In this interaction, the online reader becomes the victim as they are flooded by incoming traffic, or information, originating from many different sources. Trying to stop this attack, or identify the source is simply impossible. Trying to identify truth in a topic is a challenge as the reader is forced to negotiate subtle nuances in truth and fiction.
The reader would ultimately look at the vast amount of information coming at them on a topic from multiple sides, not know what is true, and give up. They ultimately decide that “nothing is true” and head back to their personal belief sets since it is a known quantity and believable.
Anonymity – People believe they can say anything and get away with it;
Perceived obscurity – People believe their online expressions are fairly private;
Perceived majority status – People believe their opinion or experience is the majority, and that people agree with them;
Social identity salience – People believe that their online identity means more than their offline identity. That is, online they are guided by “mob mentality” and mimic members of their group;
Surrounded by their friends – People believe everyone in their network, or online social circles thinks and acts like they do;
Desensitization – People over time see others make so many nasty comments, or they do it themselves, that it doesn’t seem like such a big deal;
Personality traits – People are sometimes outspoken by nature, and believe they can express themselves online without a filter;
Perceived lack of consequences – People weigh the risk vs. reward of engaging in these behaviors and believe that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Both of these pieces managed to capture something that has left me feeling uneasy of late. I am not adverse to devices and technology, but wonder where the conversation is associated with it all? That was the point in my post on being informed. The latest ‘black box’ is the introduction of the smart speaker into the classroom. The discussion seems to be about what it might afford, with little consideration of any other implications.
My wondering is whether turning off the behavioral aspects is enough or if the devices are in fact tainted to the core? This is something that I touched on in my response to Dai Barnes.
Thank you too for the shoutout. It definitely has sparked some interesting conversation. I read a post today about mindfulness apps, yet it overlooked the collection of data associated with the completion of various. We are asked to be conscious of our breathing, yet ignore the data that we share on a daily basis.
Rather than connecting with people who are like them only in ascribed characteristics — things we mostly acquire from birth, like family, race, and social class (though this one can change throughout one’s life)—many people have the opportunity to seek connections with others who share similar interests and motivations. Of course, place, race, family, gender, and social class continue to play a very important role in structuring human relationships—but the scope and the scale of their power and their role as a social mechanism have shifted and changed as modernity advanced.(Page 10)
I am really intrigued by Tufekci’s discussion of the networked public sphere.
I have written about my toolography., but find it useful when saving longer posts for later. Basically, I start with Inoreader. If the post is too long to read I save it. Definitely a useful tool for students to have in
I’m left wondering why someone would choose to share content like this openly online. I’m wondering why an individual would chose to share this type of content about a friend or family member. I’m wondering if the person thought that others would see it…or if we would see it. I wonder what the intended reaction to this comment should have been.