6.1 Leviathan on Live

For people who only play video games on consoles, Halo2 is a fan favorite. When logging in to play Halo 2 online there are plenty of norms in which a player should get accustomed in order to have an enjoyable experience. Most of the norms involve the game play. If you are playing as part of a team, you shouldn’t kill anyone on your team. If you are playing as a team and you are not good with the sniper rifle, then don’t pick it up. When deciding which race you will play as, either human or elite, you should always play as a human because elites have bigger heads and are therefore easier to kill and snipe.

People usually know these rules from playing the single player campaign or from previous multiplayer experiences. The game’s administrators also help enforce some of the more obvious rules. When a player kills someone on his/ her own team, the team member who was killed gets the special option of ejecting his traitor teammate from the game. Also, after each match, each player is given an opportunity to give negative or positive feedback to the players with whom he/ she just played. If a player gets enough negative feedback then he/ she will get punished by the Xbox Live Staff by being suspended from play for predestined time period or simply not being allowed to play anymore and having their membership revoked. The other norms are usually learned by playing the game and interacting with the other players. If you are not good with the sniper rifle and your teammates see that you are not killing anyone with it, they will implore you to give it up to someone with more skill. Also, if you play as an elite, the sniper on the opposing team will always pick on you as a favorite target since you are easier to hit than the other non-elite players. Other players will usually tell you about this if you do not know, especially if you are on their team and your constant death hurts the teams efforts.

The main Leviathan of the game is the Xbox Live staff since they are ultimately the ones who decide who plays the game and when they get to play. They enforce the rules with their special administrative powers that allow them to ban certain players from game play.

I think that Wallace’s arched brow is especially relevant to the Xbox Live environment. A popular taunt is to call someone a “noob” referring to someone who is new to the environment and therefore doesn’t know about the rules to the degree that a more experienced player might know. Whenever a player does something that he/she should by the standards shared by the rest of the players, he/ she is referred to as a “noob”. This is a bad insult for online gamers. By attacking unfavorable behavior and embarrassing a player, that player learns not to make the same mistakes.

6 As You(tube) Like It

For this assignment I decided to discuss how the Leviathan enforces norms within Internet spaces. One online space with an active Leviathan and several norms that I frequently visit is Youtube. Video content on Youtube involves various subject matters, including amateur music to funny pet videos to the classic man getting hit in groin by football. I know that I go on to Youtube expecting to find anything. Well, almost anything. The content on Youtube videos is relatively clean. There is no pornography, illegal acts, or even inappropriate speech throughout the site. Considering the scope and incredible size of Youtube, it is astounding how these norms are learned and widely enforced.

Foremost, in order to establish norms on the site, Youtube has a Help link on the homepage that answers practically any question a new user would have. There is an entire section on what is acceptable within the “Youtube Community.” If a new user does not take the initiative to read this listed set of norms, the intention of Youtube is clear just by observing the site. The home page has a listing of featured videos and the most popular videos of the day, all of which have relatively clean content. There is even a function to search videos by category – notice there is no pornography category, or a graphic violence category.

Next, let’s see how the Leviathan enforces these well constructed norms on Youtube. Wallace describes the Leviathan, as it exists on the Internet, as a type of authority figure, “one to which most people willingly give up freedoms in order to preserve the value and energy of the medium itself.” We can think of the Leviathan on Youtube as a moderator that does not step in until absolutely needed. Although Youtube administrators can and do search through videos to make sure there are no content violations, this system of norm enforcement relies heavily on users themselves. Users must flag videos they deem inappropriate, which sends a notification to administrators. These administrators then review the video and decide to either take it down or leave it. They can even ban someone from the website for life if the video is deemed as harassment.

Finally, why does this system work? Why is this Leviathan successful on Youtube, when it relies mostly on users flagging content themselves? According to Wallace, “[T]he Leviathan is there anyway because we want the Internet to flourish.” Basically, the Leviathan works because we want it to work. We want to continue using Youtube for what it was intended, sharing creative works, without having to run into vulgar content at every corner. I thought it was interesting that video content guidelines were listed as rules for the “Youtube Community.” Youtube has established a space that people feel like members of, a space that we want to remain usable. I for one am glad that Youtube has remained a fun video forum and has not turned into just a site to post porn – I know now that most of that has to do with the Leviathan.

Comment 1 and Comment 2

Nationals: The New Facebook Leviathan

Facebook as a social networking site has several social norms in regards to the wall, group, messages, pokes, etc. For many of these norms the Leviathan is the administrators of facebook, threatening to not allow you assess to the site if you break any rules in regards to posting. However, today, facebook has become so popular that even outside groups are enforcing online actions. An example is sororities. Every sorority has a national chapter who basically watches over all the different chapters across the country. Today, nationals are now looking at sorority members’ facebook pictures and profiles and have communicated to chapter presidents that all members must only have pictures, info about themselves that portray them individually “in a good light.” According to nationals, every individual member reflects the sorority as an entity and therefore all facebook actions must be appropriate according to their standards. Nationals have communicated this message through email and letters to chapter presidents, who in turn notify the entire sorority.

The example of the sorority national’s role in facebook applies to many of the concepts Wallace discusses in Chapter 4. Interestingly the example of a sorority is a group FTF and also online nationally connecting all chapters. If all sorority members act ladylike and according to sorority standards on campus, why would they need to be even more controlled online? As explained by Wallace and proved by Asch’s experiment “a computer mediated environment strips away some of the features that contribute to our tendency to conform in a group setting. Physical presence is absent…” Therefore in this case in order to maintain the image of the sorority, an enforcement or person to make sure all are conforming to social norms must be in place. Wallace defines this entity as the Leviathan and in this case it is the sorority’s nationals. Nationals make the rules the sorority has to follow consequences of not abiding could be anything from a verbal warning to limited social events. Also explained by Wallace, the verbal warning is an example of the arched eyebrow, a gently way to remind the sorority member they must follow the facebook rules, whereas limited social events could be a reproach if behavior does not improve.
As explained in Chapter 4, when conforming, we give up individual freedoms for greater societal goods/rights. Members in this case give up the individual right to post inappropriate information for the better of the sorority overall. Older women who were in the sorority years ago want to maintain the same image. Wallace explains the need for the Leviathan is even greater now because “the growing realization that our contributions to the net are not as fleeting, not as difficult to trace, as many had supposed.” Knowing the facebook could be accessed by anyone, maintaining content becomes even more important for groups.

