 |
The emergence of internet has enormously revolutionized the lives of many people in today’s information society. It has changed the way we perceive our capabilities in terms of controlling and enhancing communication processes through the aid of technology. This internet phenomenon paved the way to a bolder creation which we now call as technology mediated communication. It is often referred as computer-mediated communication (CMC) which refers to the process by which people create, exchange, and perceive information using networked telecommunications systems that facilitate encoding, transmitting, and decoding messages (December, 2011). Another definition of CMC is that, it is a form of asynchronous communication, which has the advantage of eliminating problems created by barriers of time and space, therefore allowing learners to participate in a system of instruction at a time and place most convenient for them (Provenzo, 1986). Traditional means of communication such as face to face interactions, snail mails and telegrams were replaced by E-mails, SMS via mobile phones, online chats, the use of webcams and microphones that allows face-to-face conversations, and social networking sites.
The basic idea of CMC is that a user can make connections with other people without the aid of proximity but with the help of networked system. Thus, user’s typing ability as well as knowledge in CMC system is significant. In online dating sites for instance, virtual profiles can be easily created wherein in a user can give out information about his/her self like: “height, body type (with options from thin to big and tall), hair color, interests, profession, ethnicity, educational level (with everything from high school to PhD), marital status, children, do you smoke, do drugs, drink, income, religion,” etc (Watts, 2011). This information becomes essential and the only basis of a person’s identity in the virtual world.
 |
| Example of a Virtual Profile in an Online Dating Site |
Furthermore, typed messages are the primary means of expressing one’s self in CMC context. We can suppose that the use of text communication can be very difficult when it comes to expressing a person’s innermost feeling or emotion. To reduce this complexity, CMC developed electronic paralanguages such as face marks, emoticons, articons to express non-verbal languages. Janet Asterroff, who studied “The Paralanguage in Electronic Mail” (1987), stated that ‘Electronic Paralanguage’ is a term developed to describe paralanguage in computer-mediated communication, it is defined as features of written language which are used outside of formal grammar and syntax, and other features related to but not part of written language, which through varieties of visual and interpretative contrast provide additional, enhanced, redundant or new meanings to the message. On the other hand, the use of “grammatical markers, intentional misspellings, onomatopoeias, spatial arrays, absence of corrections and capitalizations” are among the widely used electronic paralanguages to convey emotion towards another in the aspect CMC (Tresca, 1998).
 |
| Examples of Electronic Paralanguage |
Face-to-face Communication (FTF) is significantly different from Computer-mediated communication (CMC) because a person’s actual appearance, bodily gestures, and tone of voice are not available in the context of CMC. Catherine Lee, in her study “Face-to-Face versus Computer-Mediated Communication: Exploring Employee’s Preference of Effective Employee Communication Channel” (2011), asserted that face-to-face communication is a conversation that one has while being face-to-face with the other party. This type of communication enables a person to hear and see the non-verbal communication conveyed by the sender and respond with feedback straightaway. She also added that face-to-face discussion also facilitates immediate feedback, contains visual and audio cues, act as a personal source and used natural body languages. Evidently, all of the descriptions about FTC are not completely perceptible in CMC. Therefore, CMC lacks genuine nonverbal factors which are vital in determining complex thoughts or emotions, given that in CMC, a particular user only relies on the sent words and context cues in order to determine the message.
Based on this account, people are still wary when it comes to the trustworthiness of information being given out, despite of the popularity of CMC nowadays. Tresca (1998) stated that because CMC lacks social context cues, users feel uninhibited and unrestrained in expressing their emotions or opinions. The flexibility and accessibility of the situation cause users to choose their own social reality and holds no restriction upon their interactions with other CMC users. Consequently, people have lesser fear of retaliation or personal responsibility. I personally believe that the internet along with CMC tools provided an unrestricted social ground where in a particular user can be anyone he/she wants to be. With the flexibility and absence of visual appearance online, a user can use a different persona, change his/her gender or age, marital status, can edit or copy their shout outs or may feel too much unrestrained in the form of insult or use of hostile languages. Thus, it would be very difficult to determine the identity and intention of a user because CMC is usually anonymous and asynchronous. After all, Paul Steiner (1993) was right when he said, “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”.
