Class #2: Brave New World?

To receive full credit, this blog assignment must be posted by Monday night, February 1st at midnight. If you post late, please email me your post directly at sdebross@uvm.edu as soon as you are able, and I'll give you partial credit.

Please read Clive Thompson's September 5, 2008 New York Times article "Brave New World of Digital Intimacy," and then, at this thread below, answer the following questions:

1. IYOW, identify the thesis of Thompson's article, in one sentence.

2. What does Thompson mean by the phrase "ambient awareness?" Explain, and provide 1 example from your own life.

3. Describe TWO observations Thompson makes with which you agree, and TWO observations Thompson makes with which you disagree. Be clear and specific.

1. Social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, are recreating the way that people communicate with each other, and personal contact and connection is suffering as a result.

2. Ambient awareness is a phenomenon that Facebook and Twitter induce. People become aware of things peripherally via their Twitter and Facebook updates. No longer do they have to keep up with people; the information comes to them. Because of facebook update feeds and instant Twitter posts, people have access to a lot of people's daily routines, ideas, and musings. While it is certainly useful in the efficiency and ease of learning of others' updates, it detracts from tangible real contact. I have somewhat rebelled against being hyperconnected to friends on Facebook or religiously checking Twitter posts, but it does seep into culture and the world around me. People, I feel like, now almost expect others to join in updating statuses and whatnot, such that if someone were to not do that, they are seen as inactive and not "with it."

3. I agree with a lot of what the author has to say. His writing takes on a tone of forewarning, saying that we should probably pay more attention to how these networking sites devalue certain other aspects of life. I agree when Thompson questions whether having online "friends" is truly a mark of how popular or rich in friends you are. Most of my Facebook "friends" are acquaintances--people who I knew from high school or simply random people that I've met throughout the years. I have only friended true friends or family members; somehow Im not utterly fascinated with what Joe from summer camp in sixth grade is doing. It's just silly to me.

I also agree with what he says about becoming emotionally shallow when you are constantly checking and passing judgments based on Twitter or Facebook updates. It can cause people to jump to conclusions and interact things through a computer screen. This can definitely detract from real social conversation and connection. I don't even like looking at Facebook because I find myself making judgments of people off of snip-its or drunken photos; it really doesn't paint a picture of the depth of personality that people have.

I find it tough to disagree with persuasive articles that spread awareness of the impacts and possible dangers that social networking sites can birng. I think I agree with his overall message and appreciate the insight more so than anything. There are a few things, when taken out of context, are things that I disagree with, but his piece overall builds on his thesis, which I do agree with. Anyway, having said that, I disagree with when he says that Facebook and Twitter help know one's self better. It can for some create the illusion of expanding your personality and creating a page that expresses who you are, but when it comes down to it, people need to be able to physically interact to know where you stand. Also, I have spent a lot of time alone in the backcountry and have developed my character and presence far more so than in front of a computer screen. Overall, great read.