Homophily: Positive or Negative?

As an amateur linguist (or at the very least, a lover of language), I'm going to start off by saying the word "homophily" pleases me. It roughly translates to something like "loving (philos) the same thing (homo)." The article on homophily takes a stance counter to the other two sources, which both accuse the clustering effect of social networks of lessening out knowledge about the world. Clive Thompson writes that a small group of close-knit friends will provide a better flux of novel information than would a large group of acquaintances, based mostly on the fact that close friends know how to speak to you; this clearly applies IRL, so it would make sense that it would work online, too.

The NYBooks article and the video both present views that say staying within your own limits and comforts is bad, that it will prevent you from finding out new information. Specifically, they address this using the example of the google algorithm for providing people with tailored search result; the video brought up a quote that, summed up, says we shall soon experience only information that has been custom-suited for us. There is no longer a "standard" like there is in an encyclopaedia online. Google calculates which results to show us based on our browsing history, our browser, what type of computer we are using, and various other elements. No two people will get the same results, basically. However, as the Clive Thompson article says, this doesn't exactly mean that we are getting treated unfairly by the mighty Google. People are social. They discuss things they see online with each other-- if I strike up a conversation about something I saw online, and my friend replies using knowledge they learned on their side of the internet, we have already exchanged valuable information in a more applicable, real-world way than having read it online.

The filtering becomes dangerous when websites like Facebook do it. Google filters out the entire web for us, customizing its search results to include things that we, specifically, would find useful. Facebook filters out our FRIENDS' posts based on our internet activity. The second prospect is much worse to me than the first (but perhaps that is because I've become what Steve Jobs warned about: a person more concerned with a squirrel in the backyard than what goes on in other nations). The reason the Faceook situation worries me so much, though, is that this foreign entity- the CEOs and SEOs of Facebook- this faceless, anonymous bureaucracy- is taking over MY personal life. Yes, whatever you put on the web is in a sense open to the public (no matter what your privacy settings say), it is in spirit a "personal" social network. I don't like the idea of some looming presence shutting friends out of my life because they post conservatively and I liberally. If they matter enough to be on my friends list, I want them on my newsfeed. If i didn't, I'd remove them personally. We don't need Facebook doing that for us.

Obama Campaign

When running for election, President Obama and his campaign team utilized a revolutionary form of campaigning: the social network. Creating a MySpace-esque website called MyBO allowed Obama to communicate directly with the people whose votes he was trying to earn, directly in their own homes on their own times. This helped Obama gain a record $55 million in one month from ONLY click-to-give donations (this number skyrocketed to $200 million by the end of June 2008, Talbot writes). Obama became accessible-- a man of the people who communicated with them on their own terms. Because he was able to do this, the millions of American citizens he was able to get his word out to decided he was the man to elect as president. Though, as the article points out, how much of his support was based on his networking campaign and how much was based on his views on issues like the Iraq War is quite unclear.


However, since Obama was so far out in the public eye, there was a huge risk he could get a lot of negative publicity along with the positive. The fact that he was elected DESPITE all the publicity is a big deal. Take, for example, the Rick Perry fiasco. His campaign ad was so horribly received on the video mogul Youtube that he became the butt of millions of jokes nationwide. There are countless parodies of his "Keep gays out of the military" speech, including my favourite one in where the creator replaced Perry's face with an obscenity and his words with garbles. Obama avoided issues like this even though is videos on Youtube are extremely popular, hitting up to 4 million views, according to the article. 

Obama utilized Twitter (called a microblog in the article) and gained 50,000 followers. I personally think utilizing Twitter was a brilliant move because it isn't the type of network that gets gummed up with game links, photos, and unimportant comments-- it consists mostly of "tweeting" facebook-style "statuses" which are usually succinct. They allow the author to discuss his or her main point quickly and effectively, letting the "followers" know exactly whats going on.

Taking over the 'net was a smart plan on the Obama team's part, but the fact that they executed it all well is important, too. McCain's attempt at creating his own network, MyBO style, was a failure because it wasn't at all user friendly.  

Over all, in this day and age, communicating via the internet has become crucial. It is not only a way to keep in touch with friends, but it can help a man become the next President of the USA.

PBS Presentation

The PBS Frontline Presentation "Growing up Online" documents the generational gap between us, the "facebook generation" and our parents, teachers, and older comrades alike caused by our having grown up on the internet. Specifically mentioned were the effects of social networking websites such as myspace, facebook, twitter, and the like. Our generation uses activities (friend requests, comments, picture comments, etc.) on these social networking sites as currency for popularity and merit in the real world offline. Besides peer networking and communication, kids these days are just more easily accessible through the use of the internet, i.e. just plain e-mailing (or even text messaging via cell phones), than IRL. Parents often feel isolated from their own children and teachers find it difficult to reach the students they are teaching. The main issue? Parents aren't involved much on social networks, and they aren't as invested in the new technology. Students are often better experienced with computers, TVs, and cell phones than their teachers, making for a skewed dynamic between the two parties. Plainly said: if students are much more able to work a major type of media than their teacher, they have more "power" in a sense, and it creates conflict in the classroom. For example, every student has at least one horror story of a teacher trying to show a video during class but wasting 20-30 minutes trying to access Youtube instead.

Another problem is that parents think this new form of communication through social media is "bad."

To us, it is just a way of communication; though it isn't to traditional way our parents did does not necessarily make it wrong. True, communicating in this virtual online world is quite different from that of our parents' networking, it shouldn't be the cause of such a huge rift between the two generations.

In fact, it would be much of a help in the development of young kids of today if the older generation was more involved on networking sites. That way, they would have firsthand experience with the dark parts of the "interwebs" that lead to bullying and low self-esteem in our generation. The example used in the presentation was "thinspo" blogs, which encourage anorexia (or being "pro ana) by glorifying pictures of emaciated women and men and targeting young teens. A teacher can't possibly help look for warning signs bullying  in her students if she doesn't understand cyberbullying: since it isn't obvious like physical bullying, there are different red flags that a teacher wouldn't example understand unless she was experienced on social networks.

There is indeed a schism between generations here that isn't necessarily a "fault" of ours or a "problem" that so many of the older generation see it as. If the older generation would see the positive side of social networking sites, they'd be more inclined to think of facebook as a tool to build frienships and less of a time-waster. However, our generation must not let itself become so entwined in the online world that they neglect responsibilities of the real world.