On the other hand, social networking sites, such as Facebook, Friendster and MySpace, which we commonly use nowadays, help us connect with people we know or we didn’t see for years. Boyd (2007) defined social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and transverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. I believe that this type of medium is more secure than other online based CMC, because users have the option to invite or reject invitations, customize privacy settings and even block a fellow user you never want to see. In my Facebook account, I never entertain unfamiliar pages nor accept or invite unknown persons. I have customized my privacy setting in such a way that my account cannot be easily accessed and that people can only add me to their network if we have mutual connections. In this way I can protect myself from vicious CMC users and I can still guarantee the authenticity of the people in my network.
Correspondingly, it is an innate characteristic of every individual to seek a sense of approval from the society he/she exists; hence we can say that the concept of self-presentation plays a crucial role in this aspect. Schlenker (1981) defined self-presentation as the attempt to control self-relevant images before real or imagined others and that people’s self-presentations represent the choice of the most desirable images from sets of mutually exclusive alternative images. This is certainly true in CMC since a particular user is aware of the impression he/she may present to others. In most social networking sites, users normally manipulate the information, wall posts, and pictures they want to upload in their network with the perception that these details are fine and desirable. If these details get approval (e.g. number of “Likes” in Facebook) from the network, it will surely affect users’ self-presentation positively. This phase affirms Goffman’s account in his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), “that people are concerned with the ways other perceive them, motivating actors to manage their behavior in order to present favorable and appropriate image to others.”
Accessibility in the internet, flexibility of technology-mediated tools, absence of social context cues together with the importance of self-presentation are the driving factors in establishing the kind of identity a user will present in the virtual world. It is far from impossible that online and offline identities exist among these users, thus it is important to note that self-bracketing is also an important aspect of technology-mediated communication. Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) defined bracketing as revealing the beliefs, ideas and values that are simply taken for granted in the social world. By suspending belief in the naturalness and normality of the social world (placing what are normally automatic assumptions in “brackets”) it reveals the underlying thinking and values that people bring to bear in understanding the world and engaging is social action. We can consider this as an opportunity to extend our freedom and go beyond what our society and family or other people defined us to be. As a result, we can set aside our learned values, pre-conceived notions or culture through the aid of technology mediated communication.
These underlying advantages are definitely enticing except that they have drawbacks. Besides the persuading notion of self-bracketing, anonymity is also a significant feature of technology-mediated communication. Watts (2011) asserted that the ambiguity of the internet allows complete anonymity, providing the user with the ability to create false and misleading profiles and identities online, hence hiding their true identity. This can take the form of complete gender swapping online, with men playing women and vice versa. I have mentioned earlier that users can make use of different personas and can manipulate and construct information they want to present online. The absence of “social context cues” of CMC has influenced the user to execute unrestrained actions without fear of retaliations. Walther (2007) asserted that users take advantage of the interface and channel characteristics of CMC in order to enhance users’ self-presentation and impression. He stated four processes explaining how CMC is manipulated:
· CMC is editable. It allows users to change what they write before they transmit their messages. The capacity to change the content and appearance of a message before it is emitted, or abort a message and begin anew, is a luxury not found by FTF interaction.
· The amount of time one can spend constructing and refining a message prior to its utterance, with less social awkwardness also differs from FTF conversation, allowing the user almost unlimited time for editing and composing.
· In CMC a writer composes and exchanges messages in physical isolation from receiver, masking involuntary cues. That is, senders do not exude their natural physical features and non-deliberate actions into the receiver’s realm of perception.
