EXTRA BLOG: Athlete Accountability on Twitter: Does it Really Matter?

Twitter is now an extremely useful and informative application. Any celebrity or popular personality has their own account and they tweet to thousands of followers everyday. In a very politically sensitive world where every word, whether spoken or written, is repeatedly scrutinized, everyone must be careful about what they are tweeting. While this is important for all users, it is especially critical for public figures. Politicians, journalists, and other authoritative figures have their credibility on the line. However, when it comes to athletes, they are held to the same high standard. To me, this is certainly puzzling. Why do their tweets really matter? Athletes do not inherit the responsibility of being role models to little children. In a world where everything is available online, numerous police records and other personal information are accessible. Twitter is an application that allows users to share their everyday thoughts. Most athletes do care about their image, but some of them certainly do not and that only jeopardizes their marketability, not their ability to perform on the field or court.

Some athletes choose to be funny on Twitter. Other choose to be extremely opinionated and voice their thoughts on everything. In the end, isn't this what their followers want? Twitter users follow particular athletes because they want to pretend they are their personal friend. This application is a way casually to tell your users what you are thinking or doing. If athletes choose to be that revealing on Twitter, good for them. There are always consequences but in today's world, can you really hide anything? A particular example is this Fox Sports Ohio article describing a backup quarterback from Ohio State and his recent scrutinized tweet. He tweeted about how school does not matter to him and he was brought to the school to play football. This enraged many supporters and administrators of college athletics. While this is certainly not a flattering view on college athletics, why is this such a big deal? Those who really care about what Cardale Jones thinks are following him. They are getting what they asked for. I do not see why any action should be taken by the football team coaches or university. Professional sports organizations certainly encourage their players to be active on Twitter and engage with their fans. The whole point is to make the players seem like everyday people. Everyday people say stupid things and are not punished for them every time. Punishing athletes for stupid tweets is placing them on a pedestal. Athletes only have better physical abilities than ordinary people. They are not paid to think; they are paid to run fast and catch the ball.

I certainly understand why journalists and politicians are heavily scrutinized. They are in the business of being responsible to the public. In no way is it excusable for them to post something stupid or ignorant. Their job is to be careful and considerate. Athletes do not belong in this same category of respect and responsibility. If the argument is that young kids need someone to look up to, they should stay off Twitter. To punish a backup quarterback for his tweet showcases that athletes are held to a higher standard and are, therefore, supposed to be looked up to. In today's world, that is most definitely not the case. Drug scandals, arrest records, and other factors are abundant in today's professional sports arena. We all must be selective in who we follow and look up to. Athletes are people; they will make mistakes. No matter how racist or ignorant an athlete's tweet may be, they are just an athlete. It does not cause anything substantial. It just makes them look stupid. That is all it does. All in all, we should not care what these guys are tweeting.

EXTRA BLOG: Another Rebecca Black?

In my blog post on September 30, I explained the media company behind Rebecca Black. In short, Ark Music Factory, founded by Nigerian artist Patrice Wilson, is approached by aspiring young singers and Ark offers to write and produce a song and music video for them for a fee. While Rebecca Black is the most popular of the artists, several of their other customers have millions of views on their music videos as well. After establishing Ark Music Factory, Wilson then went on to create another production company called Pato Music World, or PMW Live. As explained on his Wikipedia page, Pato is his stage name and he is certainly the mastermind behind all these YouTube videos. The extremely simplistic themes, lyrics, and content of the videos are all due to him. "Friday" by Black took the internet world by storm and that time period seemed to last forever.

Just when it all seemed that this YouTube trend was decreasing just a little bit, another video pops up of a 12 year old named Nicole Westbrook singing about an upcoming holiday.

After being posted a week ago, the video has accumulated over five million views. Despite all the negative comments and reviews it is receiving (over 90,000 dislikes compared to just over 10,000 likes), Wilson and PMW Live are accomplishing exactly what they described they would to their customers. However bad and ridiculous this song may be, this 12 year old girl has more of a singing career and fame than millions of young adult aspiring artists. Wilson's previous artists, such as Black, have received record deals, tour deals, and interview opportunities after using his services.

