Networked Publics, Profiles, and Facebook

In her dissertation (oh my, is 400 pages what I have to look forward to?), Boyd addresses the “networked publics” specifically in teenagers use of social networks. Chapter 4 looks at how identity is created, and managed, on social sites. She references several examples of teenagers’ profiles on Myspace. She talks about the “first generation to publicly articulate itself, to have to write itself into being as a precondition of social participation.” Referring to Foucault, whom we are familiar with from this class, the identities created on social networks are subject to “self-monitoring.”

And despite “all that is reveled [in profiles], there is much more that is not.” I can see her point here. Looking through my own Facebook friend’s profiles, I don’t see too many ‘strong opinions’ expressed. People are pretty moderate and not likely to put anything up that is likely to be offensive. That might reflect who my own friends are, although some of them I do know to have very strong, maybe “radical” opinions. No, I think for the most part people are just not usually looking to get in a large debate or argument about controversial topics in the Facebook format. That could be based on what people my age use social networks for, which is mainly keeping up with friends.

I reference Facebook because that is what most people I know use, as opposed to Myspace which I do not use because I know very few people who do. Membership on sites is largely based on the real world, which Boyd did address in her paper, and she also pointed out that profile information is largely based in the physical space also. So Facebook started in 2004, and by spring 2005 as I was gearing up for college, many of my friends were joining because that was a good way to keep in touch as we all went off to different schools. In the physical space, we were going to be separated, so to keep in touch we created profiles in the internet space.

I wish I had taken a snapshot of my ‘first’ profile, just to see how I organized it back then compared to now. I remember I use to list every movie and band I liked, creating these long long lists that I don’t know who would bother to read. I don’t know one single reason why I did this. Partially out of indecisiveness on what a single favorite or short list would be because I do have varied interests. Part of me probably hoped out of such a long list that most people would see something in common with me. Now I don’t think about the majority so much when I share a link or write a note. My links and notes are pretty specific to a smaller circle of friends who I know will enjoy it or comment, like when I want to share an amazing video. Every once in a while I post something with the intention that it could help a cause and I hope that many people check it out - like posting about PAC-We, or freerice.com, or promoting a friend's band.

There are elements of identity that Facebook doesn’t ask, I’m sure out of fear of backlash and lawsuits. They don’t ask race, for instance. Very few of the answers to the elements on your profile are limited to a few choices, which I think most people appreciate. Like in Political Views, it is blank so that you can refer to yourself as anything, like: (these are real examples) “Bipolar moderate.” “I think what I want,” “Screw parties, unless they have games,” “Revolutionary republicanism, abuse of power comes as no surprise.” In a way, not limiting choices to Democrat/Republican/Libertarian suggests that people are aware that those are not the only ideas about politics. It allows the user to be really specific about their ideas At the same time, it allows people to be silly or to try to show they nonconformity to an ideology.

I have around 300 “friends” on Facebook, a fraction of which I converse with regularly in the Facebook medium, and even fewer I probably see on a regular basis. I could go and delete those I really never talk to, but there is a part of me who wants to keep the option of going to view their profile and see what they’re up to. I don’t think I’m the only one who thinks like that, or things like TMZ wouldn’t exist. What is that about human nature that we like to pry into others lives? Right after the chapter on creating and managing identity in social network profiles, I really wanted a whole sub-chapter about how people look at other’s profiles. Call it “Spying in the Social Network Sphere.”

Shirky and Group Formation

Over the weekend I went and saw the movie Amelia, directed by Mira Nair and starring Hillary Swank in the title role. The film was alright. The aerial photography was beautiful and everything looks great. The art direction and the costumes all work together to put you in the 30s. But the story itself feels anticlimactic; it kind of coasts along but it never soars. I think it is safe to say that 99.9% of people know what happens to Amelia in the end, so there’s not a whole lot to build up to, but still I think she’s interesting enough that in the hands of a different director and writer this movie could have been a lot better. I felt a little like I did after seeing Valkyrie last year. After that film I wanted to write the producers and tell them, “I know they don’t kill Hitler, so stop trying to convince me your movie is a thriller and supposed to keep me guessing! There’s no guesswork here!”

Alas historical movies continually get made, and it seems that filmmakers like to take the approach that people don’t know their history, so they spell it out, which just makes me feel a little insulted.

Now coincidentally, tonight on the news, there was a short story pointing out the box office success of the film Paranormal Activity. It is the number movie in the country right now, with a total gross so far of about 33 million. The estimated budget was $15,000. It stars a handful of unknown actors. It was written, directed, and edited by one person. The total cast and crew listed on Imdb is about 25. In contrast, Amelia had a high-profile award winning cast and crew, yet made (granted this is only its first opening weekend) 4 million. According to the news program I saw, it had a budget of $100,000 million. It’s got a ways to go before it even breaks even.

There’s a lot of contrasting points that could be made between the films. Paranaormal was shot on a very low budget, Amelia a typical high Hollywood budget. Paranormal was shot in digital, Amelia was shot on 35mm. Paranormal plays off a documentary storytelling style, Amelia is a standard classical Hollywood bio-pic. You could say that the difference between these two movies is a generational gap in how to make a movie. Low budget films are finding ways to distribute themselves cheaper and more easily than ever before now, with greater success than ever.

This relates directly to what Shirky talks about in Here Comes Everybody. In the opening story about the lost cell phone, we see the power of group effort as people rallied behind Evan’s efforts to get his friend’s cell phone back. As people found his site through word of mouth, some marketing, and probably some random findings, they connected and communicated. Group effort is not new, and Shirky recognizes this, he just notes that the modes of how the group forms have changed/are changing. For cult movies, the distribution of the film is usually limited. However a ‘cult following’ develops mostly out of communication, by word-of-mouth. Someone sees the movie, they tell their friends they like it, and pretty soon the movie gets a reputation and it’s still talked about for years to come. Now with social networks, people can self-promote to their followers until the sun comes up, via something like Twitter for instance. Then someone else can RT (retweet) and thus promote them to a new set of followers and the cycle continues...

Shirky explains how group formation and group promotion is easier than ever with the internet. And he seems to have great faith in people to not only form groups but act on them. All this organizing happens outside established institutions. I think the main point of the book is that community can work easier than managerial corporations with these new technologies. There is a downside though. On the one hand, independent films can be promoted easier with fewer pricey advertisements. Bands can put their music up through creative commons or free downloads and thus gain a fan base without ever coming near a record company. People can find other people who share their interests and communicate and collaborate with each other. In the best examples, people collaborate and bring about social change and act out in the world like ARGs or the recent PAC-We.Then again groups can form that are malicious to their members, like the pro-anorexia groups. It seems that it is in their right to have websites under free speech, but to what degree is that ok? I don’t think Shirky really addresses these kind of issues where group formation is harmful to others.

But when it comes to the state of movies at the box office. When a $15,000 independent movie can find itself at a film festival and be seen by Spielberg and thus hit theaters nationwide to make millions and millions of dollars, I have to wonder what the future state of film promotion will be. The amateur film can be made better and easier than ever, and can compare to the high-tech big productions of Hollywood films. (I mean something like the Canon 5D Mark II is visually stunning at a fraction of the price of most film cameras). So maybe even an institution like Hollywood isn’t safe from this social change that is occurring with internet revolution. (yup, i’m starting to think revolution now)