· In CMC reallocation of cognitive resources from environmental scanning and nonverbal management toward message composition. Environmental scanning refers to the activities in FTF conversation of sensing ambient stimuli, attending to other conversants’ symbolic and physical expressions, and monitoring feedback. Nonverbal management pertains to the efforts required to express oneself through the various nonverbal code systems and to maintain appearance during FTF interactions.
These aspects of technology-mediated communication have created an uninhibited society that entices CMC users to perform uninhibited actions, similar to creation of multiple online identities or profiles. Therefore, this paved the way to deception and authenticity issues online, such as misleading and false identities, rude and offensive interaction, and misrepresentation of race, gender and age.
Furthermore, we cannot limit uninhibited action to negative behaviors alone. Tresca (1998) also stressed that good writers and more literate people have the same social advantage that physically attractive people have in FTF over CMC. In addition to that, there are people who are discreet and guarded by social standards. Since they are shy to express themselves in the real life they use the internet and CMC tools to share their thoughts and opinion without revealing their identities. They take advantage of the anonymity and become more open through posting blogs and comments. There are other social networking sites that connect users based on their interests; these sites encourage users to share their knowledge or view about specific subjects. Examples are Good Reads for books and education, Auto Spies for cars and auto and Trip Advisor for those who love travelling. I have a friend who is very shy and reserved; she is very silent and spends most of her time reading books, she was even tagged as ‘loner’ and ‘antisocial’ by some people. Since she’s a good friend of mine and that we have common interests, books for that matter, she invited me to join Good Reads. Good Reads is a social network for readers, it is a “place for casual readers and bona-fide bookworms alike where members recommend books, compare what they are reading, keep track of what they've read and would like to read, and form book clubs (Chandler, 2011).” Looking at my friend’s profile, I am really amazed on how bubbly and witty she is online, based on the reviews and remarks she posts. If it weren’t for her profile picture and other personal information, I would have thought I was looking at another person’s page. I feel pleased about this knowing that CMC can be an outlet for timid people, like my friend.
Moving on, one of the predictions in the Trendpotter’s guide to new communication is the “Loss of Privacy”. The quick and easy access of information on the internet through the use of computer-mediated communication paved the way to identity fraud, theft and pornography. Personal information such as name, address, and date of birth, is used by offenders for financial gains, documentation fraud or filing forged insurance claims. There are also instances wherein photos of a particular person posted online are used on mail order bride websites or as fake porn shots.
Social networking sites, blog spots, electronic mails and other technology mediated forms of communication have privacy policies and customization technologies to protect individuals. Users are then enabled to restrict who can see their profiles, posts and other major information. We also have to take note that default setting on most social networking sites is accessible to all. In addition to that, by setting boundaries, users can also protect themselves. Here are some tips on how to protect users’ privacy which are posted at Trustthetick.com:
- Use privacy settings to restrict who can see your profile and thus the majority of your information.
- Avoid sharing personal information, like your phone number, street address or account information. Some experts even suggest avoiding use of your full name.
- Remember that content and photos on your profile, even if protected, may be seen by friends, family, classmates, strangers, colleagues, bosses or potential employers. Post only what you’re comfortable with everyone seeing.
- If you encounter someone on a social network who seems threatening or suspicious, report that person to the Web site immediately.
- Remember that once you post an item—a photo, for instance—it can’t be truly removed. Even if you delete the image, it may have already been downloaded or saved to another user’s computer.
- Be aware of which social networking sites your children use and whom they’re interacting with.
I have stated earlier that I have customized my privacy setting to protect myself from unwanted damages. In addition, I have set boundaries with regards to approving friend requests and other invitation because I want to make sure that I personally know the people connected in my network. Thus, I can guarantee the authenticity of information I get and the authenticity of the members’ identity as well.