Of course the song is absolutely atrocious. She certainly does not move around very much in terms of choreography and the lyrics are not difficult by any means. Wilson himself makes an appearance in the video as he is ridiculously dressed as a turkey and he enjoys a Thanksgiving meal with a table occupied by 12 year olds. Videos like these receive a lot of laughter and ridicule from most of their viewers with a few taking it way across the line and submitting death threats.

This is just another example of the great relationship between YouTube and aspiring young artists. These young people are indeed exposing themselves to a great deal of criticism and harrassment, but Wilson's track record has proved that his method of exposing these singers is successful. Westbrook is only 12 years old and the video is only a week old. There is no telling what television, tour, or record opportunities she may receive because of this. Critics who are uneasy of YouTube are silenced yet again. There is no viewer who sees this video as professional entertainment. This is simply a foot in the door for a young singer. Consumers know that publicized concerts and reputable CDs are their way to obtain professional quality content. YouTube is the arena for amateurs. Viewers laugh and cry at the errors and shortcomings of the people in the posted videos. People will continue to laugh for a while at Westbrook, but we'll see who is laughing last when she probably ends up hosting her own show on Nickelodeon or the Disney Channel in a few months.

BLOG RE-WRITE: The Normalcy of Facebook Hacking

Everyone has received a suspicious looking email from a friend's email address. The subject line usually consists of phrases like "Check this out!" or "Urgent Employment Information." In the body of the email, an awkward looking URL address is hyper-linked. A savvy internet user notices all these things and simply deletes the email and notifies their friend, rather than clicking on the link. This happens all too frequently in today's world. It has spread to social networking sites such as Facebook, in particular. Random and awkward looking posts emerge onto users timelines with the same wordings as the spam emails. As explained on weekendPicture's corkboard website, Toby Miller gives specifics to his recent experience when it comes to Facebook hacking. He talks about how the post was sent to all his Facebook friends. While he describes how his friends noticed that the post indeed looked strange and not like something he would write, he is one of, probably, millions of people who have had this done to their Facebook page. Hackers continue to find ways to spam accounts.

With today's technology landscape, forums of all varieties exist and people from all over the world can join in on discussions about pretty much anything. Obviously, some of these discussions are not about good and beneficial things to society. As pointed out in this Bloomberg article, hackers are creating and joining forums together to discuss new ways of hacking. Most of their focus is aimed at Facebook. With all the applications available on the social networking site, the opportunities for hacking and spamming are endless. Before being able to use any of these applications, the user has to allow the application to view all the information they have on Facebook. This forum that the Bloomberg article is showcasing is a great tool and resource for hackers. They want to lure the user's Facebook friends to visit the website they've hyper-linked in the post. Facebook is the main focus of these hackers because of the large amount of users they have. The ability to reach a billion people is an offer too good to refuse for hackers. Having these forums will continue the appearance of these awkward and computer harming posts.

Despite all these annoying and troublesome hacking and spamming, it definitely will not be coming to an end anytime soon. While spam filters and internet users become more sophisticated, forums such as the one mentioned above will allow hackers to keep up to speed. There will always be someone who is one more step ahead than the rest. Legitimate websites of corporations and television networks still get hacked to this day. Experiences similar to Toby Miller will become all too frequent. Social implications come into play as employers and family members will have access to an individual's profile. Miller was very worried about how these posts made him look. As hacking continues and becomes a shared experience among users, people on Facebook must know what is a genuine post and what is a hacked post.

