Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Scenes from the Class Struggle in Cyberspace
The Internet ethnographer danah boyd takes a look at class divisions in the online world. A pattern emerges: The "good" kids tend to go to Facebook, the "bad" ones to MySpace.
Facebook was framed as being about college. This was what was in the press. This was what college students said. Facebook is what the college kids did. Not surprisingly, college-bound high schoolers desperately wanted in.
In addition to the college framing, the press coverage of MySpace as dangerous and sketchy alienated "good" kids. Facebook seemed to provide an ideal alternative. Parents weren't nearly as terrified of Facebook because it seemed "safe" thanks to the network-driven structure. (Of course, I've seen more half-naked, drink-carrying high school students on Facebook than on MySpace, but we won't go there.)
thoreau|6.27.07 @ 8:28AM|#
(Of course, I've seen more half-naked, drink-carrying high
school students on Facebook than on MySpace, but we won't go
there.)
We're rapidly approaching a day when typing that sentence will be
an admission of a crime that gets your name on a list.
You think I'm joking, but surely you've heard of the teens who took
pictures of each other naked and got in trouble for possession of
child pr0n. It's only a matter of time before they say that "half
naked counts too" and "knowledge of a minor in possession of
alcohol" is declared a felony as well.
|6.27.07 @ 8:32AM|#
I hear ya on that thoreau
On that same note, Facebook is also much more private than MySpace,
because you cannot view a person's profile without their approval.
This makes users feel more secure about what content they post, and
may explain (in part) boyd's observations re: half-naked, drunk,
etc.
Sandy|6.27.07 @ 8:33AM|#
"Good" and "Bad" and "in" and "out" is not really "class" per
se. But then since Facebook started as a college-only service and
MySpace was open to everybody, I'd expect the latter to be more
variegated.
Then again, I always thought the median MySpace user was a
19-year-old faux lesbian goth chick, but...
|6.27.07 @ 8:39AM|#
I used it in the past, but myspace is far too ugly and unorganized for my tastes. Most of the mails and friends requests I get are spam mail anyways...
Lobster Lass|6.27.07 @ 8:57AM|#
I only use Facebook, and I only provide Warren with access to see what I have to show!
|6.27.07 @ 9:03AM|#
You think I'm joking
Actually, I think you're doing the standard drama queen "we're
becoming a police state" act that is the norm here.
|6.27.07 @ 9:08AM|#
Hohensee -
Amen. MySpace is so hideous I can barely stand it. I got an account
to supplement my Facebook account at the request of some of my
friends who only use MySpace, but even with my extremely
above-average computer fluency I still could barely navigate the
site, and have yet to see anyone successfully make it not look
ugly. To boot, with all the extra crap people put on their pages,
even on my broadband connection it takes forever to load some of
the pages.
Randolph Carter|6.27.07 @ 9:15AM|#
Yeah - Facebook was started as an Ivies-only social networking
site, then it was expanded to NESCAC schools (yay, I was in on the
ground floor), then to the rest of the rabble. Just joking about
the rabble.
The guy that created Facebook was the freshman roomate of a friend
of mine at Harvard. Apparently all he did was drink vodka, blow
lines, and IM people.
|6.27.07 @ 9:17AM|#
We're rapidly approaching a day when typing that sentence
will be an admission of a crime that gets your name on a
list.
Well, we're definitely at the point where teens get ratted out
after posting pictures online of them drinking.
Related local story here.
Parents complained to the Winnacunnet Cooperative School Board
on Monday about a board member who allegedly called attention to
Internet photos of underage students drinking alcohol after the
prom.
|6.27.07 @ 9:27AM|#
Come on thoreau, you're supposed to be the voice of, uh,
rationality around here. (I have to avoid saying the other word,
because I don't want to contribute to the intoxication of the
thread)
While the case of those two kids getting charged with child porn
was ridiculous, I don't see how it's a stepping stone to
illegalizing images of teenagers with exposed bellies.
|6.27.07 @ 9:32AM|#
Since we've already had the mandatory libertarian
Chicken-Little-isms, it's only appropriate that MP chimes in with
the "I don't think it should be illegal so everyone has to act as
if it isn't" point of view.
