how to behave properly and since he also became personally closer to other members to the community over time (SIP), there was less likelihood for him to do something offending or would cause a chaos such as posting spam ads. As Deindividuation Effect of SIDE said, as people acknowledged themselves as a part of the community by labeling them as a certain rank, members became visually anonymous. Most of the time, this factor resulted in greater social influence, more conformity to norms and greater social attractions among community members. Later, I got to know that actually it was the website that recommended each community to have hierarchical structure in order to establish order and balance of the community.
#6 option 1: The Wall-to-Wall Leviathan
The Leviathan is a power that enforces our adherence to society’s norm’s and standards. The Leviathan is often more evident offline where consequences of deviating from the expected can be seen and experienced directly. However, social etiquette can also be found online. In particular, facebook provides a medium were many unwritten norms should be abided. One such expectation that I will focus on is the social etiquette related to wall posts. When Kwame writes on your wall, it is expected that you will then write on his wall. People are aware of this convention or Leviathan because it mirrors FtF convention. That is if Kwame speaks to you, you can not ignore him; you must respond to the Kwame’s statement or question. Similarly on facebook, you must respond to Kwame’s wall post, or else who will seem mean, anti-social and cold. The Leviathan enforces this norm by rewards and punishments. If you do write on Kwame’s wall and thus conform to the norm, then you will reap the benefits, such as gaining popularity. You will not only gain popularity with Kwame, but also with other members of facebook who see your name on Kwame’s wall. Familiarity increases liking. If you put your name out there, people will be inclined to like you since they have seen/ heard of you before. This is related to Wallace’s intersection frequency in relationship formation. Also, if you write on peoples wall’s they will write on your wall, which will make you seem popular, social and fun to be around. This conformity to the norm, will increase your self-esteem. It will help you feel connected to others and part of a group. However, if you do not conform to the wall-to-wall Leviathan, then you may be shunned. Kwame will stop writing on your wall and soon others may stop too. You will feel rejected and separated from the group. Such non-conformists often suffer from anxiety. Being rejected by the group for not conforming to the wall-to-wall etiquette is very stressful.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=3632105131400687172
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2067668948567925587
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=3632105131400687172
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2067668948567925587
A6,1: So Then Who Decides?
There are many websites these days that introduce and maintain the newest internet fads. The explosive popularity of videos that nobody would have heard of otherwise became available to the masses through these websites. Examples include Star Wars Kid, Numa Numa and the most recent Chris Crocker videos owe these media blogging websites for their fame. These websites are run by a webmaster who sorts through the videos that had been uploaded by members of the given website and updates their blog with the most recent “hot” new videos. However, not everyone uploads “acceptable” videos that fit the set norms.
I believe that it is safe to assume (with no research data) that age gap of the most dedicated viewers is quite large, possibly ranging somewhere from young teens to adults with immature sense of humors. The wide range makes it difficult for a single Leviathan to moderate and enforce the norm. The norm is set by the users by frequent visits to the website, since there are so many out there, if one offends a viewer, they could easily find another. To an extent, the webmaster is a Leviathan since he or she decides whether or not the media is acceptable. They may choose to allow the post as-is, post it with a warning or disclaimer such as NSFW (Not Safe For Work) or simply not allow it. In this sense, they are the most powerful Leviathans. But given that a webmaster puts something up which many users find offensive, the users are able to send nasty emails or post negative commentary on the given posts showing that the users are the ones who in fact determine the norm.
Since the webmaster remains as an individual entity while the users are a mass (a group), the webmaster must conform to the norms set by the users if the website wishes to maintain its high traffic (more money through advertisements). As mentioned before, since there are many different forms of these websites with different sets of norms and different levels of tolerance, if the webmaster fails to conform properly and quickly, they would not be able to avoid a failing website. Although the norms are technically under the webmaster’s (Wallace’s Leviathan) control, their power may be overthrown by the larger group leading to abandonment (a form of punishment in Wallace’s sense). The webmaster decides what goes up, but the users, viewers and members of the websites decide what stays up for the enjoyment of the masses.
