Friday, February 23, 2007

QotW5: Online Identity: Anonymity in virtual communities.


NO.....!You are Mr. Hyde!!!!!

As we all know, internet has improved its function from sending and receiving a message to finding a 'soul mate' in chat rooms. In these chat rooms people are sharing information to each other without knowing the sender or the receiver. Identity plays a key role in these communities. Knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction (Donath, 1996).

Unfortunately, some of the users in chat rooms prefer to be anonymous. This anonymity has its own positive and negative points.

Visual anonymity offers people with disabilities the potential to participate in the social world outside the prejudicial and stereotypic barriers based purely on physical appearance. People with disabilities have the opportunity to interact without automatically, or necessarily, exposing a stigmatized identity.
In problematizing traditional notions of reality, however, the online medium also has the potential to become a deceptive social space where people with disabilities become victims of malevolent acts (Bowker & Tuffin, 2003).

In the other hand, anonymity in cyberspace allows people to deceive other without letting know their true identity. People could lie about their gender, age, physical appearance, etc. In face to face communication physical appearance, vocabulary, grammar, other linguistic markers (including tone and accent), and nonverbal cues ordinarily influence the ways in which people initially form impressions of one another (Jacobson, 1999). But in online communities, a 'he' can be a 'she'.

Illustrating this, Van Gelder (1991) reported a famous incident occurring on a computer conferencing system during the early 80s where a male psychiatrist posed as Julie, a female psychologist with multiple disabilities including deafness, blindness, and serious facial disfigurement. Julie endeared herself to the computer conferencing community, finding psychological and emotional support from many members. The psychiatrist's choice to present differently was sustained by drawing upon the unbearable stigma attached to Julie's multiple disabilities as justification for not meeting face-to-face. Lack of visual cues allowed the identity transformation to continue, with the psychiatrist also assuming the identity of Julie's husband, who adamantly refused to allow anyone to visit Julie when she claimed to be seriously ill.

Without knowing someone's identity, one can be whatever he wants to be. As the video that you put in the website, it is clear that people can cheat their identity and find other partner without any sense that other party may cheat on you too. But why people have to be anonymous in online society?
According to Gia B. Lee(1996), people choose to be anonymous to diminish status dimension and to encourage free speech. Anonymous conditions online have "created an entire social world in which it doesn't matter what you look like. Looks are absolutely irrelevant."

Conclusion
It is fine to choose to be anonymous in online society. By not revealing their true identity (or condition), people can have the environment that they cannot get in real life. But for some people, they choose to be anonymous so that they could have fun or to avoid law for illegal speech. So, the problem here is how people gonna use the anonymity that available greatly in cyberspace?

References:

Bowker, N., & Tuffin, K. (2003). Dicing with Deception: People with Disabilities’ Strategies for Managing Safety and Identity Online. Journal of Computer Mediated Communiation, 8(2). Retrieved February 7, 2007 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu./vol8/issue2/bowker.html

Donath ,Judith S. ( 12 November 1996) Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community, MIT Media Lab. Retrieved on February 15, 2007 from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Jacobson, D. (1999). Impression Formation in Cyberspace: Online Expectations and Offline Experiences in Text- based Virtual Communities. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 5(1). Retrieved February 7, 2007, from w http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/issue1/jacobson.html

Lee, G. B. (1996). Addressing Anonymous Messages in Cyberspace. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2(1). Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue1/anon.html

Van Gelder, L. (1991). The strange case of the electronic lover. In C. Dunlop & R. Kling (Eds.), Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (2nd ed., pp. 364-375). Boston: Academic Press.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Happy V day and CNY.....

OK, few hours before I return to my hometown. Just want to wish u al happy b'lated V day.I know it kinda late....but...who cares? A BIG BIG HEART for u all....and I also wish u all Happy New Year, GONG XI FAT CHOI!

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Qotw 4: The gift Economy (give...or not to give...?)

Gift is something you giving out without the means of other party to reciprocate. Economy is a system of trade. So in gift economy (in my definition) is a system of sharing or trading without hoping the other party to reciprocate.

A gift economy is an economic system in which the prevalent mode of exchange is for goods and services to be given without explicit agreement upon a quid pro quo (Gift Economy, 2007). Gif economy in cyberspace is giving out advice of information that you, yourself won’t do it in reality. Take for example; a teacher will give out information in certain subject that is being discussed in the chat room or user group for fee. But in reality, he will charge fee for the information that is giving out.

What motivate people in giving to share?
There are three motivations that encouraged people to share in online community. It is for reciprocity, reputation, a sense of efficacy and need (Kollock, 1999).
Reciprocity
People contribute valuable information to the group in the expectation that one will receive useful help and information in return. In online social network, it is known as generalized exchange in which benefit given to a person reciprocated not by the recipient but by someone else in the group (Kollock, 1999)
Reputation
The more you give the more you will receive help in the future or being known by other people
Sense of efficacy
A feeling that someone has some effect on the environment. Making regular and high- quality contribution to the group can help a person believe that he has an impact on the group and support his own self- image as an efficacious person (Kollock,1999).

Gift Economy is different from commodity economy; in a commodity (exchange) economy, status is accorded tot those who have the most. In gift economy, status is accorded to those who give the most to others (Pinchot, 2000).
Lewis Hyde expresses the spirit of a gift economy (and its contrast to a market economy) as follows:

The opposite of "Indian giver" would be something like "white man keeper"… Whatever we have been given is supposed to be given away not kept. Or, if it is kept, something of similar value should move in its stead… The gift may be given back to its original donor, but this is not essential… The only essential is this: the gift must always move.