Assignment 6: The Two-Faced Leviathan

How much time would you say people take to create their profile picture on Facebook? I’ve known some people to browse through photos for hours until they find the right one they want to upload. Everybody knows it has to be good, because it is going to pop up on the newsfeed of all of your friends’ home page. Many people choose a picture in which they are featured with some of their friends, usually at a social scene like that party all of your friends went to this past weekend. Others find one in which they think they appear their best and sent it straight to photoshop to crop and zoom. How is creating a Facebook profile picture a social norm? Most people naturally want to display a picture that represents them at their best, while those that choose ridiculous pictures tend to not take their social image too seriously. Here is where gender plays a role in representing the ideal “best.” Males tend to portray themselves at a party scene or through an athletic image. While many girls choose images that include drinking and partying, they typically surround themselves with friends rather than sports.
In addition to profile pictures, tagged photos offer another set of social norms. When you look at a person’s profile and see that they have 234 pictures, how does this effect your impression of them? Some people may say this might suggest that this person is popular if there are so many photos. If you see that all 234 photos were tagged by the person, how would this change your opinion? Most people would say that this would make them less popular if they had to tag every photo.
In the world of Facebook, the Leviathan consists of more than just the people that are listed under the heading of friends. The Leviathan consists of any person that may approach your page, and that is to say that every safety precaution was not taken to prevent others from viewing it. The obvious and probably most prevalent Leviathan is your group of friends; they are the ones that view your page daily. But your friends are not the only people looking. Everybody in this class knows that Professor Hancock has a Facebook. I wonder how many other professors have one as well. How many instances have you heard of in the news recently of applicants being denied jobs because of future employees digging around through their online life? This happens quite often and more and more it is becoming another tool which is frequently used in the application search. So the question is who is acting as the Leviathan? I believe there are two faces of the Leviathan: the one in which we perceive and take note of, and the one in which we cannot see and do not predict.

6 Option 1: Leviathan in WoW

Today I’ll be discussing the intricate world of MMORPGs(Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games), most specifically World of Warcraft and its Leviathans. Anyone who’s played World of Warcraft knows that there are a plethora of social norms that exist. These norms have actually been incorporated into the game as well with Raids so that players who do not conform to the norms are missing out. It is expected that you have an exceptional vocabulary of the game and its various aspects, and new players who are unfamiliar with many terms used are looked down upon. There also exists two sides in the game, Horde and Alliance. If you are a member of the Horde it is expected that you will despise players from the Alliance side, and vice versa. A large portion of the tasks available to players in WoW cannot be accomplished without some sort of group. Within these groups there also exists an unspoken rule on looting only items that you need and can use, or as decided by the group. Often large groups of players will band into long-lasting teams called Guilds that try to organize and take on harder challenges known as Raid-instances. Due to the nature of the game, players will either learn the norms quickly, or be cast aside as “n00bs” and not progress very far into the gameplay.

The Leviathan exists in several ways within the World of Warcraft. The Leviathan is a power that exists to ensure that we adhere to society’s norms and standards. First off, in World of Warcraft, there are hired employees of Blizzard called Game Masters (GMs) who are members of the customer support department with certain special powers. They are also there as enforcers however to ensure that players are following the rules set down by Blizzard. Also, within guilds it is very important you follow the norms that exist, and attend Raid-instances regularly, or face being outcast and exiled from the guild. Plus, if someone does not follow the rules of looting within groups several times over, they may be named a “ninja looter” and have their name spread as someone never to allow into publicly formed groups.

Assignment 6: Wikipedia Leviathans

Wikipedia has become an extremely popular source of information, and almost all students use it to look up something or the other. “Written collaboratively from by volunteers from all around the world,” the articles on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone who wishes to do so simply by clicking on the “edit this page” link. Such freedom grants tremendous power to its users in terms of entering in what they deem correct; users could theoretically replace correct information with rude language or false statements. Such incidences barely occur, however, and users usually remain respectful of the site and its content. People who choose to edit an article are careful to input only data they truly believe to be correct. Moreover, they are meticulous to use correct spellings, respectful language, and grammatically correct sentences. Essentially, people follow a set of norms to ensure the website remains controlled and useful.

While old users usually know the norms through use of the website, both new and old users can fully understand Wikipedia’s customs through the “Policies and Guidelines” page, which can be accessed through the main website. As Wallace succinctly states, “members of cohesive groups expect new participants to comply with whatever norms and posted signs are in place for the group, and when they don’t a reproach may be forthcoming.” Should they choose not to follow the norms, Leviathans exist to reproach them and correct their behavior.

Essentially, “the Leviathan is there…because we want the Internet to flourish…it will not unless we build a framework of trust and establish means to ensure compliance with, at the very least, netiquette” (Wallace 69). In this case, the Leviathans are other, more experienced Wikipedia editors who san be trusted to maintain order. Articles with mistakes are usually changed in lesser than a few hours by editors who routinely browse the website. Moreover, should users engage in vandalism, “Administrators” have the power to block users. To avoid being criticized, reproached by the raised “virtual eyebrow,” or exiled from the Wikipedia community, users conform to and follow the online community’s norms and standards. Thus, “the presence of some authority figure can have a calming influence and ensures participants that a means is available to resolve disputes should they arise” (Wallace 70).

6 The Chinese Leviathan is the Great Wall

Recently, I heard of some research at UC Davis being done on the Golden Shield Project, better known as the “Great Firewall of China.” This term refers to the Chinese system of net surveillance and denying access to certain web addresses, locations, and resources where blacklisted keywords appear frequently. The research is being done to monitor the frequency and changes in censorship, specifically based on content. According to one of the researchers, the firewall isn't an actual firewall. It is inconsistent and works partly on the idea that it encourages self-censorship. Effectively, this acts as the Chinese Leviathan that regulates the flow of ideas through Chinese net space and encourages the conformity of its users.

Specific information is blocked from the eyes of Chinese users, causing some ideas to converge to seemingly universal affirmation. Of course, it is only superficial since divergent opinions may be blocked by the firewall. The lack of disagreeing views leads to conformists who follow the beliefs of the government. New users will find any dissenting opinion to be a disagreement with a seemingly unanimous group position. They come to know the norm as soon as they are blocked from accessing a censored website. At that point, the information the user is attempting to access is probably against the government expected norms. Since these norms are the norms of the users, the user is in danger of being ostracized from the rest of the group if he or she decides to oppose it.

According to Wallace, there is less conformity on the Internet due to the absence of physical presence and increased anonymity. However, in terms of Chinese net space, there is less anonymity, resulting in the evident increased conformity. Since this is a national surveillance program, there is also fear that the government can take legal action on nonconformists. Combined with the ostracizing force of the group, this fear enforces group norms. Norms are ensured by both social means as well as legal means.

Wallace justifies creating a leviathan-like creature out of a need for orderliness at the cost of certain freedoms. The Chinese government created the project in an attempt to establish and maintain order in their part of the network. Their stated goal isn't to hinder the flow of ideas, but to improve the efficiency of their information systems. However, in practice the two goals are mutually dependent, at least in an outward analysis of Chinese censorship. According to MacKinnon, cited in Wallace, people are willing to forgo freedoms to keep the value of the Internet. Indeed, for Chinese users, the Internet allows greater access to information, even though some information is blocked. In fact, MacKinnon is cited recently for stating that Chinese users do not feel oppressed.

Comments:
Comment 1
Comment 2

Assignment 6.1: Too Many Emails in YOUR List-Serve?

Since email is such a popular form of communication, it's typical to be part of a list-serve when you’re a member of an organization. List-serves are email-based discussion groups that are intended for a member of an organization to share information, via email, with the rest of the group. Although, there are expectations from others, that emails sent should be related to the general reason for the existence of the list-serve. For example, there is a list-serve on campus from Habitat for Humanity, where the emails sent from one member to other members relate to their upcoming volunteer trips.

