After class today, post a comment below of at least 250 words summarizing your reading, lecture, and in-class social media mapping activity.
Some background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_social_media
7 thoughts on “Laurie McNeill and John David Zuern’s “Online Lives 2.0””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Laurie McNeill and John David Zuernâs âOnline Lives 2.0â
In Online lives 2.0 by Laurie McNeill and John David Zuern explore the list of online/biographical resources that continue to expand. This includes professional networking sites like LinkedIn, dating sites like Match.com and eHarmony, and the personals sections of sites like Craigslist, all of which feature autobiographical profiles, as well as the biographical entries in Wikipedia. In March 2, 2015 issue of The New Yorker âRemember when, on the internet, nobody knew who you were?â was lampooned, Internet users felt what the cartoonist was expressing, no longer were they shielded behind an electronic veil of anonymity, taking on any persona they pleased. Since then, web based social networking sites from Facebook to Twitter have adopted technologies that build profiles of their users, tailoring advertisement and keeping personal histories that go back more than a decade. While some Internet users appreciate the convenience these digital identities bring, others wonder about how much information is being kept about them, and how this information is being shared. The lives of online users have been exposed to the actual and algorithmic glare of potentially thousands of âvisitors,â from critical networks to governmental agencies.
Looking back to Biographyâs 2003 âOnline Lives,â the McNeill and Zuern reflect and analyze new developments in Internet-based auto/biographical production since the introduction of Web 2.0. They outline recurring themes in the essays in Online Lives 2.0, which include the merging of public and private life, online self-curation, the socioeconomic dimensions of online self-presentation, and the filtering and falsification of lives in social media. Online environments are rapidly changing our understanding of what it means to construct a life story and what identity itself might come to mean in virtual worlds. Web 2.0 offers user new to express themselves, with boundless varieties of lifestyles with which they can experiment. The advent and rise of network interactivity mediated a many-to-many structure.
In the article Online Lives 2.0 by Laurie McNeill and John Zuern tells us about the list of resources we get from the digital world constantly updates. Things like Craig lists and other networking websites will constantly develop into unlimited databases due to evolution and constant new technologies. Wikipedia itself is a perfect example as life goes on there comes new things and it constantly gets updated every single day. Websites like Facebook and other networking social sites gives you the chance to make your own profile and describe yourself to the likes and other things. However while tailoring your information these types of information can be shared. For example if you post things in the past and forget people can check up on your past history and youâll never know who exactly clicked on your information due to how people are all anonymous online. People get exposed from Facebook and their algorithms. When you have mutual friends people get matched up with entirely new stranger that theyâve never known and the only people they know are the friends in common which makes it very dangerous online. The sensitive information thatâs released to the public is shown even to all the government agencies. Online environments have change. Our identities online is starting to mean something. If you do something online it could potentially derail your career if the action you do online is very insulting or controversial. The merge between both online life and physical has started to blend. Social media is a great way to represent your physical self and digitally you need to be aware of what you type or else there will be consequences.
In the article âOnline Lives 2.0â Laurie McNeill and John David Zuern bring up the idea of mobilizing online media to represent your own life. âOnline Livesâ was originally published in 2003, and it was a special issue of the journal Biography. In this issue of the journal any sort of self-representation that was available on the internet, was examined. A decade later Online 2.0 was made, and it still questioned how individuals use media to express their personal lives. Some of the resources that were looked upon were the autobiographical component of certain websites such as professional sites like LinkedIn, dating sites like Match.com and eHarmony, and even sites like Craigslist. Entries on wikipedia and even the sims games is a place for biographical production. In the article, Sidonie Smith brought up the idea that with the new technologies that Web 2.0 make accessible to us, âmultitasking, search trails, and networked sociality are all effects of human-machine-ensemble exchanges that structure everyday life in developed and developing countries, to what extent do these phenomena affect the organization of consciousness?â By this, Smith believes that these new technologies present things differently to us as opposed to print, film, photography and live performances. In 2003, many people voiced their concerns about what they believe is a âcrumbling public/private binary.â The issue between public and private has created two different views of the web. Some view it as âa space for diversity and dialogueâ, while others view it as âan unseemly confessional that encouraged too much sharing by too many peopleâ, which ends up violating the boundaries of orderliness.
Laurie McNeill and John David Zuernâs âOnline Lives 2.0â, published in the Spring 2015 Biography, explores the progression of the internet from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, and the resulting changes in online auto/biographical technologies. Web 1.0 was an HTML based interface that consisted mostly of personal websites and portals/directories. Web 1.0 was used primarily by those who had the technical know-how to publish and retrieve online information, and is the precursor of Web 2.0.