If you post pictures of yourself engaged in illegal activity on the
friggin' world wide web, any consequences of that are your own
fault. Period. There's no constitutional right to be an idiot.
dhex|6.27.07 @ 9:42AM|#
yeah myspace is an aesthetic hell on earth. which would make
sense of danah boyd's analysis, since guidos and homies are also an
aesthetic hell on earth.
demand kurve?
also i don't think thoreau was being chicken little at all. but
that's just me.
|6.27.07 @ 9:45AM|#
dhex,
Any time anyone uses a phrase like "We're rapidly
approaching the day..." is cause to treat what follows those words
with caution.
|6.27.07 @ 9:46AM|#
"I don't think it should be illegal so everyone has to act
as if it isn't" point of view
Stop talking to the MP in your head. I never meant to imply any
such thing.
|6.27.07 @ 9:51AM|#
Lobster Lass,
Aww shucks [blushes]. You know I'm always glad to see what you got.
Well except for that case of crabs you posted last year.
JohnD|6.27.07 @ 9:56AM|#
"There's no constitutional right to be an idiot."
Actually, Crimethink, I beleive there must be because they are
everywhere.
To paraphase a recent movie... "I see stupid people.. and they
don't even know they are stupid."
SugarFree|6.27.07 @ 10:28AM|#
Viewing a MySpace page is usually a form of violent eye-rape, so
that explains much "class" division for me. Much like the
livejournal/blogger.com division. People self-organize quite easily
(social science-types always want to chalk this up sort of "ism")
and when one social networking site looks like a jumbled mess of
digital vomit / goth poetry slam then people who don't want that go
somewhere else.
As for chicken-little-ism, most here crying foul are quite content
for people to have a boot at their throat when it comes to
reproductive or economic freedoms. It can be hard to recognize a
problem when you are a big part of it.
|6.27.07 @ 10:50AM|#
MP,
You were lamenting the fact that kids who posted pictures of
themselves drinking illegally got in trouble for it, and acting as
if this is a stop on the road to totalitarianism. I don't think
that was just in my head.
SugarFree,
Are you referring to me as one of those crying foul? I can see
where you'd think I'm OK with limiting "reproductive freedoms"
(though, aside from abortion, which is a special case, I'm pretty
much for keeping the govt uninvolved with reproduction or the lack
thereof), but economic freedom? How am I content with a boot at the
throat as far as economic freedom?
|6.27.07 @ 10:51AM|#
JohnD, good point. Perhaps I should have said, "There's no
constitutional right to be protected from the consequences of your
idiocy."
But, that's not as catchy.
|6.27.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Soneone said "Facebook is also much more private than MySpace,
because you cannot view a person's profile without their
approval."
Not entirely true I'm afraid. Check out this article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/26/sniffing_private_facebook_info/
Since people think their profile is private (wrongly) they may
include more information.
|6.27.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Grotius,
I dunno, it doesn't seem to be scanning. Maybe I sent it through
the washing machine one too many times. ;-)
|6.27.07 @ 11:10AM|#
You were lamenting the fact that kids who posted pictures of
themselves drinking illegally got in trouble for it, and acting as
if this is a stop on the road to totalitarianism. I don't think
that was just in my head.
No, I wasn't lamenting anything. I was simply commenting on the
current consequences of teens posting images online. It was not my
intent to imply a slippery slope argument by quoting thoreau.
SugarFree|6.27.07 @ 11:12AM|#
crimey,
That last one was for Danny McTroll, who thinks every throat needs
a boot. On abortion, we can agree to disagree...
As for thoreau's suggestion, how far off it is from reality? In
many jurisdictions it is a crime to view a drawing of an underage
person nude or engaged in sexual activities. There's a goddamn
thoughtcrime, if there ever was one. Is it such a fantastic idea
that bra and panty shots might be considered child porn at some
point soon?
Imagine if the police were called by a computer repair service
about a guy who had hundreds of MySpace / Facebook half-dressed bra
and panty images on his HD? Don't you think that right now they'd
bend over backwards to him to find something to charge him with,
even if it was an exposed nipple in the background or a outlined
aureole in a wet t-shirt? Even if there's no nudity at all, isn't
it likely that a zealous cop or prosecutor would at least take a
run at indicting him?
It's not that thoreau is being paranoid, he's accurately describing
how hysterical this country has become about this subject. I'd
rather listen to chicken-little all day than hear "if only we had"
even once.
|6.27.07 @ 11:19AM|#
crimethink -
I don't think thoreau's point was entirely alarmist. I mean, the
half-naked counts too idea is a bit silly, but the "knowledge of a
minor in possession of alcohol" isn't that far off the current
thinking about Marijuana. It's an extension of the culture where
fear dictates the application and interpretation of the law.
One example from around where I live is that a man was charged
with, among other things, "endangering the welfare of a child"
because he had marijuana plants in his house, where he also had an
infant child. Heaven forbid the child should see the plant! That
would corrupt it for life! Ridiculous.
Thoreau was cautioning the ethnographer with admission of knowledge
of illegal activity...it's not that far out of the realm of
reality.
|6.27.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Imagine if the police were called by a computer repair
service about a guy who had hundreds of MySpace / Facebook
half-dressed bra and panty images on his HD?
That would almost certainly be enough probable cause to turn his
life inside out.
I would only argue against Dr T's use of "rapidly". We are
definitely going in the direction he indicates.
|6.27.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Despite her caveat that it wasn't an academic paper, I found
myself wishing it was, and wishing it was a bit more rigorous. Most
of the standard objections--as we see in this thread--to MySpace
are aesthetic, and while she mentions this and suggests that
aesthetics are normed by class, she doesn't really develop the idea
well. I suspect that one of the ways this happens is by the kind of
jobs college graduates tend to have after college: working at
offices. From ten feet away, MySpace looks like MySpace. Facebook,
on the other hand, looks halfway legitimate. It also has the
advantage of not playing hip hop songs for the entire office to
hear.
I hope she expands upon the topic. It's an interesting one.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.27.07 @ 11:35AM|#
To paraphase a recent movie... John, you're right, they don't even know they're dumb.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.27.07 @ 11:36AM|#
I guess I better get my sister on the horn and tell her to get her daughter off of MySpace. Post Haste.
|6.27.07 @ 11:40AM|#
OK, MySpace is for ne'er do wells, FaceBook is for pre-Yuppies. So where should us middle aged, "sideways" dinosaurs construct our e-selfs?
VM|6.27.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Why at H&R!
You can create a myriad of different onscreen personalities. Some
will get exposed, while others will get celebrated.
And the best part: they're all bogus! yay!
thoreau|6.27.07 @ 11:42AM|#
So where should us middle aged, "sideways" dinosaurs
construct our e-selfs?
Blogs.
SugarFree|6.27.07 @ 11:47AM|#
carrick,
Not to be an ass, but if you think my scenario is likely, then
thoreau is not describing the future, he's describing the now.
Hell, if anything, he's running a little behind the curve.
|6.27.07 @ 11:47AM|#
It's not that thoreau is being paranoid, he's accurately
describing how hysterical this country has become about this
subject.
All the young whipper-snappers here need to google "mcmartin" to
see what happens when "its for the children" meets a DA like
Nifong.
|6.27.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Not to be an ass, but if you think my scenario is likely,
then thoreau is not describing the future, he's describing the now.
Hell, if anything, he's running a little behind the
curve.
In return and not to be an ass ;-)
A collection of photographs of underage people in underwear is not
equivalent (yet) to posting a line on a blog that says you have
seen photos of underage people in underwear on a website.
VM|6.27.07 @ 11:55AM|#
think: Martha Stewart case.
She got busted simply for saying something, right?
(or apologies if I've totally misunderstood her case)
|6.27.07 @ 12:00PM|#
I don't think thoreau's point was entirely alarmist. I mean,
the half-naked counts too idea is a bit silly
I don't think it's that silly especially when you consider the
fact that
already states and cities are currently trying to expand "indecent
exposure" laws to cover wearing your pants to low and exposing any
underwear.