The intentions of a list-serve following the social norms are to give updates, ask for advice, or give comments to others. Although, this is not a written rule for joining a list-serve, people are expected to follow these social norms. Nobody wants to receive 50 emails about unrelated nonsense. In many cases, when people send too many emails in a short amount of time, they send another email apologizing for the excessive emails. Not only will others be annoyed with receiving so many emails, but you wouldn’t want to receive an excessive amount of emails yourself.

As a new member of a list-serve these social norms must be followed. In Wallace’s The Psychology of the Internet, “members of cohesive groups expect new participants to comply with whatever norms and posted signs are in place for the group, and when they don’t a reproach may be forthcoming.” New list-serve members are expected to follow the customs of the group and if a member deviates from the norms, a reproach may follow from the other members of the list-serve. As a result, conformity plays a major role in the social norms of a list-serve. People frequently conform so they can avoid criticism and seek the approval of others around them.

Hunting the Leviathan refers to the power that enforces people's adherence to society's norms and standards. In this example, the other members of the list-serve form the Leviathan. Other members will maintain the orderliness of the list-serve and serve as the authority to preserve the social norms. In Wallace's The Psychology of the Internet, he talks about the Arched Brow. “If a group participant fails to read the sign or ignores the rules, group members will escalate their pressure to ensure conformity by simply raising a virtual eyebrow, remind the offender gently – or not so gently – that certain behavior is not acceptable.”

http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/10/1-hancock-our-very-own-leviathan.html

http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-wikipedia-leviathans.html

Assignment 6, Option 1

Every Wednesday it’s the same drill: get on the internet and sign in to blogger.com. Read a few posts on the Comm 245 Red Blog and pick 2 to comment on. When writing our post we always remember to keep it positive and constructive, never calling the author names or commenting on their lack of brilliant ideas or impeccable writing skills. We conform to this norm of keeping derogatory comments out of our posts pretty loyally. We do this because we don’t want to be penalized or suffer the somewhat unknown consequence we have been warned of by Prof. Hancock and the TAs. Also, we are not anonymous writing the post and should we part from the norm and write a nasty comment everyone is able to read our full name right below it.

The leviathan emerges as our TA’s and their authority to moderate and censor the posts as well as enact consequences for not conforming to the norms of the blog community. According to Wallace, “The presence of some authority figure can have a calming influence and ensures participants that a means is available to resolve disputes should they arise,” (pg 70). This is true of our blog. Knowing that when writing our original Tuesday post we are not going to be made fun of or belittled for our thoughts and ideas, at least not without there being consequences for the authors such posts, makes the process more comfortable. This makes it easier for us to really think about the assignment and relate it closely to our own lives, share our experiences and possibly take a few risks and think outside of the box without much trepidation.

In addition however, if there were not intervention by the TAs, our recognizing the blog as an academic forum with a purpose in our learning creates a leviathan. As Wallace states: “The Leviathan is there anyway because we want the Internet to flourish and sense it will not unless we build a framework of trust and establish means to ensure compliance with, at the very least, netiquette” (p. 69). We want the blog to be productive and useful and therefore will want to not disrupt that by being mean or offensive. Also, there is the fact that we know that every one can see our full name at the end of every post we make, ensuring that anonymity does not play a role in our decreased self censorship because as Wallace (1999) says we have a fear of injury to our personas and reputations from unlawful others. We give our freedom to say whatever we may think or want to say about a post or its author in return for the orderliness of the constructive positive feedback we receive.

Assignment 6, Option 1: Social Norms on Facebook

Many social norms and standards have developed on Facebook. There are standards regarding the pictures one puts up, what is appropriate to write on walls, and each of the groups within Facebook also has their own set of standards to follow. Many of the administrators of Facebook groups, as well as the members of the group, do not want people to leave nasty comments or insult other members. This would be considered a social norm. You are in the group because you have something in common with the other people in it, and you can learn the norms by observing what other people write on the group wall, or the administrator can post a message explaining any rules of the group.
If a group member does not follow the social standards of the group, then administrators have the authority to remove them from the group. The administrators are the Leviathan in this case. They can decide who stays in the group, and issue warnings to those who do not follow the social norms of the group, or they can remove them from the group entirely. This relates to Wallace’s theory about hunting for the Leviathan because members of a Facebook group give up a little bit of their individual freedom to remain a member. For example, if someone says something you do not agree with, you may want to reply with a really mean or nasty comment, but you cannot because you wish to remain in the group. The social standards set on Facebook, paired with the power of the administrators try to ensure order and some level of pleasantness on Facebook groups.

Assignment 6, Option 1; Facebook's Leviathan

There are many "norms" on Facebook that are generally accepted. Unlike MySpace, a similar social networking site, there is almost no trace of spam mail, chain letters or the ever obnoxious surveys. Many new users to the site seem to quickly realize what the norms are, by either observing more seasoned users or by being reprimanded for something by one of their friends. Eventually and inevitably, they fall in line with the rest of the users.

Everyday, millions of new Facebook wall posts appear. Aside from instant messenger it is probably the most popular way to communicate online. And while for the most part users don't have to worry about censorship, there are times when people cross the accepted line of Facebook netiquette, and the Leviathan has to step in.

The times when the Leviathan (in this case a Facebook moderator) has to step in usually occur in a group setting. The groups that Facebook allows you to join offer so many different viewpoints and opinions that it is inevitable that the content will eventually offend someone. When this occurs there are usually two scenarios that occur: a) the offended individual reports the person to the Leviathan immediately, or b) they join the group, talk trash and begin the inevitable flame war, eventually resulting in a report being filed anyway, possibly by more than one user.

When filing a report to the Leviathan, the user is greeted by a screen similar to this:


First , the user is required to confirm that the person/group/picture they are reporting is in violation of the Terms of Use. The Terms of Use is basically a rulebook of everything you can and can't do or say on the site. If the accused is in violation, the user is then asked to give the reason that they are reporting the person.

The Facebook Leviathan is much like the moderator described by Wallace that "can have a calming influence and ensures participants that a means is available to resolve disputes should they arise (Wallace 70)." The Leviathan has ultimate authority and can do many things. They can delete posts, groups, user's accounts and even ban e-mail addresses from ever using Facebook again (a more severe punishment when the site was college-exclusive). Facebook even has an automated type Leviathan that notices when a person is adding friends too fast. It will first warn the user that they need to slow down, and eventually will temporarily block the user from adding friends. This is an effective way to block spamming and unsolicited activity.

Overall the Leviathan is necessary, because if the site went unmoderated all hell would break loose, with flame wars consistently occurring and no reproach for unruly users; similar to what occured on the MUD LambdaMOO (Wallace 71-73). And while moderators are certainly necessary, they would have too much trouble on their hands if not for conformity and overall good behavior by most users; "The fact that humans tend to conform to group norms may be one of the key reasons Internet communities continue to thrive and flourish (Wallace 73)." So moderators are a good thing, especially in moderation.