 

Privacy concerns also come into play. As consumers continually use their credit cards online for shopping and allowing social media applications to access their personal information, hackers will have more ways to infiltrate users' personal files. There are only so many passwords an individual can remember. When a recipient of these spam emails and posts actually clicks on the link, their personal and computer data are retrieved by the spam site as well. Users of the internet will ultimately have to enter their personal information on a website at some point in their lives if they want to access media content, e-mail, shopping, and other applications. While there are certain symbols, such as the logo of the Better Business Bureau, to showcase that a website is legitimate, not all users know this information. The downside, once again, is that no matter how educated users become, hackers will continue to find new ways to access personal information. It almost seems to be a right of passage for an online user to be spammed or hacked.

BLOG RE-WRITE: Hiding Behind the Screen: Relationships Ending Without Face to Face Interaction

In Sherry Turkle's book Alone Together, one of her main points concerns how people now feel protected by the screens of their phones and computers. With phone calls no longer being essential to communication, text messages are sent. The recipient can take as long as her or she wants to respond. As Turkle explains, "at a screen you feel protected and less burdened by expectations...Alone with your thoughts, yet in contact with an almost tangible fantasy of the other, you feel free to play. At the screen, you have a chance to write yourself into the person you want to be..a telephone call can seem fearsome because it reveals too much" (188). Responses on the computer and text messages are often well thought out and prepared because there is no pressure or sense of urgency. Naturally as communication changes between friends, dating relationships will follow. Break-ups now rarely occur in person. Text messages and Facebook posts now seem to be the norm when it comes to ending a relationship.

To expand on Turkle's observations of hiding behind the screen, a new break-up technique has people literally hiding behind their screen. Instead of formally breaking up, some people now "disappear." They do not respond to text messages, phone calls, or emails. This new trend is called "ghosting." As explained in this Yahoo! relationships article, the person just cuts off all contact with their boyfriend/girlfriend. The emergence of this new trend highlights how the screen is impacting daily lives. While these screens do prove to be convenient and helpful, they are providing ways for people to avoid face to face interactions and create a new identity. Common courtesies are now being thrown out the window. If someone is ever confronted about their "ghosting" behavior, the excuse will always be "my phone was broken" or "I never got those messages." It is a lame excuse but is difficult to refute because there is always the possibility of messages not being sent successfully.

It is difficult to fathom that in an era where essentially everything in our lives is becoming public, disappearing is still possible. The screen has indeed provided protection and the ability to avoid conversing in a way where you have to hear the other person's voice. People can change how they are perceived through online profiles and text message responses. The words they use are carefully thought out. This is exactly what Turkle is referring to in her book. Not only have telephone calls become fearsome, but so has texting a message that will probably not cause a good response. The screen is now also protecting people from revealing bad news at all. Of course it is difficult to share something that may hurt the other person's feelings. The screens now have great power. It seems as though we will never know what someone's first reaction is anymore. People are now, in fact, hiding behind their screens. As the face-to-face contact continues to diminish, people will be extremely dependent on their screens. No one will take the time to visit that person's house or place of work to confront an issue. However the person identifies themself through these screens will ultimately define their reputation. If they disappear, or "ghost," from the screen, it is safe to assume they have disappeared from our life.

Censorship in China: Everyone is Fair Game

In Rebecca MacKinnon's book Consent of the Networked, specifically in the "Copywars" chapter, she describes how certain internet sites are blocked by a country to their citizens. Using China as an example, MacKinnon talks about how this censorship is used to favor the government. Websites that have unflattering material or content that the government does not want their citizens to see are blocked. She goes on to say, "Politicians throughout the democratic world are pushing for stronger censorship and surveillance by Internet companies to stop the theft of intellectual property. They are doing so in response to aggressive lobbying by powerful corporate constituents" (101). Even though that occurs in the democratic world, it also happens in governments such as China. The strong lobbying by the government to limit their citizens' access to content on the internet goes along with the lobbying of corporations. The government is the "powerful corporate constituent" in this case. Up rises such as what occurred in the Arab Spring concern governments like China and they want to limit internet access to prevent the people from viewing anything that expresses displeasure in their views.

China's censorship knows no limits as any website is fair game to get blocked. A very surprising platform was blocked for a few days. As reported in this Wall Street Journal article, citizens of China were unable to access Google this past weekend. Google confirmed that it was not due to any failure of their own equipment. While the reason is unknown, this recent occurrence highlights China's ability to censor and restrict anything they want. The article also points out that The New York Times and Bloomberg News were blocked in China after they both released articles that documented how much Chinese government officials are paid. The conclusion of the article sparks intriguing debate about how doing business with China may be more difficult now because of Beijing's strict censorship laws. It is almost unfathomable that a service like Google, with all its applications, can be blocked to an entire population. Once again, this article reports just the most recent occurrence of the Chinese government using their power. 

This article highlights MacKinnon's claims and descriptions about governments like China and the censorship power they take advantage of. No matter what the website is, even a powerful service such as Google, if there is anything that the government takes objection to, it will be blocked. Google is a part of many individual's daily lives whether it is checking e-mail, looking up directions, or just simply entering a search for information. Perhaps Google's ability to do anything is something that concerns China. The search engine's privacy laws are minimal and much of the internet can be found by starting off with a Google search. This kind of freedom is something that governments such as China will definitely continue to be concerned about as more people around the world gain access to the internet. Certainly, discussions about whether it is morally correct to censor citizens from worldwide material and the implications of these restrictions on global business are caused by this recent occurrence. In addition to those discussions, the most obvious takeaway from the article is that all websites are fair game. No service, however big and popular it may be, is too important to be censored by China.

The Normalcy of Facebook Hacking

Everyone has received a suspicious looking email from a friend's email address. The subject line usually consists of phrases like "Check this out!" or "Urgent Employment Information." In the body of the email, an awkward looking URL address is hyper-linked. A savvy internet user notices all these things and simply deletes the email and notifies their friend, rather than clicking on the link. This happens all too frequently in today's world. It has spread to social networking sites such as Facebook, in particular. Random and awkward looking posts emerge onto users timelines with the same wordings as the spam emails. As explained on weekendPicture's corkboard website, Toby Miller gives specifics to his recent experience when it comes to Facebook hacking. He talks about how the post was sent to all his Facebook friends. While he describes how his friends noticed that the post indeed looked strange and not like something he would write, he is one of, probably, millions of people who have had this done to their Facebook page. Hackers continue to find ways to spam accounts.

With today's technology landscape, forums of all varieties exist and people from all over the world can join in on discussions about pretty much anything. Obviously, some of these discussions are not about good and beneficial things to society. As pointed out in this Bloomberg article, hackers are creating and joining forums together to discuss new ways of hacking. Most of their focus is aimed at Facebook. With all the applications available on the social networking site, the opportunities for hacking and spamming are endless. Before being able to use any of these applications, the user has to allow the application to view all the information they have on Facebook. This forum that the Bloomberg article is showcasing is a great tool and resource for hackers. They want to lure the user's Facebook friends to visit the website they've hyper-linked in the post. Facebook is the main focus of these hackers because of the large amount of users they have. The ability to reach a billion people is an offer too good to refuse for hackers. Having these forums will continue the appearance of these awkward and computer harming posts.

Despite all these annoying and troublesome hacking and spamming, it does not look like it will be coming to an end anytime soon. While spam filters and internet users become more sophisticated, forums such as the one mentioned above will allow hackers to keep up to speed. There will always be someone who is one more step ahead than the rest. Legitimate websites of corporations and television networks still get hacked to this day. Experiences similar to Toby Miller will become all too frequent. Social implications come into play as employers and family members will have access to an individual's profile. Miller was very worried about how these posts made him look. As hacking continues and becomes a shared experience among users, people on Facebook must know what is a genuine post and what is a hacked post. 

Google Maps and the Continued Expansion

I could never imagine trying to drive to an unfamiliar location without Google Maps. Everywhere I go, I am continually dependent on the sheet of paper I printed out with turn by turn directions. If I feel I'm a little lost while on the road, I use my smartphone to help me out. Listening to parents and older adults talk about how they used actual maps seems like rocket science to me. Indeed, this new technology assists drivers tremendously in addition to GPS devices. With other applications available, why is Google the default service that the majority of consumers use? As explained in Siva Vaidhynathan's book Googlization of Everything, specifically the chapter entitled "Googlization of Us," internet users are becoming more and more dependent on Google. Whether or not this is a positive step for society culturally and morally, Google is simply the best and most comprehensive product to use. Personal experiences with Yahoo! maps and MapQuest have not been positive and the preference for Google showcases that other consumers share my sentiment. The new maps application for the iPhone 5 has been under heavy scrutiny for leading drivers in the wrong direction and for not including some streets that do exist. Regardless of the larger issue at hand, the better product always win. The better product is Google.

Google Maps and its Street View has set the bar extremely high for navigation applications. In this recent eWeek article, Google Maps and Street View are expanding even further. Pictures of the Grand Canyon will be included and Google Maps will include information about the terrain and vegetation of the land. The goal Google is trying to accomplish with all this new information is to present an accurate and easy to understand picture of the entire world right to the consumers' fingertips. MapQuest, Yahoo!, and Apple are no where close to achieving this type of product. The fact that those competitors struggle with giving accurate and up-to-date directions showcases what a difficult concept navigation can be. With construction, weather conditions, and traffic information all contributing factors, there is never one way to get to a destination. The amount of options available to the consumer and that the application should present is quite perplexing. The article also describes that Street View is looking to have 150 college campuses on file within the next year. Not only will this serve as a good tool to compare and contrast how different campuses look, it may eliminate college visits all together and totally change the game when it comes to college admissions. Endless possibilities are presented as Google continues its expansion.

Vaidhynathan presents an argument that today's internet user will not have a broad scope of the world because it will only trust what Google presents to them. While many cultural and moral issues arise from this "internet monopoly," Google has the best product. Attempts such as the Bing vs. Google challenge will need to increase if consumers are expected use any other type of internet platform. We see the same in the smartphone business as Samsung and Motorola want customers to know that the Apple iPhone is not the only smartphone on the market. Consumers will always gravitate towards the better product. As bad as it may sound, issues such as dependency and limited perspective are not the forefront of concerns for a typical internet user. The consequences of "Googlization" are unknown and so are the long-term effects. As of right now, my choice for searching content and directions would be Google because the consumer always wants to use the best.

The Cost of Technology's Covenience

In Simson Garfinkel's article, "Privacy and the New Technology: What They Do Know Can Hurt You," the author goes through several realistic scenarios in which privacy is invaded by technology. Whether its using a credit card or allowing a smartphone application to view your location, it is possible to know what someone did all day without even having to ask them. GPS devices make it possible to keep track of a person and know exactly where they are. Garfinkel also elaborates on the cost of this convenient technology. He addresses this by stating "If we want the convenience of paying for a meal by credit card or paying for a toll with an electronic tag mounted on your review mirror, then we must accept the routine collections of our purchases and driving habits in a large database over which we have no control" (324). Basically, by giving all our personal information to these companies, there is no way of knowing where this information will end up. Spam emails and telemarketing phone calls are the usual result as these corporations try to reach out to customers. Garfinkel does not approve of this, claiming "This trade-off is both unnecessary and wrong" (324).

I disagree with Garfinkel's opinion. In a society and business world that is driven by convenience, customers are proving they are willing to pay a little more or give away their information for faster and improved service. People want their food delivered to them, so naturally one will pay a "delivery fee" for the convenience of not having to leave their home and receive their food at their door step. Using a credit card is a convenience as well. It allows a customer to receive goods or services without withdrawing cash from the bank and the ability to pay at a later date. An example of this convenience is that drugstores are now entering the grocery game. As explained in this ABC News article, drugstores such as Walgreens and CVS are now carrying produce and more food items in order to compete with grocery stores. This convenience does indeed come with a price though. In this MSN Money article, prices of various items are compared between several stores. While it explains that CVS had a much lower price than Walgreens for one particular food item, the cereal, it is important to note that you need to be signed up for the CVS rewards program to obtain that price. In exchange for that reduced price, the customer is giving CVS their personal information and allowing them to track what items they are purchasing.

While Garfinkel's claim is a nice little statement defending privacy, it is difficult to understand how these conveniences will be served without this trade-off. The information that these companies are obtaining from this data collecting is crucial to their success. They are receiving great feedback and data showing where their strengths and weaknesses are; what their customers like and don't like. The survey fast food restaurants encourage you to take and in return you receive a free item is not a fair trade. The company is receiving this important feedback in exchange for one free item. That's a rip off for the customer! Companies should be paying more for this insight and data collection. Allowing companies to track our purchasing history in exchange for better prices for us is a great deal. Companies should be giving away much more than discounts and coupons for access into our likes and dislikes. This is where Garfinkel misses the point. Customers should take advantage of this and demand more than just a free cookie or 10% off their next purchase for this information.

Recognizing Illegal Websites

As the internet becomes more accessible to people around the world, the opportunities for networking become greater. Users share scholarly articles and YouTube videos with one another instantly. It is no longer necessary to physically "show" a friend a video. All that is needed is to email them or post a link on their Facebook or MySpace page. In addition to sharing, users can download content and store it on their personal hard drive, allowing them to watch it anytime and as many times as they want. Some of the content is expensive so naturally the advanced technology has created some loop-holes that allow some people to obtain this content for free. Illegal music downloading sites and movie viewing sites are appearing to eliminate the sales of DVDs and CDs. Lawrence Lessig notes in his book Remix that "Most in the industry— at least circa 2002— believed that 'piracy' was unavoidable given the 'nature' of digital technologies. Most thus believed the industry faced a choice: drive digital to the periphery and save the industry, or allow it to become mainstream, and watch the industry fail" (40). While Lessig states that Steve Jobs' innovations have saved the industry, these illegal musical downloading websites still receive millions of users a day.

While the ruling on whether or not some of these music websites are legal or not is extremely fuzzy and grey, they are becoming a widely acknowledged tool in the marketing industry. There are a lot of advertisements on these websites because, obviously, so many people access the site everyday. Advertising on these websites definitely comes with risks. According to this recent article, big companies Samsung and Coca-Cola removed their advertisements from a popular music piracy website based in Vietnam. This website, called Zing, has had many multinational companies advertise on their website. The article analyzes the situation by stating that these big corporations' advertisements have added legitimacy to the website and this has upset the artists who feel money is being taken away from them. After Coca-Cola and Samsung were notified of this sentiment, they removed their ads stating they want to respect and support the artists.

While their publicly released statements sound nice, this is obviously a move by these companies to save their reputation. Even though there are millions of users on this website, big companies probably do not want to be associated with websites like Zing. Even though this may be a business savvy move, Lessig's observation about the industry's opinion in 2002 that this may have to just be an accepted way of technology (music sharing) comes full circle. For big businesses like Coca-Cola and Samsung, they are already very established and have enough exposure as it is. For smaller companies looking to thrive in this economy, advertisements on websites like Zing may be the right way to go. The exposure is great and it is showing an acknowledgement that no matter what the laws may be, this technology is becoming the new norm. Lawsuits seem to be either pending or in the process in all of these matters and it is difficult to know what exactly is illegal. The safest thing is to buy CDs or use iTunes. However, as Lessig notes, the culture is always changing and transforming and these new sharing opportunities significantly increase the ways users can obtain many forms of content.

Exposure on YouTube: The Great Relationship Between Producers and Consumers

When kids hang out together, playing video games and watching TV are certainly some of the most preferred activities. With the emergence of YouTube, many hours are spent where two kids are sitting in front of a computer randomly searching for funny and entertaining content. The concept of YouTube is simple: anyone can create an account and upload appropriate and legal videos of their choosing. There are many dollars to be made off this product. As Jean Burgess and Joshua Green explain in their article "The Entrepeneurial Vlogger: Participatory Culture Beyond the Profession-Amateur Divide," there are three main contributors to YouTube. The three groups are: big media companies (such as the National Football League and recording studios), Web-TV companies (such as NoGood TV and JumpTV), and "ordinary" users. Burgess and Green also describe how YouTube disrupts the producer-consumer divide. Consumers are now producing their own content for other consumers instead of the professional entertainers. While Burgess and Green find this detrimental to the entertainment industry, one recording studio is using this to their advantage to make money and promote young artists.

Ark Music Factory is a musical production company. What makes them different from a typical recording studio is that they do not go out and look for talent. As stated on their Wikipedia page, young artists come to them and pay $2,000-$4,000 for their services. Ark Music Factory will then help the client write a song, produce a music video, and promote the song. YouTube is obviously their main outlet when it comes to showing these videos. Their most notorious client is Rebecca Black and her music video for the song "Friday" received millions of views in a short period of time on YouTube. The catchy tune is loved and hated across the world. After this popularity, Rebecca Black then went on to join another record label with the help of Ryan Seacrest. Taking a look at the Ark Music Factory website, there are other artists they are trying to expose. Abby Victor is one of the artists who is profiled and while she may not be very well known to the everyday internet user, her videos still have four to five million views. 

Rebecca Black's success is a great example of how the producer-consumer relationship works harmoniously through YouTube. Many people get noticed on YouTube and go on to join and sign contracts with these big production companies. The production company is benefiting from YouTube and the tremendous tool it provides. Comedians, musicians, and freak-talents take advantage of this outlet. The Ark Music Factory is a unique contributor to YouTube. They are not necessarily the ordinary user but are not quite up to the standards of a big media company. Furthermore, Burgess and Green's uneasiness about YouTube is detrimental to artists. Copyright infringement is definitely an issue but that goes along with illegally downloading music. As technology advances, so will the ability to abuse it. With recording labels profiting off their newly found recruits and the artists getting the exposure they crave, YouTube is the perfect tool and the successful relationship continues.

Hiding Behind the Screen: Relationships Ending Without Face to Face Interaction

In Sherry Turkle's book Along Together, one of her main points concerns how people now feel protected by the screens of their phones and computers. With phone calls no longer being essential to communication, text messages are sent. The recipient can take as long as they want to respond. As Turkle explains, "at a screen you feel protected and less burdened by expectations...Alone with your thoughts, yet in contact with an almost tangible fantasy of the other, you feel free to play. At the screen, you have a chance to write yourself into the person you want to be..a telephone call can seem fearsome because it reveals too much" (188). Responses on the computer and text messages are often well thought out and prepared because there is no pressure or sense of urgency. Naturally as communication changes between friends, dating relationships will follow. Break-ups now rarely occur in person. Text messages and Facebook posts now seem to be the norm when it comes to ending a relationship.

To expand on Turkle's observations of hiding behind the screen, a new break-up technique has people literally hiding behind their screen. Instead of formally breaking up, some people now "disappear." They do not respond to text messages, phone calls, or emails. This new trend is called "ghosting." As explained in this Yahoo! article, the person just cuts off all contact with their boyfriend/girlfriend. The emergence of this new trend highlights how the screen is impacting daily lives. While these screens do prove to be convenient and helpful, they are providing ways for people to avoid face to face interactions and create a new identity. Common courtesies are now being thrown out the window. If someone is ever confronted about their "ghosting" behavior, the excuse will always be "my phone was broken" or "I never got those messages." It is a lame excuse but is difficult to refute because there is always the possibility of messages not being sent successfully.

It is difficult to fathom that in an era where essentially everything in our lives is becoming public, disappearing is still possible. The screen has indeed provided protection and the ability to avoid conversing in a way where you have to hear the other person's voice. People can change how they are perceived through online profiles and text message responses. The words they use are carefully thought out. It seems as though we will never know what someone's first reaction is anymore.