Part of the text of a Louisiana bill:
"It shall be unlawful for any person to appear in public
wearing his pants below his waist and thereby exposing his skin or
intimate clothing."
People are already trying to treat underwear as something
indecent
|6.27.07 @ 12:00PM|#
If thoreau is describing the now, then why isn't Jesse Walker's
name on a list?
I mean, I'm sure it is on a list, but not that kind of
list.
thoreau|6.27.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Isn't saying that you've seen something online an admission that those images might have been in your cache at some point? And if having those images in your cache falls into a legal gray area, then it is arguably an admission of a possible crime.
|6.27.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Isn't saying that you've seen something online an admission
that those images might have been in your cache at some point? And
if having those images in your cache falls into a legal gray area,
then it is arguably an admission of a possible crime.
When seeing someone in their underwear officially becomes a crime,
then you would be right.
These kinds of photos are ubiquitous today (or so I've heard).
Saying that you have run across them is not a clear indicator that
you have an "unnatural" interest in seeing underage people in
pr0n.
Taking the time to download those images and to save them your
computer would show an intent that implies that interest. In
today's climate, that is probably enough to justify a search for
stuff that really is illegal.
However, given the prosecution of the teacher that suffered the
pop-ups in the classroom caused by spyware, I am not totally sure
that inadvertant viewing of kids in undies will stand up as a
defense.
|6.27.07 @ 12:34PM|#
thoreau,
It seems to me that even if such a prosecution were undertaken it
is as likely to cause a negative reaction from the public, etc.
|6.27.07 @ 12:35PM|#
ChicagoTom
That's impressive, and disappointing, to find out.
Next thing you know they'll be making men wear shirts at the beach,
or arresting us for wearing our bathing suits below our belly
buttons.
Seriously though, are these people really serious? Underwear as
"indecent?" What about Pajamas?
SugarFree|6.27.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Grotius,
Wouldn't they just yell CH%LD PR0N and get the public to fall in
line? That's pretty much what they do now.
In fact, when two underage kids are charged with child pornography
distribution for taking pictures of each other, I think all bets
are off...
Caroline Jack|6.27.07 @ 1:06PM|#
The postscript to this is worth a mention: commenters on danah's site have taken her observations about class and interpreted them as racist. danah also mentions that class is difficult for Americans to discuss. Maybe it's because discussions of class get misinterpreted by the public as being about race?
|6.27.07 @ 1:10PM|#
I think its too early to make these sort of comparisions. Facebook started in 04 as a college only social networking site. MySpace didn't have a whole lot of penetration before then either, so for college kids in the 04-05 generation, Facebook became THE social netwoking site. Myspace was viewed as crap that HS kids did and looked down upon. The problem Facebook faced however, was the fact that unlike the 04-05 generation of college kids, future college students were going to come from HS kids that did have a lot of exposure to Myspace. Indeed, as time moved on, they'd be facing kids who've been using Myspace as their primary social netwoking site for half their lives before comming to college. So Facebook faced the dilema of remaing exclusive and hoping these Myspace Kids could be won over, or opening themselves up to the filthy masses and losing their prime selling point (other than layout design). So I'm not buying this comparison until more time goes by. Facebook has a legacy of users who HAD to be in college to sign up. That skews the numbers. Now that Facebook and Myspace are both open to everybody, lets wait a few years and see how the demographics shake out. If Facebook can market itself as the Abecrombie and Fitch of Social Networking, where black and brown faces need not apply, I think they'd be on to something (in terms of creating a niche where they could survive). But I think its just as likely Facebook fades in to obscurity.
|6.27.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Boyd freely admits in her piece that the concept of "class" as traditionally understood is largely inapplicable to the USA in the here and now, and that the 'class' distinction she's chronicling is more about the "good" kids versus the "bad" kids, though there is an economic overlay there. Class has never been about economic status, but about overt societal structures that inhibit economic movement.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245