Patricia Wallace "The Psychology of the Internet" 1999

Assigment 6 Away Messages

Every time I sign on to Instant Messenger, the first thing I look at are the away messages, whether I realize it or not. There was even a time when I would right click my way down the list and read each one of my buddies' messages. Thankfully I realized what a waste of time this was. I was a little late coming to the Instant Messenger game, so by the time I jumped on the little yellow icon already existed next to the screen name, but I remember hearing about away messages before hand through my friends.

Apparently, away messages did not used to have the icon next to the name, and it did not used to say "Auto Response From." So once, my friend had a rather rude away message up, and my other friend Messages him, only to keep getting this rude response back. Needless to say it led to a quick disagreement between my friends, and to a good laugh after. Since then, away messages have become more clearly labeled and it's much easier to know your buddies are away. Also, away messages have change in the sense that their content is not necessarily simply letting know people are away. Sure, there is still the standard "I am away from my computer" that comes with the AIM program, but people have come up with far more creative ways to announce they are not there. From movie quotes, to inside jokes, to actually announcing the day's schedule, to the simple "cell it," away messages not only let people announce they're away, they also allow people to express themselves and their interests and opinions.

Since there's no governing authority who determines if an away message is being used incorrectly or offensively, we as users are left to our own devices to determine proper behavior and etiquette for away messages. If people don't put up an away message and leave us hanging for an answer we get mad. That said, if we know for a fact someone is at there computer and has an away message up ignoring us, we get mad. In this sense, we the users are the Leviathan of away messages, determing the proper usage of the away message. While we've accepted that we can present ourselves and express ourselves however we want, we've also decided the proper way to use an away message, and not leave people stranded thinking we're around. We adhere to the social norms we ourselves have set in for away messages.

5.2 Reproach in chat and Xbox game

A reproach episode according to Wallace is made up of three episodes. The first one is when the offense takes place, the second one is when the reproach takes place and the third one is from the offender who will ‘apologize, [make] some excuse, or [dispute] the charges.’ During the reproach the offender is criticized or corrected by another participant or even a leviathan. I have witnesses several reproach episodes online, but the two that stick out the most happened, first, in a poker chat room, and the other in a multi user game that my cousin was playing.

Online poker, where you can play with other people from all over the world, was a fun thing to do during my senior year in high school. On this site you can play poker and chat with nine other participants at the same time. Most of the chat space is delegated to people playing on the table who want to talk to each other about the game and the moves that were made. However, one night when everyone was playing calmly, a person started typing vulgar and insulting comments in the chat. This could be classified as the first episode according to Wallace. Instantly, other players on the table started chatting with the offender and told him to calm down or leave. Instead of apologizing, the offender did not listen to them and kept on cursing. Finally, the table administrator (leviathan), the person who opened that table, kicked the offender out of the chat room. As you can see, the norm of staying calm and just talking about the game was breached by the offender by insulting the other players. This type of offense is classified as Inappropriate language by Wallace, where the offender used course language and insulted the other players. The reproach from the other participants on the table was unsuccessful, and ultimately, the offender had to be kicked out.

Another reproach episode took place with my cousin playing a multiplayer game on his Xbox 360. During this shooting game where he can talk to other players through the internet, my cousin purposely started cursing and insulting the other players. After a few minutes of him talking, the reproach came in the form of a warning that if he did not stop insulting other players, then he will be kicked off the game. Immediately, my cousin apologized and was allowed to play the game. The norm in this case was that the players only talked about the game and the trash talking was very minimal. However, the Inappropriate language offense committed by my cousin was met with a very successful reproach from the other users.

In both the cases, the offense was greeted by a calm reproach episode and the virtual eyebrow was able to restore conformity to the norm.

6.1 Finding (Really Big) Nemo

If I had to pick one website that was absolutely essential to my existence, it would not be Facebook. I’ll give you a minute to absorb that, and then inform you that the heart and soul of my online experience is actually the wondrous Internet Movie Database (IMDb). In terms of presence of the Leviathan, one aspect of IMDb really stands out. Registered users can add, delete, and edit any aspect of a movie’s information page through the petition of the site’s official review team. This review team is not meant to control or shape how things on the site get edited, but rather exists to make sure people aren’t writing things that are offensive or malicious in some way. The true editorial power comes from the users themselves.

Because the only responsibility of the editorial team on IMDb is ensuring something resembling a family-friendly experience, and not on content, this job falls on the shoulders of the site’s individual members. The Leviathan, in this case, emerges out of what Wallace (1999) calls “our eagerness to preserve a productive online group environment” (p. 70). This collective desire for a reliable and respectable online resource leads to a heavily, voluntarily monitored database. My first experience with this came about two months after I became a registered member and had had two months to observe the general rules and behavior of users on the site. I was checking out the page for the greatest movie of all time, The Usual Suspects and noticed that two of the entries for the movie’s taglines were actually just lines from the movie. As a diehard fan, I couldn’t let that slip by, so I clicked on “Update” and submitted my two deletions, along with the reason they should be taken off. Less than 24 hours later, the two incorrect taglines were indeed gone, and I had a newfound sense of accomplishment.

It was this sense of accomplishment that really struck me as unique to the peer-edited nature of IMDb. The only true drive behind my actions was my desire to ensure that a movie I am completely obsessed with was represented correctly. While there may be the random user that feels it is their personal responsibility to ensure factual correctness in every entry on the site, I feel it is the idea of making sure one’s favorite movies and television shows are portrayed properly that is the true drive behind the collective effort towards a useful result. Out of this simple desire emerges the Leviathan, and the Leviathan in turn further influences new users to follow the social guidelines already in place.

http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-6-option-1-away-messages.html

http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-option-good-buyer-prompt-payment.html

6.1 - Hancock: Our Very Own Leviathan

With a click of a button, Professor Hancock can delete your existence from this blog and give you a 0 for 40% of your grade in this class. This was one rule he made clear from the day one, “be courteous and respectful to your peers,” (Hancock) the end. For the first time in my school years, I am instructed to write weekly assignments on a blog, something I had never done before. The types of blogs are endless and include blogs about travel, sports, politics, games, celebrities, laws, and much more. If you name it, it’s a blog. However, for this class, our blogs are constricted to the assignments given and have to be composed according to a set of rules dictated by our Professor. According to Patricia Wallace in The Psychology of the Internet, Professor Hancock is therefore the Leviathan or the intermediary or authority figure keeping us students in line.

On the first day of classes, Professor Hancock gave us a list of instructions for how to sign onto the blog and explained that each week he would post an assignment that we would respond to on this very blog you are reading. He also gave us instructions giving us a range for how many words our posts and comments are allowed to be. However, his authority lies in the ground rules he set. These include that “absolutely no profane or blatantly antagonistic posts will be tolerated. Disrespectful posts will result in the loss of all credit towards the assignments . . . at the discretion of the instructor” (Hancock). The rules are that we are strictly confined to providing positive critiques and commentary, no ifs, ands, or buts. With the threat of an automatic 0 for 40% of our grade for breaking these rules, the class listened fast.

