who am I in the online bubble without knowing?

Intoxicated looks in party pictures posted on Facebook and angsty blogs and profane MySpace pages may come back to haunt you and your career! Yeep that is apparently true.

We do have to be careful with our online behaviour, control bad language, racist remarks and statements that might upset the majority of people. So basically, the question is what is if we are engaging in an online life, (i.e. virtual communities, networking sites), will that come back to haunt us??

According to statistics , while only 15 per cent of firms rejected employees strictly because of their online footprint, human resources managers were less forgiving. A quarter said they declined candidates because of what they found out online about the person. A fifth of employers have looked up prospective recruits online, with over half saying it affected their decision to hire the person, said respondents to the survey of 2,447 internet users and 600 companies, commissioned by business networking firm Viadeo .

My student colleauge Abeer Saalman is such a nice girl, commited to her studies and armed with all the positive aspects to make a career. In the online search of her name, it appears that she has witnessed a terrorist attack. The context in which her name is mentioned is not the most appealing one, should her future employers decide to "run a test on her".

I began to wonder how we can prevent misunderstanding and embaressment when recruiters start trawling through our Facebook accounts?

Will they decide against job applicants based on personal information showing what they saw as alcohol abuse or unethical activities? Intimate details are on display big time, thus inviting. It seems to be justified in a way to have concerns if the person you just interviewed for a serious job, is portrayed as a party animal in his profile.

On the other site, you have to be responsible with what you put online, pictures of someone lying passed out on the pavement seems to be a rather bad idea now, doesnt it? But what happens when your name is coincidentally out there, in refernce to negative things? Well, Nigel informs me there is not much you can do about it really.

Apart from that, my concern goes a bit further here: I believe we are touching on indiscretion in that context. Whether or not it's fair, people do it. Companies are looking up potential employees online and gain insight into your personal live, your hobbies and your leisure time, all well documented in pictures and colors. It's only just a few clicks away.

Facebook a subject of Sociology? Or just bubbles?

Following what I have read here about the link between the website and Sociology, I began to establish more and more why Facebook must be used and enjoyed responsibly.Just like alcohol really. Sometimes, although you know your judgement is not the best, you keep on consuming it, and other times you overdo it, with terrifying consequences. As we mix our drink online and blend in our favorite music, our preferences and interests, just how much "alcohol" can we handle? Shouldn't there be a limit that serves as a guidance to avoid that terrible headache? The headache that I get is that I am being kept under an increasing surveillance as I am being probably watched constantly and although I partially congratulate the fine idea of the marketing aspect of Facebook I remain suspiscious of the fact that some sociologists are jumping to conclusions by reading all that online information. Especially because we have to consider the choices we make in creating our online identity, it is not adequate to go down the path of sociological interpretation simply because there is no great deal of sociology assumption that lies in the fact that my friends in my network and I might like the same kind of music!? Or that we poke each other back and forth? I suppose, that the fun of Facebook comes with a side of intellectualism for those who have to study the social implications of the website's success as they probably wonder why we have to poke each other 100 times a day and ask questions of an eliminated need for real interaction (maybe??). Or moreover who becomes friends with whom and why? The article touched on that, too and it seems to me as a claim on the epiphany of Facebook and its users. Besides, the website’s creator, Mark Zuckerberg ’06, has a different conception of community. Zuckerberg does not view the site as a place where community is formed. He views it as a tool to strengthen a network that already exists in real-life. “I’m more interested in seeing how [the site] affects community. It’s a subpart of culture,” Zuckerberg explains.
It's not a social mystery to have friends with common or uncommon interest and I hardly agree with the fact that Facebook can be sociologically interpretated. One poke at a time, guys. I am not entirely sure we are there yet.

Ahh, the group!!

Now a couple of updates on our group project :

We all met on a sunny Tuesday in Maida Vale Starbucks to discuss our progress with the assignment.We established the area of research for each and every one of us on a common ground. Manufacturing Online Identity : 1) What choices are people making when they create an identity online? 2) Are these choices of a conscious or unconscious nature? 3) What does the observer think and why? We will compare online identity to real life identity and try to discover the difference between them (should there be any)!

left 2 right: Dimi, Abeer , Naz & Jonathan

additional bubbles on social networking - true friendship!

Haven't I heard many people say that we live in a "connected world"! At first, this seems rather peculiar because simultaneously there is much talk about individualisation, social fragmentation, independence and freedom. In the "Network Society" of Jan Van Dijk (2006), he takes that, "both tendencies might be two sides of the same coin."
Undoubtedly, the quantity and quality of social relationships might improve if communication technology enables us to get in touch easily with almost everybody, regardless of our and their whereabouts. Thats one type of users then. Those who want to stay in touch.

Then there are others who simply created and live a life in the online world (i.e online networking sites, virtual communities, dating sites etc). People who surf the web just like others are walking down Oxford Street, looking and feeling and experiencing every bit of what the "online life" has to offer them. Just like you will find yourself looking at an attractive person while waiting in line at the groceries, you can also start looking for that person in an online forum. That is what I meant when I mentioned that we have to clearly identify the users we are talking about. And speaking (blogging) of attractive people, yes, it is claimed that love can be found online. And it has.

In regards to the judgement, thats what I was referring to as well. Just like you won't judge the guy looking at the hot girl in line, you should not judge the guy who looks at the girl on line.
Cause online life, IS, happening.

bubblesrevisited - social networking, true friendship?

I feel like my initial take on the subject has not been done as thoroughly as I assumed it to be. One more reason to update the blog then...

While the sensational emergence of virtual communities transforms many areas of a person's life and culture, it cannot free us from the limits of human nature or the constraints of social reality. Every single online user is living an "online life" just like we live a real life, really. Every single day. We aren't judging the life choices of a fellow citizen in real life? We don't. And what would be the point? None. If we take for a fact that there is a virtual life that every single one of us is able to live, why is it sometimes hard to understand that others are maybe ahead of us and live this life to its full extend already? That they are maybe comfortable in finding friends online? That they are eager to see what this online life has in store for them?

Certainly, there are different kinds of online participants. And it is imperative to clearly identify who we are talking about. There are for example people who want to stay in touch with their people all over the world. What better way than "sending online flowers" or "kinky boots" to your mates and make their day? All good.

And there are some other users, deeply engaged in the online world. They date online, they flirt online, they even pull online! Thats where judgement kicks in. But what if we just take it as what it is? A virtual community, and not an imagined one, will then the level of general approvement unexpectedly rise? Online networking, in addition to being a huge phenomenon in its own right, is the key metaphor for interactivity, community building and genuine conversation. It is my belief that we can brave the ever new technological world without necessarily becoming more depersonalized and alienated as human beings.

Why do so many of us believe that people who have no better things to do than surfing the web over and over again, are considered "loosers"? I'd rather say that the are part of the growing online population who have let their personal lives become "onlinised". We shall pierce the bubble of hype and confusion surrounding this matter with a real - world analysis of the ways online communities will and will not change our society and the rapidly expanding universe of the now and future online phenomenon. Is it maybe time to stop questioning? (I will start by, ehm, erasing the question mark): Is it maybe time to stop questioning.

bubblesonwebsites

Choose two websites, one good, one bad and judge them using the same criteria (e.g. structure, navigation, colours, pictures, content). Discuss. Aim at someone with low visual literacy in terms colour/design.

Judging criteria: Structure/layout of the page; use of colour and photographs; ease of navigation; quality of content; suitability of all of the above for target audience/purpose of site.

Here we go:

This is a very bad website that outlines and demonstrates all the possible mistakes one can make in creating a webpage.



Hence, in terms of bad font and background color, please have a look here!


Moreover, I found this one to be a very good website:



Why?
The homepage has clear links to the different sections of the online magazine just beneath the title. The colors support the simple, yet loud style of the nymag's content. The links are very "in your face" , which makes navigating very easy. The font is enjoyable to read and the photographs are appealing to click on them and find out more, thus effective. The Daily Intelligencer column is right in the middle where it belongs and the concept of the nymag is fascinating.