While reading through Gurak's observations on speed, reach, anonymity, and interactivity, I was shocked by her claim that "Online, people seem to have a greater expectation that they are communicating with a real person of that name" (37). Yet a few paragraphs later, she writes, "Today, we might see it as naive to expect anyone to be anything for certain in cyberspace. Cyberliteracy implies caution when considering identity" (38).
So which is it? It seems to me that most people use handles as opposed to their real name. Unless their online pseudonyms include some outright indication of their gender in their name, I try not to read their writing with any preconceived notions of who they might be. Therefore, I position myself in the latter camp that tries not to take any clues about one's true identity too seriously.
Do we have a responsibility to present a relatively truthful version of ourselves when interacting with others online? To me, it seems to depend on the forum in which one is posting. It seems to be a violation for people to go so far as to make fake MySpace and Facebook profiles in order to create specific, detailed identities. I would also feel violated by the "Joan" example described on page 38. But I don't mind if someone wants to create some sort of alter ego so long as they aren't doing it to win my sympathy or legitimate friendship.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hi John--that Joan thing really bothered me as well; I wouldn't be so bothered, however, if a reporter from a reputable news outlet, even an Internet based org., went undercover and did the same thing (I wonder why?). I liked that article; I plan on using portions of it in my 104 class. (My students were really concerned with a definition of anonymity, and I think some of the issues Girak brought up are worth mentioning to college freshman)
Hi John,
I like your question about "responsibility." I think in order for someone to answer it, they must first answer another question: Does cyberspace exist within an existing social construct, or is it its own? If the former, then misrepresenting one's self within cyberspace is as much an offense as doing it face-to-face. If the latter, then it would seem the rules of that society or community are in constant flux; as communicating via the Internet continues to evolve, so (it seems) does the rulebook of what is and what is not "taboo." Some might argue that many (if not most) of these misrepresentations of identity are harmless white lies, but ask those who were duped by "Joan" if they feel it was a victimless crime. Ultimately, lies are going to hurt someone.
The tragic news story today about two middle-agers pretending to be twenty-somethings courting by internet - doesn't say whether email, blog, myspace, etc. - and ending with the murder of a third real twenty-something trying to become a rival suitor perhaps provides a moral that you can't believe anything you're sent electronically. Such stories occur frequently enough to convince me. Perhaps a second moral is that such messages can only be believed if rigidly controlled by an intemediary, such as Myspace, if Myspace indeed provides this security.
Perhaps the only really safe use of such technologies is an outlet for fiction writers using pseudonyms.
Another thought, there are some internet based communities where the creation of a psydonym and protection of "rl" identities is not only common, but is in fact encouraged by the community. It is an understood facet of community interaction that the "persona" you are presenting is just that. How do these types of online groups fit into the picture?
Sunset said, "Perhaps the only really safe use of such technologies is an outlet for fiction writers using pseudonyms."
Perhaps the digital page is providing an outlet for that newest of genres, creative nonfiction--and has gone a bit awry. The controversy surrounding creative nonfic. is that the fine line that separates fiction from nonfiction-- and in a sense, reality from imagination--is too often blurred. Are those online personas real? I don't know about you, but I have many different personas within my personality, and the one I present in class only has a so-so reality-quotient if you are truly looking for the real Elizabeth. Which is the most real? I don't know. I'm sure if I did I could write a book and be a millionaire... Maybe the point is that none of my personas are harmful to others. Perhaps in giving an outlet to these personas, we are providing an outlet to (potentially) harmful urges that would otherwise stay repressed. Do we have any psych majors out there to help us out?
I do think we have a responsibility to be somewhat honest in our online representations. None of my personas would manifest itself as a wealthy 40-year-old man, no matter how isolated the chat room. However, with no way to guarantee this courtesy, I think our best bet would be to remain cautious and educate our students in that caution as well.
(Sorry to get so philosophical... I blame 510 and its theories on rhetoric and reality.)
My problem is that when posting to blogs, I immediately become 35% more sarcastic. I'll have to be careful here, because, unlike in the blogosphere, I'll have to look at you all in the eye once a week.
DMCG
Post a Comment