***
The combination of convenience and speed of communication technology has brought about many great advantages and conveniences for humanity. It developed communication processes in such a way that we can break physical distances and engage in interpersonal interaction at any given place or time. However, online users, companies and the government have an important role to play in order to contribute to the success of these networking technologies. Privacy and security concerns are among the crucial issues of the virtual society, and it is our role to assert our right for protection. It is said “that privacy is the key to the success of the digital economy, and can be a great motivation for innovation” (Guerrero, 2010), thus it is a driving factor for growth and improvement of both virtual and real society. The concept of privacy reinforces trust and confidence among its users which in return will build a culture of security in the digital world. With trust and confidence from all of us, we are all set to support innovation and growth of our society.
SOURCES:
Adler, E. & Bauer, L. (2010). Communication Technology Changes our Relationships. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from http://www.thirdage.com/friendship/communication-technology- changes-relationships
Asteroff, J. F. (1987). Paralanguage in Electronic Mail. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from, http://www.sigir.org/sigirlist/issues/1987/87-3-47
Baker, A.J.(2005). Double Click: Romance and Commitment Among Online Couples. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7081/is_2_26/ai_n28435708/?tag=content;col1
Boyd, D. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Retrieved March 16, 2011 from, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html
Chandler, O. (2011). About Goodreads. Retrieved March 17, 2011 from, http://www.goodreads.com/about/us
December, J. (2011). What is Computer-mediated Communication. Retrieved March 16, 2011 from, http://www.december.com/john/study/cmc/what.html
Drislane, R. (2002). Online Dictionary of Social Science. Retrieved March 18, 2011 from, http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl?term=BRACKETINGDrislane
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
Guerrero, D. (2010). Privacy, Trust and Innovation – submission to the Digital Economy Consultation. Retrieved March 17, 2011 from http://blog.privcom.gc.ca/index.php/category/public-organizations/
Harada, A. & Park, S.Y (n.d.). A Study of Non-verbal Expressions in Computer-Mediated Communication Context (CMC). Retrieved March 17, 2011 from, http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/conferences/CD_doNotOpen/ADC/fi nal_paper/343.pdf
“Impersonal Intimacy and E-Dating”, 2010. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from http://samheydt.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/
Jaruhirunsakul, P. (n.d). The Study of Love Happiness
in Computer-Mediated Communication Research. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from, http://www.happysociety.org/ppdoconference/session_papers/session19/session19_pat araporn.pdf
Lee, C. E. (2011). Face-to-face Versus Computer-mediated Communication: Exploring Employees’ Preferences of Effective Employee Communication Channel. Retrieved March 16, 2011 from, http://independent.academia.edu/CatherineLee/Papers/435494/
“Privacy Online: How to Stay Secure in the Age of Social Media”, 2010. Retrieved March 18, 2011 from, http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourinterview/2010/05/privacy-online-how-to- stay-secure-in-the-age-of-social-media.html
Provenzo, E. F. (1986). Beyond the Gutenberg galaxy. Teachers College Press: New
York.
Schlenker, B. R. (1981). Self-Presentation: A Conceptualization and Model. Retrieved March 17, 2011 from, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtS earch_SearchValue_0=ED214047&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED214047
Tresca, M. (1998). The Impact of Anonymity on Disinhibitive Behavior through Computer- Mediated Communication. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from, https://www.msu.edu/user/trescami/thesis.htm
Walther, J. (2006). Selective Self-presentation in Computer-mediated Communication: Hyperpersonal Dimensions of Technology, Language, and Cognition. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/3/0/0/pages17 3006/p173006-1.php
Wang, Z. (2008). Anonymity Effects and Implications in the Social Identity Model of
Deindividuation: From Crowd to Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/3/0/0/pages17 3006/p173006-1.php
Watts, M. (2011). Deception and Authenticity. Retrieved March 14, 2011 from http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/deception-and-authenticity-how- false-and-misleading-profiles-are-impacting-online-dating-2/
Whittaker, S. (n.d). Theories and Methods in Mediated Communication. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.18.7795&rep=rep1&typepdf
Zhao, S. (2005). Theoretical Review on Technology Mediated Communication:
Influences on Social Structure. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from, http://cmcs.rutgers.edu/projects/2004/Workingpaper.pdf