Therefore, according to Wallace, Hancock is the Leviathan censoring and overseeing the blog. This is a very important thing to have on these blogs because it is important that as students, we can feel comfortable sharing our ideas and experiences with one another without worrying that we will get made fun of or be insulted. Having this Leviathan, allows us to “build a framework of trust and establish means to ensure compliance with, at the very least, netiquette” (Wallace, 1999). Although as members of the blog, we are giving up certain freedoms and rights to say what we want, it is the only way to achieve this order online. As the Leviathan, Hancock has set the tone of the blog allowing him to promote this constructive online group atmosphere to become our very own positive “virtual coffee shop” (Wallace, 1999).

Wallace, P. (1999). The psychology of the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6. Happy Birthday

The online social norm that I am going to discuss involves facebook, specifically the writing on a friend’s facebook wall when it is his or her birthday. People come to know about this norm by a few simple reasons. First, on the right side of your personal facebook homepage, there exists a list of all your friends who are having birthdays today and in the next two days. You see your friends’ names and write a quick happy birthday message on their walls. People also come to know about this norm because when you look at a friend’s facebook wall, you can see the million of happy birthday posts from when it was your friend’s birthday. Wallace describes the Leviathan on the Internet as, one to which most people willingly give up freedoms in order to preserve the value and energy of the medium itself. She continues by saying that there is sill very little formal Internet regulation in most countries, but the Leviathan is there anyway because we want the Internet to flourish, and sense it will not unless we build a framework of trust and establish means to ensure compliance with, at the very least, netiquette. The Leviathan enforces this norm because if you do not write a happy birthday post on your friends’ walls it is unlikely they will write a post back on your birthday. Writing a quick happy birthday message is basically an unwritten rule on facebook and a common courtesy. One theoretical issue that is brought up in chapter 4 of Wallace’s book is conforming on the net. Conforming on the net deals directly with facebook and the birthday wall post. For conforming on the net, Wallace uses the style of an email as an example to make her larger point. She explains that emails are informal and spontaneous. The birthday post on the facebook wall is much quicker and easier than sending a card, and no one leaves an in depth birthday message on the wall. The post is usually two words, “Happy Birthday.” When one leaves a birthday post that deviates from the two word “Happy Birthday it clearly appears out of place. Another theoretical issue that Wallace discusses in chapter 4 is finding others of like mind. This deals directly to facebook and the birthday post because most people on facebook are of like mind. They leave basically the same birthday message. In conclusion, the social norm of leaving a quick “Happy Birthday” on a friend’s facebook wall deals with many theoretical issues discussed by Wallace.

Assignment 6.1: Hunting the Leviathan

In chapter 4 of Wallace’s “Psychology of the Internet,” entitled “Group Dynamics in Cyberspace,” Wallace examines various aspects of the Internet in consideration of concepts derived from social psychology. Comparing the FtF world with the CMC world, specifically, Wallace focuses primarily on group dynamics and conformity. Having established the psychological impetus for conformity in the non-mediated world, Wallace then explains the prevalence of Internet conformity and group polarization. In explaining the occurrence of conformity to social conventions, Wallace cites the Leviathan, a concept proposed by Thomas Hobbes. In his book, the “Leviathan,” Hobbes advocates for a type of social contract, in which all individuals abdicate rights to the will of a sovereign leader. As Wallace states, “conforming to social conventions and adhering to laws that restrict our freedoms are, from a philosophical perspective, things we do to preserve our existence.” Essentially, the Leviathan can be understood to be a power that enforces our adherence to society’s norms and standards. And as Wallace claims, there exists a leviathan on the Internet, “one to which people give up freedoms in order to sustain the medium itself.”
One common social norm on the Internet regards maintaining the proper grammar and punctuation appropriate for a specific medium. In terms of instant messaging, for example, it appears to be a social convention to type in a manner that is less than grammatically sound. Though it is definitely easier to type without focusing on grammar and punctuation, it is amazing to see how a conversation virtually paralyzes if one participant deviates from the conversation style after the social norm was set. This social convention exists outside of instant messaging, as well. The question becomes, therefore, what conversation style is appropriate for each medium? The answer to this question is undoubtedly an ingrained social norm itself. It appears that there exists an online tendency to reciprocate the conversation style from one participant to the other. If the initiator of an IM conversation writes with sound grammar and perfect punctuation, then social norm declares that the receiver reciprocate that same writing style. Though this same social convention applies to e-mails, it appears that the receiver of an email would be more compelled to reciprocate the conversation style, than that of an instant messenger.
In contrast with other areas of the Internet, in which there are moderators who uphold social convention, there is no Leviathan, or explicit power to enforce the adherence of this social norm on the Internet. Whereas moderators can persecute individuals who violate social norms, there clearly is no such force that punishes individuals who do not reciprocate conversation styles on the Internet. Though there is no outside force, however, the concept of the Leviathan amongst conversers enforces the adherence to social norms. For fear of social persecution and embarrassment, which are historic elements of social contract theory, individuals adhere to and perpetuate the unwritten social norm regarding conversation style.

#6 option 1: HAHA. . . HEHE. . .LOL

Now a days, a person is considered extremely outdated if they do not use AIM , MSN, or any type of instant messaging system. The social norm or standard that has developed in these instant messaging systems are fillers such as “haha”, ‘LoL”, and “hehe”. All of us have used these numerous times when conversing through instant messages. And many of us probably have asked ourselves, “Why am I typing this in when I’m not actually laughing?” It has become such a convention that people automatically type in one of those “filler” responses in their instant message conversations.

How did this norm come about? It probably came about to fill awkward pauses in conversation. Because communication through computers is limited in terms of knowing the other person’s reactions, there had to be some sort of filler to show that a person was being receptive and essentially, at the other end. New comers probably pick up on this convention quickly because there would be awkward pauses in the conversation otherwise as well as the other, more experienced instant message user at the other end asking if the person was there or even asking if they got the message.

The Leviathan, which is the power that enforces our adherence to society’s norms and standards (in our case the fillers of haha, hehe, and LoL) in this case enforces the use of fillers by the potential shunning or ban from talking to a certain instant message user. In many cases, the person not using the fillers would be perceived as rude, unreceptive, and boring. If fillers are not being used, it could seem like the person is not interested, not there, or just has no manners by acknowledging the other’s comments. As a result, the next time the user in on instant messaging, those who were not conforming to the norms and using fillers, probably will not get an instant messages and most likely if they message other first, the other people will be unresponsive.

The use of instant messaging is obviously a leaner channel than FtF and therefore has fewer cues. As a result, people focus on the cues that are able to be seen, as we discussed in class, a reallocation of cognitive resources under the Hyperpersonal model. The reallocation of cognitive resources is all the resources seen in physical presence can be directed to one thing in CMC (e.g. instant messaging). Because our minds do this automatically, we tend to focus on the responses of the person we’re talking to on instant messaging very closely. If they use such fillers as we discussed before, then that shows that the person is being personable and responsive and therefore must be interested in the conversation. On the other hand, if they do not use the fillers, we generalize that the person is uninterested because of their lack of responsiveness.

