Cross-Cultural Blog

Danah Boyd went out on a limb for this research project of hers. In class we critiqued the strengths and weaknesses of her rhetorical approach, but after class I thought of a different approach to the article.
On the one hand, Boyd is scholarly academic, and on the other, she is an Internet junkie. In the world of research, I was previously unaware of an intersection between the two. Her blog, apophenia (http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/) seems to do just that; it is at once very cyber and, well, blog-like, but the content is also research-based. If she didn't deny the academic nature of her article, I would say she was feigning scholarship or trying to seem more scholarly that she really is.
I hope that made sense...
As far as her argument, I would agree (and am convinced) with the broader statement that myspace is for poorer and less-educated backgrounds while facebook is for the "hegemonic" crowds. The blog forum with all of the negative responses from readers may have dissuaded me away from some of the specifics she asserts. Perhaps if I read this in the New York Times with no commentary, I would have been completely sold.
Nonetheless, I think she did an overall effective job of introducing the correlation between SNS and socioeconomic demographics, and maybe in the future it can be supported by stronger research and make it into a scholarly journal.

I think that it was clear in class today that one of the biggest problems we had with Boyd and this article was her ping-ponging between scholar and blogger. On the one hand we saw her as an academic, and it seemed as though she did not have credible sources or solid research to support her arguments. But, on the other hand she was only blogging, which by definition is opinion and not a researched based argument. This middle gray-area that Boyd blogged from was confusing at times, should we take her seriously or not, but regardless I believe that she was convincing in her argument that myspace is for "bad" kids and facebook is for "good" kids.

This argument may seem stereotypical, because there are always exceptions to any stereotype, but it is clear that in the most general sense Boyd is correct. It may have been offensive to some that she labeled myspacers as minorities, outcasts, or lower-class citizens, but when dealing with socioeconomic stature there isn't really an easy way around it. Boyd did a pretty good job in presenting these standards of myspace and facebook in a way that was truthful yet not too offensive.

Danah Boyd has probably grown accustomed to the type of immediate respect that comes with having earned multiple degrees at prestigious universities. As much as she would like to claim that her essay on class divisions in Myspace and Facebook is not academic, and "just a blog," Boyd still believes she should receive the respect that her public persona deserves. This is painfully apparent in her multiple disclaimers, methodological notes section, and later collection of critique responses. Boyd has been blogging for years, but does not seem to fully grasp that any internet user is entitled to strip away her credentials and speak to her as an equal, disparaging her argument and even insulting her personally. Boyd's inability to anticipate and handle the critiques gracefully in fact removes a large part of her credibility in the blogosphere, no matter what she wrote in her entry or what sophisticated rhetorical strategies she employed.

After thinking about Danah Boyd’s article a little more after class, I realized that it is written as if she almost doesn’t believe in her thesis or anything she wrote about the topic, but completed the article because she had already invested so much time in it. I thought of this because she makes such broad generalizations about the correlation between socioeconomic backgrounds of social networking users and where they would fit in a social circle. Essentially what I mean is that most of her article can be paraphrased by saying: Facebook users are jocks, goody-two shoes and popular kids who are rich, while Myspace users are “emo kids, art-fags and Goths” who must be poor.
It is easy to see the gross generalizations and flawed logic in that and I think she even knows that in the back of her mind. Nonetheless, it was an interesting article to read. She was just never able to make her point, and that is probably because it is not a valid one.

Danah Boyd seems to have taken surface observations of MySpace and Facebook- MySpace is more self-expressive, Facebook is "cleaner" and for college kids- into a deeper, darker, and wishfully academic realm. While I do agree with the basic generalizations about the two, I would no go as far to classify Facebook users as hegemonic and MySpace users as not. I found myself disliking her argument more and more as we analyzed her rhetorical approach, and left class wondering if she wrote a half-hearted academic paper that she tried to pass of as a blog, or if that was the most intense blog I have ever encountered. A question: how after analyzing "over 10,000 MySpace profiles, [clocking] over 2000 hours surfing and observing what happens on MySpace, and formally interviewing 90 teens in 7 states" is this NOT somewhat academic? Especially coming from a Harvard Fellow and doctoral candidate at Berkeley?
I do feel that there is culture associated with these online networks. Facebook is as much used for picture stalking and setting sweet profile pictures as it is for party, event, and general social invites (in my experience with the Stanford Facebook culture). I agree with Boyd that MySpace culture revolves around art and music a little more, just not quite enough to classify users as subculture "art fags". But it's not as if these cultures didn't exist without SNS. My dear father would have been as much of a dork in high school today as he was 40 years ago! And I love him. My argument is that SNS does not create these groups- Facebook and MySpace are extensions of social groups created by people being inherently different, now more publicly and even proudly displayed by the advancement of technology.

Dana Boyd certainly blurs the line between blogger and academic--but what did you expect from an academic writing a blog? For me, where she falls on the evidence spectrum is besides the point. I just think she lost sight of her thesis. Her main argument comes down to a comparison between "hegemonic" and "subaltern" teens and their respective SNS habits, and this is problematic. For one, "subalt" is not synonymous with "lower socio-economic class." She was on the right track when she spoke directly of lower-income teens from immigrant families--and she was even on hanging on with the military points--but that's about it. Her other sub-classes of "subaltern" teens had no socio-economic basis: ask 10 private school kids, and I'd bet 9 of them will say they go to school with emo kids, goths, and "art fags." So even though I buy it that lower-income-community teens may gravitate more to MySpace, I don't think the point applies to ALL kids outside of highschool's "popularity paradigm." Boyd was probably just thrown off by aesthetics: MySpace profiles are much more customizable than a Facebook, so kids practicing extreme fashion will only show their true colors on the former. Facebook mitigates personalities to the extent that you would have to look harder to find, say, a goth.

While a majority of our class spent most of Tuesday attacking Danah for her shortsightedness I am on the opposite side of the issue. I agree with her, albeit not with all of her points and style, but in general I agree with the article. She wrote a blog essay, much like my comment written here, which was put together quickly in an attempt to make a point. The fact they she including so much information backing her argument, points to her academic scholarly side.

In my own personal experience, the gap created between facebook and myspace is close to the one Danah describes. While I would say more people have a version of both, she is still on to something. While she did not write a research paper backed with mounds of data, she did interview over 90 students and spent 2000 hours on myspace alone. Solely by this fact she is more an expert on the subject than I. Danah might not be the premier expert but she is nonetheless knowledgeable about the subject. Maybe she's completely wrong or completely right, either way it was an extremely well written blog that was blown out of proportion due to the sensitivity of the subject.

Danah Boyd presents an argument that carries substance. Thus, even though her academically enhanced background challenges conventional blogging, the nature of the evident MySpace/Facebook controversy lends persuasiveness to her piece. In class we discussed how Boyd picks this somewhat scholarly topic and attempts to place it in a more or less unscholarly environment, and I feel like the majority of her readers criticized her for that rather than acknowledge the issue in her article. Now to say that every claim she makes is 100% accurate would be erroneous, but Boyd does allude to extensive research, personal experience, and general observations. We do see that Facebook has a more professional layout than the vibrant one of myspace, and it is also true that we see more minorities on the latter. Does this necessarily entail total class division? I would answer no, but at the same time the division is significant enough to be noticed. For such reasons I ultimately found her blog “apophenia” persuasive.

I don't buy it. I just don't. It has little to do with her academic background or the fact that she entered in the blogging realm quite unprepared for public scrutiny, but moreover because she overlooked key reasons why kids prefer one site over the other. It's not deep or academic, but the simple truth is that Myspace is inundated with spam and hackers. It's frankly annoying. Facebook doesn't have the same problems and basically it is just easier to use. Another reason that Myspace personally annoys me is because of the clear "copycatting". Myspace, in its original form, didn't have photo tagging, or "moods" or networks to join. And the fact that Myspace has to copy the format and structure of Facebook is a sign of its clear inferiority.

Now the reason that I have a problem with Boyd's reasoning specifically is this paragraph: "MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens, "burnouts," "alternative kids," "art fags," punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer kids, and other kids who didn't play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm. These are kids whose parents didn't go to college, who are expected to get a job when they finish high school. These are the teens who plan to go into the military immediately after schools. Teens who are really into music or in a band are also on MySpace. MySpace has most of the kids who are socially ostracized at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers."

Let me start with the terms "burnouts," "alternative kids," "art fags," "punks," "emos," "goths," "gangstas," and "queer kids." Boyd is limiting herself even within these subaltern terms, there are infinite amounts of groups that "are socially ostracized at school" who don't fit into these few categories. With that said, the groups that she did mention, she obviously knows nothing about. "Emos" and "punks" don't use myspace because they're trying to go against the norm. The use both facebook and myspace simply because they exist. Because it is the best and most effective way communicate between friends. And really most "art fags" prefer facebook because it is not expected of them. They use it because it is so in, it's out...

She also assumes a lot about non-college bound kids. Like I mentioned earlier spam is a huge problem on myspace. Kids who are in the work force or a JCs don't not have any rational capacity. They understand and are frustrated the same ways that college kids are. And another reason that Boyd overlooks in seeking why Myspace might be more popular is because it came first. Everyone used it until facebook. Not everyone cares enough to make a second "page" and reload photos and information. It is just easier not to. So most keep/have Myspaces because they're friends refuse to change out of laziness or they themselves refuse to change. It's not all that complex, it's just easier not to do any more work.
Anyway I'm done rambling...

I respect Boyd for trying to tackle a difficult topic. Acknowleding the fact that this appeared on a blog (i.e. it's not as formal as academic papers), I see the paper merely as a collection of her observations and speculations on Facebook and MySpace patterns. Maybe there in fact are more college students and more educated folks on Facebook, but to me, it's obvious that people migrate where their friends are. I'm a college student, and the reason I'm not on MySpace is because none of my friends are - so yes, it's cyclic. I knew college students in high school, and I know high school students who will become college students. For some, class determines the types of friends they make - hence, these groups of people end up on the same social networking sites. If several friends considered "subaltern" moved to Facebook, other friends in the same circle probably would too (but why move if all your friends are on one platform?). So yes, the histories of MS and FB determined its initial users, and those users brought friends. Some have mentioned class and culture exceptions on each, but it's difficult to say if the exception is becoming the norm - is Facebook just becoming more popular?

Dana Boyd is trying to make sense of a broad phenomenon in Myspace and Facebook while treading on touchy issues of class, race and acceptance. This is an extremely complex issue and I give her credit for trying. Perhaps she put too many eggs in the basket on this one, and she is making too many generalizations. The important thing, though, for haters to note is that her academic background allows her to identify patterns within the overall scheme of things and propose trends that apply to the general population. Of course the model she is proposing can not be fit in every instance. But take any scholarly article and one will find that there are always outliers in the data and the only thing that matters much is the average. Her methodology may be insufficient at times to truly justify her work as scholarly. But then again, she explicitly stated that her essays was non-academic in nature. What she writes is not just some farce that a wannabe intellectual made up. Boyd actually took a sample of the overall networking landscape, analyzed it and made an assertion on it. Personally, I find her essay interesting. Since both Myspace and Facebook are relatively new, I am wondering how the dynamics of users will play out as time goes on.

how many classess are there?

I agree with you, your saying is so good and usful for me. Thanks. Are you also like

I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every little bit of it. I have you bookmarked your site to check out the latest stuff you post.