We use social networking as a substitute for social interaction. I think my comment on Kostylomusic's blog here: http://kostylomusic.blogspot.com/2010/02/masturbatory-ramblings.html explains it enough that I'll just direct you there rather than rehash all that.
I am a creature of habituation : I acclimate to change like a cockroach to a new set of floorboards. I'm not what you would call an early adapter in most things, but in this digital age, I catch on quickly and keep up with what's going on. Facebook changed their layout again? Okay, it's nothing to start a group over. My English professor requires us to get on this social networking site called plurk? Sure, I'll just add it to my routine.
I'm also a social creature. Sit with me in Red Square during a regular day on campus and I'll name at least 5 people that walk by in under 10 minutes.
Online though, I am my social network.
As social person and extrovert and someone adapted to evolve with the internet communities of which I have become a part, this last statement becomes especially relevant because this combination essentially has created in me a social networking addict.
For a while, I had plurk, Facebook, Google Wave, dailybooth, LiveJournal, formspring, stickham, OKCupid, twitter. And while I still have accounts with all but twitter (and on some have multiple accounts) and rarely use the latter four I still find that for those that I do use I'm heavily integrated.
I'm wired.
But overlap puts me in a unique position.
http://www.plurk.com/p/3cj83z
Though I consider myself harmless… mostly harmless, Williamnot has legitimate reasons for concern in his crossover friend. There exists a danger in the overlap of networks, a danger of information, because what might be appropriate for one network might not be so kosher for the other. The jock with secret yearnings to be a theatre star does not associate himself with both groups at the same time -- unless he's in a Disney movie.
I'm unique in that for many, I'm the tie between the worlds. More so for the people I interact with IRL, but also for many who aren't, and this makes me dangerous because I hold the information. Thinking about it now, it's rather apt considering my chosen handle, Acelessthan3. It's a play on the Ace of Hearts and in that I act as a conduit between these spheres, I hold all the cards.
Now, before anyone blames me of ego stroking, saying I know everything, I will admit that as a hub this also makes me particularly vulnerable to the same kind of informational redirect. Because I am a fulcrum for so much crossover everything I say must essentially be public and available. If I don't want all my contacts to see what I have to say I must resort to silence or rely on the private messaging of the people I trust. Open to all or none.
My point is, it's an interesting position to be in and I'm not always sure what to do. Who can trust me?
As we've seen in the Tomcat Murr and the Fantastic Mr. Fox with their faux humanity, the people who straddle the line don't quite fit into either category. Who am I to you dear reader? Plurker? Facebooker? Friend? Drinking buddy? Whatever?
I'm an insider, privy to what you post, and this separates me. As I've said before. I'm a parasite upon your social networking experience.
4 comments:
acquaintance IRL, FB friend, Plurk friend and introduction.
It's an interesting things to look at, how extroversion relates to openness between social networks. I wonder how this relates to your identity.
As far as I have seen Ace on plurk is very similar to Ace on facebook. With the transparency though (having crossover friends everywhere), do you really have that option to be multiple people? Perhaps you're almost forced into adopting one role because, rather than having multiple audiences (a plurk audience, a twitter audience, a facebook audience...), you really only have on giant audience who could call you on inconsistency. I suppose this is where having multiple accounts comes in, different names. But if they realise it's you, that cover is gone as well. Are you fine with that?
"My point is, it's an interesting position to be in and I'm not always sure what to do. Who can trust me?"
That is an interesting dilemma. I feel like when a person is a constant outburst of extroversion, by appearing in their life, I end up appearing in their giant network.
You are your social network, and you are integrated. So I suppose when someone agrees to go about with you, they are, in a sense, signing a contract. They are checking the box online that says they're okay having their information shared to some party of some size.
Anyway, just thoughts.
Transparency is definitely something I work to project, but I hesitate to say that this stems from my place as someone catering to multiple audiences. Through many years of introspections and personal work I've come to a place where I believe that what you see should be what you get because it just makes life less complicated and if my life is going to be complicated I'd rather it happen in other ways.
Joe, you mention consistency, or rather the checks on inconsistency, and then go on to mention multiple accounts. Though you don't mention it specifically, I assume you refer to my dual existence as thefoolofbubbles and Acelessthan3. Which I'm fully willing to admit to and own up to, otherwise I wouldn't have written my thought experiment on it and then added everyone in the parasites classes to the Google Wave where I posted it.
In this particular case, it doesn't matter if people realize it's me, because the Fool is not an escape for Acelessthan3. If he were, he wouldn't be so blatant about his existence. Instead, I play the Fool as self-regulation, yet another check on that transparency.
Sure, playing that character is an excuse to be an arrogant dick on plurk sometimes, but if you look closely at who he interacts with and who he's most of a dick to, it's the people I'm closest to, the ones who know it's me and realize it's just a character to play off of and have fun with, and Ace. He is in the unique position of always knowing everything Ace thinks or does and this allows him to be Ace's harshest critic.
If it weren't something I felt prepared to deal with, I would self-destruct. Stage (or actually have) a mental and digital breakdown and start over. Only time will tell if I have the strength to maintain this, but so far I think my prospects are good.
You're very right about interacting with me being a kind of unspoken contract. I am who I am fully and unapologetically and a part of that means my endeavors in transparency carry over to the people I associate with. If you can see through me, you can see pretty much anything the people around me do.
So I wanted to apologize to you personally, Joe, for revealing your little plurk fun to @nanotext. I made that decision before I consulted with you and heard you say to keep it on the down-low.
Nonsense sir, it was going to get out eventually. I invited it by putting it on the web anyway.
In any case, I like how much you think about this. I feel like I know many extroverted people who don't pay themselves enough mind. And I completely agree, by the way, that "what you see should be what you get because it just makes life less complicated and if my life is going to be complicated I'd rather it happen in other ways." It does make life less complicated.
It's appreciable, Ace, the transparency, the sense of realness. Where it usually needs to be discovered or inferred, you have it blatantly out there. Makes you approachable I think. I'll still never be much for extroverts, but it's good to see a solid one out there.
Post a Comment