The revision of the article by the author of "Rock My Network" definately changed my view a bit. I think that in the New York Times version, the author made it seem more like she had normal relationships outside of the net. She still kept her main points valid and she got her point across but she seemed more down to earth and this change allowed me to think of the author as a much more socially invloved person. Basically, the author did not portray herself as dependent on online networking, however, she still expressed her views on her dissappointment with real life social interaction.
When I chat online or check certain online networks, which I do very sparingly, I really feel no vivid emotional connections or intimacy. I am content with funny quotes and messages on facebook but the whole poke, slaps and giggle deal is just to much for me. Yea of coarse there is alot you can communicate with a person by typing because sometimes we can say things in texts and on paper that we would never say in person. However this is why I am much less of an online networker.
I don't like the faky, glittering generalities that pollute online networks. As humans, we can be so poetic with the words we write and yes, sometimes we can be very virtially intimate with others online. Still, this online Romeo and Juliet crap about half makes me sick; it is fine to type someone a text that you could easily utter while looking them in the eye but if you could not see yourself saying the words in person that you so often type to your onlne friends, you are just another fake-ass online addict.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment