Response 1

In response to the weekly reading:

I have found the following quote from the article, interesting.

“It’s like I can distantly read everyone’s mind,” Haley went on to say. “I love that. I feel like I’m getting to something raw about my friends. It’s like I’ve got this heads-up display for them.”

Whether or not someone is revealing something truly explicit within their lives in the environment of social network is rather questionable.  The sense of ‘raw’ or realness which someone believes they are receiving through the process of reading News Feeds is never not contrived or mediated.  It is important to note that beyond idealized occurrences of daily activities, what is represented on Facebook or Twitter is an abstract.  The details and intricacies in which constitute the action is never well understood.  One may argue that the validity of the users status is a subjective response toward their trust in the privacy system and associated contacts, yet the obvious nature of one’s status must be questioned for embellishment.  In my own observation and notes on the development of Facebook have brought me to this idea that it is parallel supplement for reality a personal interaction.  I agree with the article in that it states that Facebook does allow the potential for events and gathering in a organized way.  But the example in which the article seemed unnerving.  If one can construct a happenstance social interaction, than physical interaction is a subject of question, which is deeply disturbing.

The article was somewhat informative, yet it has also made me more disillusioned by the agency of social networking.  I have my own bias and affinity for the concrete psychological detachment of one from the internet, that does influence my interpretation of the article.  Yet the article seemed too heavily idealized.  The constructed reality brought forth from the author, views Facebook as a world of possibilities for communication.  It spends more time illustrating and fostering this imagery, instead of also disclaiming its flaws.

In response to the experiment:

I found it unusual to notify my friends on Facebook about my whereabouts.  It was not a familiar activity for me.  I found it rather difficult to summarize everything that I was responding to in my environment in such an abstract way.  I have found that this activity is easier for most.  Instead, I reconciled this act by posting my current place in time for the viewer’s interpretation.  I did not want to exercise any sense of interpretation on my part.  It was an interesting experiment albeit a bit misguided as one’s ability to express their response to their current place in time depends on the personality of the user.

Advertisements

One Response to “Response 1”

  1. Eric Kim Says:

    Hey Jace,

    Great post. You really do have a way with words and I quite enjoy your style. I also liked how you started off your post with that fascinating quote from the article as well.

    Good to hear that the experiment for the week wasn’t very difficult as well–although a bit unusual. It is also interesting how you wrote updates regarding your environment, whereas I think typically people write about random things on their mind. It indeed gives the viewer the opportunity to interpret what you are doing depending on your whereabouts.

    See you in class today!

    Best,
    Eric

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: