Social Capital...Facebook.

THANK GOD FOR FACEBOOK! If it weren't for this site I would have never been able to keep in contact with everyone from home whilst being at uni. This is apparently called "friendsickness" (Paul & Brier, 2001) where a connection with a friend is lost or strained because of one or both of them moving away for college. I can honestly say that if I didn't have the option of social networking sites I wouldn't have kept more than two friendships going for more than a few weeks. Instant messaging helped as well but in the age of Facebook I’ve used it less and less over the passed couple of years of having Facebook.

A line of Facebook intensity caught my attention, “I feel out of touch when I haven't logged onto Facebook for a while” and my first thought was “Yep, that’s me all over” even when I’m not in the room I still leave Facebook on, I’m not sure whether it’s because I want people to be able to reach me at all times, I can check up on what other people are doing with their day when I return or I, simply, have a poor social life. But even when running a full screen program I am logged into Facebook and MSN (on some occasions I’m Twitter as well). I often refresh the page to see if any new updates have appeared on the homepage too. I’m beginning to wonder whether my face-to-face interaction is actually hindered by online social networking. I feel I’m freer to express opinions over Facebook and other social networking sites but in person I have noticed I’m more restricted in what I say. I guess being in front of a computer screen gives you some sort of feeling of anonymous power to say whatever you feel like and not get the full consequences of it. Like the hate comments on Youtube, because you can’t see the person commenting it is easy to say anything to them and not have to deal with the social awkwardness.

After reading "The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social capital and college students' use of social network sites" it's actually weird how much of an effect social capital has on society. Can sitting in front of Facebook and MySpace really better public health, lower crime rates, and benefit financial markets (Adler & Kwon, 2002)? The point made about new forms of social capital and relationship building occurring in online social network sites. I defiantly agree with this point. People that i have met a few times face-to-face but not enough to develop a proper relationship with have developed over Facebook simply by writing on each other's walls and sharing links of similar interests which can be seen on the profile. Facebook it a way acts as a helper in friendship/relationship building, friends in common can be viewed on the profile, groups and fan pages also appear on the profile and the ability to comment upon each other's activity. Facebook assists the user in conversation topics to uphold a relationship. But then again, some people on Facebook i hardly ever speak to online are my closest friends offline and the people i talk more to online are people i don't usually see let alone converse with offline. Like Boyd and Hogan point out in their archive,
"All too frequently, someone makes a comment about how a large number of Facebook Friends must mean a high degree of social capital. Or how we can determine who is closest to who by measuring their email messages. Or that the Dunbar number can explain the average number of Facebook friends."
To me they're quite rightly pointing out how Facebook is not the same the same as "real life" as apposed to virtual life.
I have also noticed that people that I don't associate or even get on with are added to my Facebook account. Why does social networking not apply to the same rules in real life? Can people be friends on Facebook but not offline? Either way Facebook friends doesn’t actually mean that the users are friends. Just “virtual friends”.

Is the internet Killing our culture? Nah.

The workshop task was to read the debate between Andrew Keen and Emily Bell on the subject of whether or not the Internet is killing our culture. The room was divided into two groups and one side was given the task of putting across Andrew Keen's view that the Internet is killing our culture and the other with Emily Bell's. I was on the Emily Bell's side and read the article with great interest with both sides’ viewpoints. Andrew Keen's point of the Internet being bad for copyright costing music industries millions every year, however he sees it as a negative thing that anyone and everyone can publish something online. I am in agreement with Emily Bell on this one, amateur content will not destroy the careers of musicians etc. Surely because there is so much amateur stuff online it makes the professionals look even greater? The only problem would be that there is so much of it to sift through that the professionals could be buried under the amateur content.
The point Bell made about musical artists being discovered through the internet, such as Artic Monkeys and Lily Allen. The Internet offers fame of different sorts in a way. Youtube allows the user to publish their own ideas, thoughts and feelings on the Internet, this gives them their fifteen minutes of fame and even an opportunity to make money. Bell's point about how smart musicians and businesses and other creators are using the internet to promote their work was a point that i knew existed yet didn't really think about before. As an avid user of the Internet i was brought up around it and the opportunities it has offered the users has always been something that was there but i knew no better so acts like The Klaxons being discovered via the internet is the norm. Anybody can get their 15 minutes of fame but the elite hold it and get discovered.
Keen seemed fixated on how the Internet is changing society. He appears to be stuck in the dark ages and is blind to see the point that society is changing and will continue to change along with technological development whether it is wanted or not. Change happens and he is clinging onto the notion that a less technological advanced society is more beneficial. "Today's under-25 generation should be more focused on the laborious work of learning about the world than in expressing their often inchoate and ill-informed opinions." His view of the under 25s is arguably negative and therefore fogging his view of how beneficial the Internet is as a mode of freedom of speech.
It is strange that Keen is so set on criticising the Internet and it's abilities but he would have to have used the Internet himself to discover its faults, which seems hypocritical to me. If the internet is so terrible in what it offers to everyone who uses it then cease use of it. He could not possibly say that the Internet is a bad thing to have when he uses it himself.

The task, however, was throroughly enjoyable to express our own use of the Internet to try and get our point across.