Children &Technology

My new proposal concerns the effect of technology on children and ways of learning. Technology imposes on traditional ways of learning and childhood. For example, when teaching kids how to count instead of using fingers or objects, more and more parents are using computer games as a form of teaching. Technology is even used as toys for young kids/babies to keep them entertained. I have seen toddlers playing with their parent’s iphones on the train. I think what is concerning is the idea of children being too dependent on technology and how it re-defines childhood and shapes their ability to learn. Some may argue that interacting with technology is a useful way for children to learn, however it is important to recognize there are downfalls as well. I think the best way for me to convey this is to create a video mash-up of children interacting with technology in a humorous way. This video of a baby interacting with an ipad and then a magazine speaks to what I am talking about.

Proposal: Visually Depicting Online Identity Constructions

Awhile back I was really intrigued by the posted video of Christopher Poole’s talk on the importance of multi-faceted online identities (at the web 2.0 summit) and the ways identity is represented and restricted by various online sites such as Facebook. This is obviously connected to our recent discussions, but I want to take a more artistic approach to exploring and depicting these themes and arguments.

I really liked Poole’s argument that “ Google and Facebook would have you believe that you’re a mirror, but we’re actually more like diamonds,” and that “Look from a different angle, and you see something completely different… Facebook is consolidating identity by making us more simple than we truly are.” This metaphor would serves as the basis for my project. I believe that the enormous impact Facebook has had on our daily lives has perhaps infiltrated the line between our identity online and our identity IRL. I want to explore the implications of this, the negative effects of a ‘consolidated’ identity, and other arguments surrounding the subject.

I think that creating a mash-up video, borrowing a combination of images, pop-culture references, and other relevant footage, will be the most effective technique to present my ideas in an entertaining and enjoyable way. However, I’m not quite sure how or where I would share the final product.

I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience

Alice E. Marwick & Dana Boyd

difference between self-representation and/or performed identities in real life interactions and those which take place online in social networking sites (Twitter as case study)

Close examination is made on how Twitter users imagine their audience

Social Media collapses contextual information

*Imagining the Audience Online

Lack of knowledge of audience in social media necessitates the formulation of an imagined audience in the mind of social media participants/users.

Situationist theory applied to social/electronic media: people’s reactions are based on context rather than fixed psychological traits or constructed values.

The very existence of a social media profile/homepage “presumes the expectation of the virtual ‘generalized other.’”

“markers of cool”

“taste cultures” & “taste performances” on social media sites to “convey prestige, uniqueness, or aesthetic preference”

*Twitter & Audience
@reply, #hashtag, retweets

“Directed Frienship Model: participants choose Twitter accounts to ‘follow’ in their stream, and they each have their own group of ‘followers.’ There is no technical requirement of reciprocity, and often, no social expectation of such.”

Disconnect between followers and followed

With various ways of consuming and spreading tweets, it is very difficult for participants to account for an audience, and thus without knowing the audience, imagine it.

*How Twitter Users Imagine Audiences

Methodology: Study was conducted by asking Twitter users directly.
Questions posed to informants: “Who do you imagine reading your tweets? Who do you tweet to? What makes an individual seem “authentic” on Twitter? (Or what does it mean to be authentic?) What won’t you tweet about? What subjects are inappropriate for Twitter?”

describing audience as “fans” or “friends” is essentially related to number of followers

some participants tweet “for themselves”, not for an audience

this position wants to reject social phenomenon of personal branding, marketing, and self-commodification, another way users imagine their audience, as a strategy

“ideology of publicity” (Dean)

some audience conceptions are tweet-dependent.

“ideal reader” conception of audience, often mirror image of user

*Strategic Audiences

fan base/community

micro-celebrity

establishing online presence

marketing/branding

*Navigating Multiple Audiences

“context collapse”= the flattening of multiple audiences into one

authors suggest some users create multiple accounts/online identities

participant as actor

social media is removed from the collaborative aspect of managing self-presentation inherent to face-to-face interaction

“users maintain impressions by balancing personal/public information, avoiding certain topics, and maintaining authenticity.”

*Balancing Expectations of Authenticity

“Participants must maintain equilibrium between a contextual social norm of personal authenticity that encourages information-sharing and phatic communication (the oft-cited ‘what I had for breakfast’ example) with the need to keep information private, or at least concealed from certain audiences.”

authenticity can only be defined against inauthenticity

authenticity, however, always constructed through discourse and context

*Self-Censorship

categorical self-censorship on Twitter: “TMI” subjects (bodily functions), relationships, religion, politics, work/professions, criticism, etc.

“Participants maintain a public-facing persona to manage impressions with potential readers. Context collapse creates an audience that is often imagined as its most sensitive members: parents, partners, and bosses. This ‘nightmare reader’ is the opposite of the ideal reader, and may limit personal discourse on Twitter.”

*Balance

balance between personal authenticity and audience expectation

twitter users see professional speak “as less authentic than personal, ‘human’ revelations”

however, personal topics on twitter were “relatively innocuous”

even things that may seem personal are highly strategic and often times serve a professional purpose (especially for those with high following)

“Micro-celebrity practices like interacting directly with followers, appealing to multiple audiences, creating an affable brand and sharing personal information are rewarded, and consequently encouraged, in Twitter culture. The ability to attract and command attention becomes a status symbol….This view of micro-celebrity practice assumes an intrinsic conflict between self-promotion and the ability to connect with others on a deeply personal or intimate level. Some view strategic audience management as dishonest ‘corporate-speak’ or even ‘phony, shameless promotion’. The encroachment of presumably profit- or status-driven ‘public’ techniques into ‘private’ social spaces is met with stiff resistance from people used to interactional norms that do not involve the commodification of social ties. We might ask if ‘public’ space is becoming synonymous with ‘commercial’, and if alternative models of publicity and attention can thrive within the networked audience environment.”

Writer’s Audience (ideal)
Broadcast Audience (fixed, unidentifiable, passive)
Networked Audience (hybrid of previous 2, potentially public and private, can provide both personal and anonymous interactions)

“On the one hand, Twitter is seen as an authentic space for personal interaction. On the other, social norms against ‘oversharing’ and privacy concerns mean that information deemed too personal may be removed from potential interactions. Similarly, the desire to have ‘fans’ or a ‘personal brand’ conflicts with the desire for pure self-expression and intimate connections with others. In combining public-facing and interpersonal interaction, the networked audience creates new opportunities for connection, as well as new tensions and conflicts.”