Gift must always move means that we could not only take without giving back. Although it says that in gift economy we could expect other to reciprocate, but we need to contribute too so that we wont be said as free-ride.
A gift creates a “feeling bond”, a feeling that you can get with certain people or group. This feeling can exist even with someone that you don’t even met before.
For example, the blood bank system prevalent in several countries, including the United States, gives no significant explicit reciprocation for donations of blood. Most organ donation systems give no compensation of any sort to the donor or their family; payment in this matter is often considered suspect, even criminal (gift economy, 2007).
We are giving out blood by knowing that this blood will help someone else in the other part of the world. This giving makes us feel important and feel a bond with someone that receives the blood.

In conclusion:
Gift economy is an act where we giving out information, help or advice with an expectation that we will receive the same convenience in the future. In gift economy there is no necessity to meet with the person on group who is receiving our help. The blood donation for example, there isn’t such necessity to meet the person who receives it, as long as we know that our help can give other party what he or she need.

References:
Gift Economy (2007). InWikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 10, 2007 from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy>

Kollock, P. (1999). The Economiesof Online Coorperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. Retrieved February 10, 2007 from<http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm>

Pinchot, G. (2000). The Gift Economy. Retrieved February 10, 2007 from <http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC41/PinchotG.htm>

Thursday, February 8, 2007

Annoyed annoyed....

Well, actually it's happened yesterday during the COM 242 class.
Mr. Lim told us that we gonna have a library trip on monday, thennnn.... I asked him whether or not he will provide lunch for us? Com'on, I'm just kidding, he DID NOT have to yell at me by saying "GO TO HELL", rite? The first moment I heard it, it hurt me. Iam a GIRL and he is a TEACHER. Maybe he did that to his friend. Well, I'm not his friend and I do not know him very well, beside that he yelled at me in front of my classmates. Although I know that he was kidding too, but doesnt mean that he can be that rude. Where should I put my face?

Really, I do not know whether next time I will open my mouth again in his class or not. Rather than I get myself humiliated in front of my class mates, I prefer to be different me. A quite Mariani. Sad, hurt and..phai se arrr.....

Oh well...try not to think about it again.....
And he is a nice teacher.....
Cia You.....

Saturday, February 3, 2007

QotW3:copyright & piracy

First of all, before I begin my writing I just want to say that I don’t really understand how to explain about it. So, if my writing is messy, I do apologize.

Technology has improved through time and it has made our life as easy as clicking the mouse. The Internet has transformed information and the way we interact with it by creating an easily accessible, dynamic, shared information space (Litman, 2003). It has been a great advanced since internet was widely used in 1990s. People can easily listen to the music they want and watch the movie they like. Unfortunately, this condition is not good news for the people who own the copyright for the production.

First of all, we must understand the meaning of copyright. A copyright is the set of exclusive legal rights authors have over their works for a limited period of time. These rights include copying the works (including parts of the works), making derivative works, distributing the works, and performing the works (this means showing a movie or playing an audio recording, as well as performing a dramatic work). Currently, the author's rights begin when a work is created. A work does not have to bear a copyright notice or be registered to be copyrighted (“Copyright Law and Fair Use”, 2002). By having work copyrighted, creators’ can benefit financially and provide them an incentive to continue (Ovalle, 2005).

Copyright usage is to protect those who create an original expression for their work so they can receive appropriate compensation for their intellectual effort. But, more and more people are violating this law. According to a new Pew Internet and American Life Project survey Two-thirds of Internet users who download music are unconcerned that they are violating copyright laws, while only 29 percent say they do care and 6 percent have no opinion on the issue (Moore, 2003).

People do not feel guilty as they perceived it as victimless crime because they think what they did is not wrong. Mind my word, I say “not wrong” not correct. People just do not realize that they are stealing other’s work, it‘s what we call an ‘Intellectual Property”. Intellectual property is abstract and usually uses to describe the products of thought. People feel guiltier when they steal something physical but not something abstract. This is why copyright on music or book or movie is not useful when its goes online.

Some scholars have thought about a way to prevent piracy. In my opinion, I do not think that any law can forbid someone from copying ‘thought’ illegally. Some of the creator may have thought of using software that could track back an illegal user. But there will be a higher mountain. There will be another available source that could feel pleasure to give away the ‘thought’ for free. It’s just like Iceberg. Although the government could track back or prevent an illegal copying, there is still lots and lots user who won’t even care the hard work of the creator.

Back at my hometown, people are selling pirated DVD for just RP.5000 which is equal to S$ 0.9. As you can see, people like something cheap that they can afford to buy. Some of they choose not to buy the original one although it is better than the pirated one.
Even I, myself, prefer to buy the pirated one. It’s not because I do not have the money, it’s just because I do not like something that I will not use it or watch it in the future. But in my opinion, illegal downloading has its own positive way, music downloading for example. Musicians in a certain way do advertising through the downloading. People got to know what they will get if they buy the album. It’s like a sample but not in a good way.

Copyright and piracy, for me both the words cannot be separated as they cause one another to happen. If somebody copyrights something, it makes us want it more in illegal way. It’s kind of scarcity tactic that I learned in previous semester. When you copyrighted something, the more people want it illegally.
So, try not to copyright and see the result. Who knows everybody will start paying for it?

References:
"Copyright Law and Fair use". (19 December 2002). Stanford University Libraries. Academic Computing Publications. Retrieved February 2, 2007 from <http://www-sul.stanford.edu/cpyright.html>

Litman, J. (23 November 2003). "Sharing and Stealing". Social Science Research network. Retrieved February 2, 2007 from <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=472141>

Moore, C. W. (8 august 2003). "Is Music Piracy Stealing?". Applelinks. Retrieved February 2, 2007 from <http://www.applelinks.com/mooresviews/pirate.shtml>

Ovalle, C. (2005). "An Introduction to Copyright". Retrieved February 2, 2007 from <http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/%7Ei312co/1.php>