COMMENTS:

http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/09/6-option-1-calorie-count-leviathan.html

http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-chinese-leviathan-is-great-wall.html

Assignment #6, Option 1: Facebook Wall Posts

As a member of the Facebook community, a person can write a comment on any of his or her Facebook friends’ walls unless limited profile access has been applied. While people usually tend to be “Facebook friends” with a great number of people, often times many of those so-called friends are either unknown or barely known in real life. Wall posting on Facebook is generally reserved for communication between people who are actually friends outside of the Facebook community. In addition to only commenting on the walls of your true friends, there are other standards associated with wall posting on Facebook. People normally tend to make more positive comments than negative comments because the wall post forum is public. The negative comments that appear on walls are usually just written in a sarcastic manner between close friends. However, most sarcastic negative comments are still censored to some degree because it is know through word of mouth that inappropriate content is monitored and can be reported to the Facebook supervisors and developers.

People come to know these Facebook wall posting norms through observation after initially joining the online Facebook community. I have noticed that new Facebook members usually wait some time before wall posting or commenting on pictures or using any of the other Facebook applications. During this waiting period, the person is able to scroll through other people’s profiles in order to examine what the wall posts on these other profiles are like. Through such observation as well as initially only responding to wall posts as opposed to making the first move, new members learn both what seems to be acceptable content and to whom they can wall post.

Wallace’s theories in “The Psychology of the Internet” help clarify the specific online standards associated with wall posting that allow Facebook to be successful. According to Wallace, there is a power source called the “Leviathan” that enforces people’s adherence to society’s norms and standards. In being part of society, certain individual freedoms are given up when the Leviathan is in place, but it is important to have a source that informs us which behaviors are okay and which will be punished. Wallace theorizes that the Leviathan appears in certain instances to moderate groups. In unmoderated instances, Wallace explains that “the Leviathan would emerge with more difficulty were it not for human willingness to conform and our eagerness to preserve a productive online group environment (70).” I think that Facebook is only an example of a semi-moderated environment because Facebook members know that there are Facebook supervisors who have the authority to take action if there is inappropriate content. However, such supervisors are in the background. In the forefront, wall posting standards generally seem to be adhered to through the observation of a conformity norm in the Facebook community.

Comments:
http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-option-1-leviathan-in-wow.html
http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-happy-birthday.html

6.1- Guilty as Charged

College students are judged on a daily basis by their peers not only in person, but also in many different online standards, especially Facebook. As most people seek acceptance from their peers, their profile can be slightly skewed so they are seen as “cool” based on the information they provide about their favorite music, interests, activities, etc. Additionally, the groups section of Facebook provides further insight into a person. A person’s interests not directly expressed in the information part of their profile can be found in what local or national Facebook groups they are in.

As one of two administrators of the ILR Women’s Caucus Facebook group, I can be considered a leviathan, or the power that enforces adherence to a society’s norms and standards. Shortly after being appointed president of the ILR Women’s Caucus in real-life, I created a Facebook group for members to join. I thought this was a great way to publicize the group. When I initially created it, I set the group settings so any Cornell student could join and upload any videos, pictures and/or posts in order to encourage people to join the group in real-life.

However, some of my male friends always gave me a hard time as to why they weren’t allowed to join (um because it is a group for women, NOT men). One of them thought it would be funny to join, invite all his male friends, and then post a website with a chauvinistic remark towards women. Once I noticed the posted item and that three of my male friends had actually joined, I acted quickly. I removed the posted item first then “permanently banned” the three guys from the ILR Women’s Caucus Facebook group. Next, I changed the settings so that only administrators could upload videos and post items. I did leave the group open to all Cornell students to join as I am still hoping for more women to join in real-life and know that if any more men do join, I can “permanently ban” them too.

Based on this example, I am in fact guilty of being a leviathan because as an administrator I am also the anointed moderator, or unpaid volunteer, who has the ability to choose which messages to censor and which to pass along to all subscribers. My authority presence acts as a “calming influence and ensures participants that a means is available to resolve [issues] should they arise,” (Wallace 70). People come to know the norm by simply reading the group’s explicit name. As the leviathan, I punished my male friends who did not meet the group’s standards of being a female by “permanently banning” them. Although the punishment I gave may sound harsh for Facebook, I have to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed banning my stupid male friends.

Comment 1

Comment 2

6.1: The Leviathian on phantasytour.com

For years I've been a member of a website that obsesses about the band Phish. The site is phantasytour.com and anyone who is a regular in the community is very (just as I am) way too interested in thinking about a band that doesn't even play together anymore. Opinions are strong on this site, which is fascinating, considering how trivial the substance of the posts are when you really analyze what is being discussed. I chose to look at a couple of instances of breaching norms within the environment of the phantasytour.com discussion boards because emotions run high and polarization is evident in every thread of discussion. Wallace's concept of the Leviathan is created by the reaction of the group to a particular post. I'm very careful when I post information because I know that the response will be immediate, and strong.

Wallace describes the Leviathan as being a system which, while possibly limiting our freedoms, serves to maintain a standard or norm in an environment. On the Internet, particularly in discussion forums and newsgroups, this is often done by means of a moderator who can control what actually gets published; the moderator is a gatekeeper. On phantasytour.com there is no such gatekeeper. The only rules (or as Wallace might put it, "sign on the door") is the Terms of Use for the site, which is largely very vague and often overlooked. For this forum, the moderators are the regular, dedicated users who are watching like a hawk, waiting for bad information or spam. My first example of this is how quickly the community sprung to life when a user falsely announced the reuniting of the band.

This fake announcement was an obvious lie to those of us who know the situation and have been in the scene for a while. But there were plenty of viewers who took the news as real. The reaction was immediate and the reproach was a constant barrage of insults and complaints. In the end, it was apparent that it was meant as a joke, but the response was not one of humor, and eventually the user who posted the false information issued an apology and that ended the thread. Here the response was extremely vocal, which isn't always the case. Sometimes silence acts as the "raised eyebrow."

Such was the case in another instance on the same board, when a user posted a plug for a brand of guitar strings which he was endorsing. This sort of posting happens regularly, and it is unappreciated by everyone, even though the demographic is perfect for the ad. We don't want to have to filter out spam. It was clear that nobody had any interest in responding, not even to complain, to make the point that such posts were unwelcome.

So Wallace's concept of self-governing by means of creating the Leviathan is evident, even when a formal structure isn't put into place. A medium need not have a moderator to act as judge and jury -- a passionate group of dedicated users can have the same effect.

6:1 IDK My BFF Jill

Instant message and texting jargon, as Cingular showed us in their popular commercial, has become a language of its own. Abbreviations have not only become standard procedure when you are attempting to do your blog assignment, facebooking, checking uportal, and instant messaging all at the same time, they have become a necessity. Veterans of instant message conversations can tell after only a brief conversation with someone whether or not they are in touch with teen culture that has been personified through AIM and text messaging. In other words, there is a certain standard of formalness during online synchronous forms of conversation that people have reached a consensus.

Individuals get better and better at conversing according to the slang norm the more they interact in the online space. My mom (coincidentally named Jill) still proofreads each instant message she writes before she sends it. The messages she sends me, if spoken, would be completely normal. But simply because we are interacting via instant messaging, I start laughing at her apostrophes, semi-colons, and capitalizations. To her credit, she has been attempting to conform towards the norm. However, instant messaging is a unique online space because there is such thing as over conforming. My mom recently discovered Omicrons, and inserts one in essentially every sentence. While the disappointed face does not leave much to the imagination, it is not a requirement for me to figure out that she is unhappy that I dropped one of my classes.

Inherent in most norms, there has to be some kind of backlash, whether formal or informal, that causes people to conform. We call this the Leviathan, or the power that enforces and provides punishment to those that refuse to conform to accepted norms and standards. In regard to instant messaging, finding the Leviathan may prove to be much easier than one thinks. Any person who has a screen-name can transform into the Leviathan in the face of non-conformism. We all can remember a time talking online where someone wrote us a message in which the content was totally acceptable, but there perfect grammar made us raise our eyebrows. Often times we let the transgression go unpunished, but sometimes the conduct is egregious enough where we make a cutting witty remark such as, “Take it easy on the grammar, colleges don’t even really count the writing portion of the SATS anyway.” Maybe I’m out of touch (doubtful), but I don’t think abbreviations have taken over quite to the extent that Cingular would lead us to believe. Just like my mom’s omicron phase, she realized that too much of a hip thing can yield the same result as talking like you are in the middle of a business interview.

Online language norms are part of an unmoderated setting as described by Wallace. In other words, there is no designated volunteer who goes around talking to random people via instant message and screens them for their ability to converse in correct mix of abbreviations, grammar, and conventional sentence structure. In fact, if such a job did exist, it would be steeped in irony, as the person who is attempting to enforce the norm would be at the same time the chief culprit of its primary social bylaws. Wallace also discusses how online CMC norms can cause greater group polarization than those created in face-to-face interactions. However, this only occurs if “the members of the group feel some sense of group identity”(Wallace 78). I would argue that while their may be sub-norms of online jargon within the overall population, there is no salient instant message group identity that causes the types of polarization effects that Wallace discusses. I have not seen in my experience someone who chooses to remain defiantly formal in online verse, nor have I seen someone actually use the abbreviation “TISNF.”

Comments
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7102678997917330260&postID=895832620838719490
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7102678997917330260&postID=3491573706137196438

6, Option 1 : “Good buyer, prompt payment, highly recommended.”

So, you’ve been holding onto your Ty Beanie Babies (making sure to keep their tags in perfect condition) for 10 years. What do you do with the collection now? Sell it on eBay! The eBay community is composed of more than 100 million people around the world who make up a cohesive group of buyers and sellers. By featuring eBay discussion boards, groups, blogs, and chat rooms, in addition to allowing users to create "eBay My World" profile pages, the site allows individuals to truly feel connected to the community. This sense of “groupness” leads individuals to willingly conform to group norms in attempt to be accepted as part of the group, and in this case, the eBay community.

In order for eBay to succeed, new members of the community must conform to the buying/selling norms of this space. Wallace (1999) mentions that when new users enter certain interactive online spaces, they may be directed to certain “signs” that inform them of the proper way to behave. Before individuals become eBay users, the registration process directs users to a user agreement which acts as the “sign on the door,” informing users of the expectations within the eBay community. Rules such as “do not post false, inaccurate, misleading, defamatory, or libelous content” and “do not fail to deliver payment for items purchased by you…,” inform new eBay users of the buying/selling norms—practicing honest and efficient online trade.

Wallace (1999) refers to MacKinnon’s argument by stating that even with very little formal regulation online, “the Leviathan is there anyway because we want the Internet to flourish and sense it will not unless we build a framework of trust and establish means to ensure compliance with, at the very least, netiquette” (p. 69). As a unique online auction space, eBay provides an extremely convenient way of buying and selling items, and therefore individuals are motivated to build this “framework of trust” necessary for this trading to continue. Rules and values, as well as a feedback mechanism, have been created leading eBay users to stick to the norms (practicing honest and efficient trade), ultimately allowing eBay to flourish.

I think it’s safe to say that many of us don’t even read those user agreements and simply scroll down to the bottom to “check” the box. Therefore, there must be an additional reason to why this online space has continued to prosper since its creation in 1995. According to Wallace (1999), an amorphous entity referred to as the Leviathan, defines what behaviors are acceptable in a specific space, leading individuals to conform to this behavior. In this space it seems as though the Leviathan operates on two levels. First, eBay's Trust and Safety team is responsible for keeping the marketplace safe and therefore tries to build trust between members by implementing the eBay feedback system. Next, the individual community members must accept and utilize this system in order for the Leviathan to prevail and for the norms to be enforced.

After engaging in a transaction, users are prompted to provide positive, negative, or neutral feedback on the buyer or seller which come together to form each user’s feedback score, and ultimately their reputation on eBay. Since this score is automatically listed next to their username (represented by a respective colored star), this feedback system enforces group norms by providing individuals with an incentive to conduct transactions in a fair and honest manner. Since there is no way to improve your feedback score except for actually behaving correctly (and having others recognize that), individuals will be motivated to conform to social norms. When users conform to the buying/selling norms of eBay, they will be accepted by the group since individuals will be more willing to do business with them.

So before you go online to sell those beanie babies, you better make sure that you are willing to conform to eBay norms by practicing honest and efficient trading. If the “sign at the door” doesn’t put you in your place, the Leviathan will.

Comments:
http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/10/as-youtube-like-it.html

http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/10/1-hancock-our-very-own-leviathan.html

6.1 Group identities and norms through online gaming

New Note 4

Ahoy

I would like to discuss a game that I used to play online called Utopia. Utopia is a game with a slightly medieval nature in which a team ("kingdom") of 25 players ("provinces") build themselves together and then challenge other kingdoms in wars for land and resources. More information can be found at http://games.swirve.com/UTOPIA/.

There is an extremely high number of norms that must be followed in playing this game. This is caused by the fact that collaboration is so important to the game. There are some kingdoms that are relatively relaxed and sometimes don't gel very well, but there are also extremely competitive teams where players are required by their teammates to log on at crazy hours (like 9AM) in order to carry out their attacks or in other ways help the team. They are also required to provide aid to other provinces that are getting hammered or are slightly behind in their development in preparation for a war. Also, it's very important for members to keep in contact with others through the kingdom forums. In short, there is a great deal of conformity that is required for a province to be included in a kingdom.

Usually people get to know the norms when they join the team. Sometimes people join a new team every few months, others stay with the same one for years at a time. Regardless, once a new teammember joins, the kingdom will make an effort to contact him (or her) if he does not introduce himself formally first. This is when they are first taught the rules of the kingdom, that is, how often they are supposed to log in and other ways in how much they should committing to the kingdom. Also, if they show signs of not committing properly, then they will receive warnings either through the forums or by private message of a reminder of the rules that the other members of the team have set.

In the case that they do not abide, the consequences can get increasingly harsh. The other members of the kingdom will probably stop providing aid to the province if the situation does not improve and ultimately, they might decide to kill the province and remove it from the kingdom. This is the final blow and after that, the province can either leave on its own or go to some other kingdom.

