Humans behave differently online than offline are we to believe many of the conference speakers at PICNIC. Not only do people behave more rudely online according to Charles Leadbeater, but they also tend to tell a lot more lies than in ”real” life according to Genevieve Bell. Amidst the business suits and techno optimism that seemed to be highly present at the PICNIC event, the talk by the anthropologist Genevieve Bell gave a refreshing point of view on people and information and communication technologies. As Bell informs, telling lies can be a conscious prevention of reality, a way of self-deception and a way of coping at the same time. In a world where reputation and recognition is understood to be the main motivational factors for contributing content online it its really is. The odds may not be so great if you’re an accountant at the pensions’ fund and weigh 10 kilos too much. The chance is somebody might see you as boring and ugly. The nice thing about the Internet is therefore the possibility of creating the person you really want to be or hope to become.
So the Internet is great for self-presentation. It lets people be creative, contribute and share information. I think Bell touched upon something interesting when she questioned how we actually construct our self-presentation politics. How do we decide on the kind of personal information that seems to be the right kind of information? What kind of knowledge is it that directs people in knowing what is socially acceptable at any given time? Which television shows to say one likes in order to be ’cool’, or even worse, which kind of television shows that aren’t cool, so as to show the world that one is cool because one doesn’t like the cool stuff?
It may not really matter whether the things we say are lies or truths. A lot of the talks at PICNIC showed that it sometimes just comes down to what other people think of you. The Internet has provided a platform for self-presentation on a large scale. Who am I in the eyes of the other? It is hard not to compare Bell’s question to that central to Lacanian psychoanalysis: “Who am I for the Other”? The other as in another individual and the other with a big O, society and the symbolic as a whole. Would we blog, create profiles on Facebook, write Twitter posts if no-one would comment or recognize one’s contributions; or even more profoundly, give us the assurance that someone listens, that there are others out there and that we actually exist?
Web 2.0 seems to have nurtured a feedback society. All we really want is some kind of assurance. But how much feedback are we willing to give others? The Black and White maniacs’ group on Flickr may serve as a case in point. This group only allows people to participate if they immediately after posting a black and white photo also provide a “proper” comment on the previous two photos that were posted. So, how do you get people to play nicely Clay Shirky asks? There are some interesting dynamics at work when considering participation as a form of feedback negotiation. How much feedback-participation is needed in order to receive some feedback? Just as we are constantly engaged in self-presentation politics online, our participation and content contribution may be part of a strategic practice involving the exchange of recognition. As a social dilemma the inconsistency between looking for attention and paying attention constitutes a core dilemma of the online (and offline) participatory culture.
No items
| buy tickets here
