Class Acts

An online presence is basically the inputs and reputation(s) that a person has online: the sum of their activities trackable to certain online roles or avatars. Note the incompleteness of such an identity: Wellman asks, “Will networked individualism deconstruct holistic individual identities? A person would become the sum of her roles, and need to present multiple personas to the world. This compartmentalization of personal life—within the household, at work, and in communities — may create insecure milieus where people do not fully know each other.” This is a fairly straighforward question that nevertheless has no clear way of judging an answer.

In what ways is an online identity different from an identity as a member of offline communities? Entry and exit costs are a point worth considering. Many online communities, for example a collection of people who routinely post on a message board or blog, have very low entry and exit costs. They are open for anyone to join, whether in a reading or contributing capacity. Individuals will post often and make their name recognizable for a while, and then drop out without explanation. For those who make (or aspire to make) a living or a serious pursuit out of internet contribution, consistent and popular contributions are a must; but in the majority of cases, people contribute for fun and abruptly stop when it is no longer fun or affordable. Among those who have the technology, time and interest are the limiting elements here, not usually money or social bonds; and time and interest are volatile and personal things. Online anonymity is almost a kind of Ring of Gyges, in that it separates consequences from social behavior and standing. Its results in internet society are, on the one hand, flame wars, spam, and a certain level of disconnect, since people cannot be trusted as easily to fulfill commitments; but on the other hand, a new level of personal pride that manifests itself in grammar nazis, Wikipedia editors, and collective rating efforts like Digg that place trust in large numbers of people to display good sense in very limited and specific roles. This kind of participation has instilled into users an individual sense of duty to impartiality and accuracy rather than mere opinion, in the case of Wikipedia; and a gratifying sense of taste sharing and mutual informing in the case of Digg.

Wellman talks about handling conflicts in his three models: in Little Boxes, solutions include coup, revolt, and irrevocable departure; in Glocalization, back-biting and keeping distance; and in Networked Individualism, avoidance and exit. This reflects the decreasing exit costs associated with increasing despatialization and choice over where and how one interacts with people. However, Wellman claims that when going in that direction, the cost of entry actually increases – or at least, joining in becomes harder due to interactions being harder to observe. Although I might agree that on a hypothetical level, access can be more thoroughly restricted when random in-person encounters are ruled out, on a practical level, one’s overall joining-in options are nevertheless expanded greatly due to more content and groups if nothing else. The shockingly wide range of anonymous-friendly or simple to enter communities supports me here, I believe.