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-hunting-loser-leviathan-my.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/10/welcom-to-spamalot.html
Welcom to SPAMalot!
There is one widespread breach of online social norms that has been pestering us for 13 years now, and despite the public’s best effort at enforcement, we’ve been unable to stop it. The "e-nnoyance" I’m referring to is affectionately named after our favorite canned meat.... SPAM.
Spam is definitely something we've all come across. At one point or another all of us have been asked to help a deposed Nigerian monarch regain his fortune or let in on a "Crazzzy-Hot" stock tip or asked if we'd like to electronically purchase "V!AGr@". Few of us pay any mind to these emails-- In fact most us probably have spam-filters that prevent us from ever seeing this trash. Despite their seemingly unimportant role in the expansive realm of the internet, these annoying emails cause us to examine some very complex societal questions. Astonishingly, almost every fact we learn about spam seems to raise another question.
Spam was first brought to life in 1994 when a husband-wife legal team sent out messages advertising their services all over Usenet. The two were of questionable moral fabric to begin with (look here for more of the story), but I doubt even they could have predicted the monster that they created. As expected, the two were quickly ostracized from Usenet, a great example of the Leviathan and societal pressure settling the issue. Spam is one of those things, like junk mail and infomercials, which society has instinctively deemed “wrong”.
Studies today show that upwards of 60-80% of all email is spam, almost half of which comes from overseas. Not surprisingly, this phenomenon is thought to translate into billions of dollars in lost productivity. Even if spam is something we never think about anymore (thanks to filters), each one of those statistics has astounding consequences.
Firstly, if 60 to 80% of the email that is being sent is unsolicited, we are literally choking our bandwidth and electronic resources with garbage. This certainly can't be a good thing for society as a whole. However, now we have two Leviathans facing off. One that wants to protect the social right of free speech at all costs and one that abhors this obvious breach of acceptable societal behavior. Are we willing to curtail our free speech rights for wider bandwidths, willing to make a stand against the commercial marketing that attacks our private life, should we start to limit the "openness" of the internet? Any direction we lean could mean changes that extend beyond the medium they're designed to regulate. And then there's the question, "Should we be regulating the internet at all?" These are all questions that the power of the social norm has been unable to answer. If anything Spam is increasing.
Suddenly this little issue doesn't seem so little, and no easy answer is in sight. Unfortunately Wallace’s methods for cracking down on rogue behavior using the Leviathan just don’t work here. Spammers don’t care about a “raised eyebrow” or a terse reply email. They knowingly violate every social rule that the public has established for legitimate email. They could care less what the public thinks of them, and therefore they are immune to whatever punishment the public could inflict upon them.
Spam is definitely something we've all come across. At one point or another all of us have been asked to help a deposed Nigerian monarch regain his fortune or let in on a "Crazzzy-Hot" stock tip or asked if we'd like to electronically purchase "V!AGr@". Few of us pay any mind to these emails-- In fact most us probably have spam-filters that prevent us from ever seeing this trash. Despite their seemingly unimportant role in the expansive realm of the internet, these annoying emails cause us to examine some very complex societal questions. Astonishingly, almost every fact we learn about spam seems to raise another question.
Spam was first brought to life in 1994 when a husband-wife legal team sent out messages advertising their services all over Usenet. The two were of questionable moral fabric to begin with (look here for more of the story), but I doubt even they could have predicted the monster that they created. As expected, the two were quickly ostracized from Usenet, a great example of the Leviathan and societal pressure settling the issue. Spam is one of those things, like junk mail and infomercials, which society has instinctively deemed “wrong”.
Studies today show that upwards of 60-80% of all email is spam, almost half of which comes from overseas. Not surprisingly, this phenomenon is thought to translate into billions of dollars in lost productivity. Even if spam is something we never think about anymore (thanks to filters), each one of those statistics has astounding consequences.
Firstly, if 60 to 80% of the email that is being sent is unsolicited, we are literally choking our bandwidth and electronic resources with garbage. This certainly can't be a good thing for society as a whole. However, now we have two Leviathans facing off. One that wants to protect the social right of free speech at all costs and one that abhors this obvious breach of acceptable societal behavior. Are we willing to curtail our free speech rights for wider bandwidths, willing to make a stand against the commercial marketing that attacks our private life, should we start to limit the "openness" of the internet? Any direction we lean could mean changes that extend beyond the medium they're designed to regulate. And then there's the question, "Should we be regulating the internet at all?" These are all questions that the power of the social norm has been unable to answer. If anything Spam is increasing.
Suddenly this little issue doesn't seem so little, and no easy answer is in sight. Unfortunately Wallace’s methods for cracking down on rogue behavior using the Leviathan just don’t work here. Spammers don’t care about a “raised eyebrow” or a terse reply email. They knowingly violate every social rule that the public has established for legitimate email. They could care less what the public thinks of them, and therefore they are immune to whatever punishment the public could inflict upon them.
6.1: If It Ain't Cute, It Ain't Allowed
Online forums have an etiquette all their own, and, to further complicate things, content-specific and website-affiliated forums often have customized barriers-to-entry for potential users. There are some universal standards, however, that precede each individual online forum’s norms and guidelines. One of the most visible is the avatar. An avatar is the graphic image or animation that users self-select as a representation of identity on the online forum (typically the avatar appears next to the username). As visual symbols of individualization within the group, avatars effectively remove non-verbal filters to some degree (note: the deception-detection element is in play here).
Due to the importance of these personalized visual symbols, some boards impose limits or strict guides that limit one’s choice of avatar. One particular forum, Oink—the reference forum for this post—enforces a rather odd policy: the user must choose a “cute” avatar, as a sort of self-deprecating, absurdity-bent remark to befuddle forum outsiders (e.g. cute hamster anthropomorphism, cute kids with vanilla cupcakes). In Chapter 4, Wallace talks about the "Groupness" of forums, and how social science theories are utilized in any investigation of online groups. "Conformity" is one such element especially key in understanding the cute avatar rule.
Though un-enforced conformity does occur to some degree at Oink, the explicit guideline for avatar choice points to the presence of a Leviathan. Users who transgress this rule are warned by Oink administrators and then have their picture reset to the default photograph (losing, for that user, his/her piece of group identity). Though avatar enforcement might seem strange, conformity is such an important social glue that Wallace writes “new strategies were needed to bring about compliance and conformity” in the internet medium to keep groups alive. On Oink's forum, conformity means everyone gets to be in on the joke (this represents conformity through polarization). The Leviathan—the avatar admin—imposes the group norm upon the group’s members. But, according to Wallace, this is not necessarily a bad thing, as “human willingness to conform” and be in the group leads to the allowance of a temperate Leviathan.
The “Arched Brow” Theory also aids the Leviathan in group conformity. If an admin does not catch a forum user with a not-so-cute picture, than users fill the role (if somewhat unconsciously). If a user has a default avatar or a purposefully not-so-cute avatar, than other members are less likely to post a response recognizing the presence of said member (or answering his/her questions). Constant reproach or ignorance leads to the stigma of being an outsider or an un-welcomed newbie (Oink is not particularly harsh to new users). The Leviathan, therefore, may be the administrative group, but any group member can also enforce the principals of the Leviathan. Group members’ concede to certain rules upon joining, like Oink’s avatar guideline, in order to obtain and preserve what is most precious about the forum. As Wallace points out, in this way, group members entrust the group’s principles to the forum admin team, to the Leviathan. If this appreciation for the forum dwindles because the presence of the Leviathan went beyond moderation, group members may leave en mass, effectively dissolving the group itself. Control, in moderation, is key to conformity, and key to groupness online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)