This book is a sweeping look at the Internet and how it has changed the way that we view the world (a common cliché in Internet scholarship). Where I did find this book interesting though was in its discussion of privacy and the Internet.  Also the witty tone of the book (one chapter is entitled “Saddam, O.J., and the Unabomber” and is about the Internet and pop culture) makes it an easy book to get into. The later chapters (starting with Ch. 12) discuss the trade-off between technology/access and privacy. Many people, especially in the older generations who have not grown up with the Internet, still think of the Internet in terms of the “Big Brother” metaphor. There is definitely a trade-off and some of the “Big Brother”-ness of the Internet (and social networks where often very personal information is revealed) is often inevitable. Something this book does not directly discuss is how generational this discomfort is. Younger generations who have grown up with the Internet, instant messenger, and online social networks are far more comfortable with a lack of privacy than older generations.
            There is also another type of privacy that deals with the Internet: the privacy of being anonymous and creating an identity online. Chapter 13, “Nobody Knows You’re a Dog (or do they? Privacy issues and the Internet)" uses the image of the dog in front of the computer from the New Yorker cartoon to question how anonymity and privacy have changed. The author argues that maybe it used to be the case that “nobody knows you’re a dog” but now, they not only know you’re a dog, but they also know your favorite food and where you went walking yesterday. Applying the author’s point to social networks, it’s interesting that there is discomfort with a loss of privacy when in many cases, information is provided voluntarily. Of course, when it is appropriated for other uses, discomfort can ensue, but I think that (in many cases at least) with so much of one’s identity based on the Internet, it creates a double edged sword: you have to divulge information in order to create an online persona, but that also makes you vulnerable. I know that I am uncomfortable when Google puts up advertisements that correspond to my Gmail messages; and yet I still love my Gmail. In addition, Facebook.com has many privacy controls and options, but people were still livid when it added the “Live Feed” function. Of course, you could go to options and turn it off, but there erupted multiple groups on the site that were angry at this invasion of privacy. This book, especially the sections on privacy, were interesting in that they opened up more questions about how social networks interact with our lives both on and offline and how privacy or lack thereof can be a motivator for how identity is presented.

In order to find this case on Findlaw, just search for it using "J.S. vs...." You can then create a free account. The link to the specific case is: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/pennsylvaniastatecases/supreme/j-111-2001mo.pdf. 

   This case deals with a middle school student who created a Website with defamatory statements about one of his teachers and his school principle. The site, “Teacher Sux,” was created on his home computer but was accessed at school. When it was discovered, it created a stir at school and the teacher he had mentioned, Ms. Fulmer, suffered from stress-related illnesses. The following summer, the school board expelled the student from school for the Website. The student’s parents sued the school board for their decision. The case made it to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ruled that the Website did in fact cause “a material and substantial disruption of the school environment,” making it not protected under the 1^st amendment (even though the speech did not constitute a “true threat”). Because the Website affected the school environment, it did not matter that the student had created it at home.

   I am interested in how this precedent-setting case affects students’ postings on social networking sites of today, like Facebook.com and MySpace.com. Although these are log-in only websites, any one may gain access to them and may do so in a school environment. I wonder then if a student has been expelled for comments made on one of these social networking sites. This case brings to the forefront the issues of privacy and rights when it comes to personal postings on the internet, something that is all the more prevalent with the ubiquity of social networking sites in young people. The case illustrates the unique circumstances of a school environment and shows that the 1st amendment is limited in that space (going all the way back to the "Tinker" case which can also be found on FindLaw). What students put on their Facebook profiles or their friend’s wall can affect their standing at their university if it causes a “material and substantial disruption of the school environment” or portrays the student doing illegal activities. These Websites offer students a unique opportunity for self-expression and identity formation, but there is also the danger in the lack of privacy of internet postings.

     After doing some research online, I found a case where students were suspended from school for writing offensive and vulgar comments about their teacher on each other's facebook.com walls. The school used the "material and substantial disruption" clause to justify why the students were suspended. Apparently, the comments, though posted on Facebook.com from home, caused a disruption in school. The article can be found at: http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=6195724&nav=2KPp.

 

 

This essay focuses on people’s tendency to create alternate selves in cyberspace; the author calls them “virtual personae.” As she sees it, this act is reflective of the fact that the self is not unified (as Freud imagined it in the ego) but is actually fragmented and split (more of the Lacanian school). The author brings in psychoanalytic theory in order to present the lack of a unified self in a positive way. She posits that the internet (and social networks, online communities, chat rooms, Multi-User-Domains) is actually helpful in reconciling the many parts of the self and helping them develop. She argues that the internet age is not fragmenting the self, it has just concretized and illustrated this trend which was already happening. What she calls “the multiplicity and flexibility” of self is actually a liberating thing with the potential to help the self function healthily in a variety of circumstances. Sometimes these online personas can even help a person work through repressed parts of themselves. The author is careful not to be advocating a sort of multiple personality syndrome; she emphasizes that in order for the multiplicity to be productive, the individual must be very self-reflective and aware.
            I found this article to be a refreshing change from some of the more cynical pieces I had read about identity and the internet. It’s encouraging to think that the fragmentation that people talk about in terms of online identity formation and multiple forms/representations of self could actually be a way to come to a greater realization of self. Rather than fragmented, it is optimistically “adaptive” and “flexible” (647). Of course this is not the case for all internet users who create virtual personae; some people could hide behind these identities rather than learn from them. In that way, the argument is a little bit idealist. Thinking about the author’s argument in terms of contemporary social networks online, there is definitely the possibility for defining oneself in a certain way on one’s profile and exploring other parts of the self in that process, but I think that especially with adolescents (much of the Facebook and MySpace demographic), they are often not ready to reconcile the multiplicity of selves and simply use the networks to project a certain image. It might take more time for them to self-consciously ask themselves why they are trying to create a certain virtual personae, and maybe then they will reach the potential that this article discusses.

 

This is a humorous article which examines the phenomenon of college students giving up Facebook for lent. Articles like this really show how social networking sites have become part of the zeitgeist. Instead of giving up fried food or soda, many students are opting to give up logging on to instant messenger and Facebook.com. A surprising twist is that the clerics interviewed for the article actually support this; they say that giving up something like Facebook not only constitutes a true sacrifice but also frees up one’s time for other things. However, certain students were worried that they would feel utterly cut off from their social networks and friends during this period, missing out on birthday reminders, events, wall posts, etc. The way that this article presents Facebook as, “the connective tissue of undergraduate life” shows how ubiquitous this social network is and how important it has become to many of its members, who often spend hours on the site each day or week. However, in giving Facebook up for lent, there is also the connotation that it is something unhealthy that one is addicted to. One student admitted that she felt better not being on Facebook and wasn’t stalking people as much (only in the online sense of course). This article illustrates how important Facebook has become to many college students and when they give it up, even for just 40 days, there is the sort of discomfort that goes along with abandoning what has become a part of your identity, social life, and daily routine.