The dynamics of these relationships closely ties to the concepts provided by Wallace in her book. According to SIDE theory, conformity is strongest in situations where members are visually anonymous and the setting is group salient. Therefore, it's important for a kingdom to foster a sense of community so that they can get everybody to conform to the norms. In an individually salient space, the members are less likely to conform, so it's critical to foster a group salient environment. This is possibly one of the reasons behind the medieval theme of Utopia - by creating a dynamic, comprehensively group-oriented theme, it becomes easier for users to identify with the goals and objectives of their teams.

6.1: Legal Graffiti

With the recent introduction of applications to Facebook, there has been a boom in number of the people who use these new features; as well as a massive increase in the general number of people who use Facebook. One of the most popular applications is simply called “Graffiti”: it is a program that allows users to draw small pictures in a designated area in another user’s profile.

The existing norm, according to my experience, has been to keep the drawings “clean” i.e. inoffensive and not vulgar. Maybe this is me being too cautious or neurotic, but when I first encountered the application, I expected lewd images (similar in nature to real, physical graffiti) to start popping up everywhere on shiny and wholesome Facebook profiles. However, this is not the case—and the standard seems to be in favor of upholding Facebook as the online social network to “bring home to your mother”. In this situation the Leviathan is a combination of the Graffiti application developers and the Facebook moderators who passively monitor the network for offensive content. But despite this Leviathan’s widespread presence, it enforces the norm in an extremely loose manner. The sole statement of restriction is the simple message “Keep it clean, please”, which appears below the current graffiti drawing that the user is working on.

But I believe that even if this message did not exist, people would still conform to respectful standards. The reasons for this, in my opinion, are tied to the lack of anonymity and evanescence in graffiti art. The graffiti posting is displayed in such a manner where it says “John Smith drew…” right above the artwork, with the profile picture of the artist adjacent to the image. Even though this encourages salience of individuality, the presentation of the name causes the artist aware and responsible for their own actions and the profile picture possibly probes a certain degree of humanity and reminds the user of human courtesy. Would you commit a crime if your picture would be left behind at the scene of the illegal action? Also, as Wallace states on page 70, people are realizing that “our contributions to the net are not as fleeting, nor as difficult to trace, as many had supposed”. If a user draws a derogatory caricature or some other lewd image—the image will stay on the profile for a long time. Facebook Graffiti artists generally conform to the conventions of human decency, something their physical counterparts tend not to do.

Comments:
Comment 1

Comment 2

Assignment 6.1 - I am away from my computer right now.

One fairly stable norm on the Internet is away messages. Most people put up away messages, read those of others, and understand what the presence of an away message means. Additionally, many people have moved beyond the basic function of away messages and use them as a general means of expression, using everything from lyrics to philosophical proverbs as away messages.

There are two basic ways that Internet users come to know about away messages. Someone who has never used an instant messaging service before can either hear about away messages from other people before they begin, or they can learn about them as they see away messages during their initial period of IM use.

The standard of away message use is enforced by the consequences of deviation from this norm. In general, when IM users are not at their computers, or are otherwise unavailable to receive and respond to messages, they put an away message on. Likewise, when people are at their computer, ready to IM, they do not have an away message on. Therefore, when someone with no away message on does not respond to an IM, the sender of that message tends to think the other person is ignoring him. Thus, one reason for using away messages is to avoid any social problems this perception would spark. On the other hand, when people IM someone who does have an away message up, they will use alternate means (i.e. a phone, trying to find the person) to contact him because the presence of an away message tells us that the person will probably not receive the message for quite a while. If the sender simply assumed that someone got all his messages, despite warnings from away messages, this person will cause confusion and frustration. He will find himself alone when he tells people to meet him places, and without the help or advice he asks of people.

In Wallace’s introduction to the Leviathan in chapter 4, she says that we “give up certain freedoms…to live in a predictable and safe world” (p. 69). We might not necessarily give up freedoms, and away messages don’t make us safe. But, the idea of giving in to the away message convention to maintain order and understandability is parallels this concept. We are used to away messages and what they mean. We get annoyed when people forget to put them on, or leave important information with our away message and we don’t get it in time. Thus, we conform to the laws of away messages so that we have an easier time communicating with others.

While there are no policeman patrolling away messages, those who disregard the norms of away message use, are punished by the chaos they cause and by others who are upset by this confusion. A loss of our trust in away messages would eradicate their purpose. The Leviathan is as much of an away message stalker as the rest of us.


http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-wikipedia-leviathans.html

http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-guilty-as-charged.html

Assignment 6, Option 1: Away Messages

The away message is a simple example of a standard online. When one chooses to remain logged into AIM, but leaves his/her computer, he/she has the option to put up an away message. Sometimes it is considered a form of netiquette, so friends aren’t waiting for a response when you’re not at the computer, sometimes it is considered a form of expression, depending on what one writes on his/her away message.

I can recall the first time I saw an away message. I IMed a friend and, immediately, a response popped up saying that my friend was away from her computer. At first I was confused. How did my friend hack into AIM and create this message?! How did it get sent so fast!? I wasn’t quite sure. This was before there were icons next to screen names on buddy lists. There was no picture of a message, or a red, yellow, or green dot signifying my friend’s online status. But, as more of my friends put up messages saying they were away, I caught on to what an away message was; it was a simple online note saying that my friend had left his/her computer, but chosen to remain online. Through use and common sense people were able to figure out what away messages were. As away messages advanced and people were able to choose what it said, use and common sense, again, taught us that away messages were fluid and we could choose what was written in them.

Away messages are part of an unmoderated setting, and Wallace discusses how the Leviathan has a bit more difficulty developing in unmoderated settings. That is, unless humans choose to willfully conform to a certain standard in order “to preserve a productive online group environment” (p 70). Today, people have the choice to say whatever they would like to in their away messages. They can be kind and use netiquette as to not offend anyone or they can be harsh and rude to those on their buddy lists intentionally. But, when people choose the latter, a backlash is possible. If you say you hate your friends on your away message (maybe because you had a fight with one), all of the others will see that and may react negatively and get offended. So most likely, people choose to follow netiquette and keep their away messages polite, or use song lyrics to disguise their true feelings, in order to conform to the polite, online norms. The Leviathan is able to enforce this norm because of the fear of a reproach occurring.

Wallace discusses a CMC experiment to observe group polarization, in which group members are given hats to wear to create a sense of team unity and team members either sat at their computers in the same room together or in separate rooms. One of the findings was that participants to who team unity were emphasized; who sat in different rooms had a sharp increase in group polarization. More so than those who sat in the same room and could see one another. This finding applies to away messages in that, we use our computers and write our away messages in separate places, and we know all of the people we are friends with on our buddy lists (this can be considered our group) will see our messages. Because of this, we tend to stick to the norm. The sense of groupness, but working in separate places encourages normative behavior. Overall, away messages are a way we can individually write whatever we want, but in which we generally choose to stick to the norm and be polite or disguise any malevolence.