One of the major differences noted by McNeill and Zuern between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 revolves mostly around Web 2.0âs usability. Shifting from a static interface to a more dynamic content management system (CMS), Web 2.0 was user friendly and easier to use than Web 1.0. Enabling the average user to do more than share information online, they were able to have more interactive experiences on the web via blogs, social media, etc. through the online profiles created that provides access to these websites.
Some users seized the opportunity to connect/reconnect with others using social networking sites like Facebook, but with this affordance, there also came the constraint of straddling the fine line of the public/private binary in an online world driven by âmediated exhibitionismâ and âmediated voyeurismâ. Other users choose to use the autobiographical technology to reinvent themselves, while on a mission to create a new lifestyle for themselves, whether real or imagined through what is known as auto/biographical curation.
And then there are those who live a split image lifestyle, where they present one version of themselves to their online communities, but are living an entirely different, sometimes painful, experience, as was the case for the 19-year-old student athlete, Madison Holleran, who committed suicide. Although shocking to those who had access to her online profile and persona, this is something that frequently occurs in real life where people consciously decide who will have frontstage and backstage access to areas of their lives.
In Online lives 2.0 by Laurie McNeill and John David Zuern, Mcneil and Zuerm discuss the expansion of online resources. This includes online resources like LinkedIn, dating sites like Match.com and eHarmony, as well as Craigslist.com. These websites all feature autobiographical profiles on their sites and biographical entries in Wikipedia. Through these platforms one can create any persona that you please. Online environments are constantly changing, we went from just one or two platforms of social media to now having more and more. Although these environments are constantly changing one should always be conscious when posting anything on such platforms. Once it is on the internet it can never be erased and thatâs why one should take caution before they post because it can be traced back to them. Many people have voiced their concern what they believe to be âcrumbling public/private binaryâ. The issue between public and private on the web has created an issue. Some view it as a space for diversity and dialogue while others see it as an encouragement to share too much. This is where you must watch what you write because what you write can cause further problems with employment and such. The lives of online users can easily be exposed. Many people love the convenience of these online profiles, while others are concerned about how much information is kept about them. Platforms like Instagram, twitter, and Facebook have tailored to their users allowing them to write biographies about oneself and put other personal information online. These platforms are a great way to represent yourself but one should be conscious on what they post.
In this article âOnline Lives 2.0: Introductionâ by Laurie McNeill and Kohn David Zuern talks about making your personal identity online. This explains this by using two examples web 1.0 and 2.0. Web 1.0 is a passive and it relatively stays the same compared to web 2.0, which is active. In web 2.0 you can write, edit, and change various things. Web 1.0 is something that everyone uses and itâs made by one individual person. Web 1.0 is constricted there arenât a lot of variables, thereâs no differentiation everything is the same for everyone. Whereas web 2.0 is designed for the user, you can build relationships through blogging and social media. Itâs a place where knowledge is shared and dispersed. Weâre allowed to use hashtags and filters to express things the way we want them to be seen in web 2.0. A downfall of web 2.0 is that itâs much easier to find out who you are now on the Internet. For example, when you put your personal information on Facebook anyone can look you up and find out who theyâre looking for through the information you provide the network. In web 2.0 itâs about the search and being able to explore and find new things that youâre interested in. There is no line between boundaries and your personal and public life. Society has chosen to adapt and become like everyone else for the new advancements in technologies. We always follow the cool next new trend thatâs coming out.
In the article “Online Live 2.0 The Introduction” by Laurie McNeill and John David Zeurn published under the title BIOGRAPHY which expounds the auto/biographical technologies affording resources to update the illusory “face” of online identity. The focus is on how people tell about themselves and others. Qualities of constructing identity for ourselves virtually with the use digital life narratives (based on Professor McNeil’s research) – a way to represent our own lives to an unseen audience, to let Internet surfers see our “best self” or our “different self”. Professor Zeurn’s research is on literary criticism and theory, fiction and life writing and electronic literature – a special kind of writing that is designed to experienced interactively through a computer or tablet. Reflections of ourselves online doesn’t project how we are seen in reality. Professional networking websites like LinkedIn, dating sites, match.com eHarmony leverage power on setting up your own profile. Describing yourself the way you want others to acknowledge involves tailoring information can be shared. Entries of Wikipedia perpetually adds new information that gets posted and revised daily. Web 2.0 is fundamentally different than Web 1.0 for there was more of an opportunity for anonymity and self-creation online that in the early days we hadn’t developed a high degree of literacy in these new technologies. At the early stages of Web 2.0 people were much more easily to get away with complete fabrications, hoaxes. For reasons known to those concerned it writing objectively about ourselves or masquerade a false mask of sorts, blurring what be distinguished as true or untrue. Online environments are constantly changing, what was once formerly exclusive is now open to manipulation by players like Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook.