Teenage Wastelands

As I turn my attention to teens, I can’t help but see the ironies in their identity creation through information communication technology.

“American society has a very peculiar relationship to teenagers – and children in general. They are simultaneously idealized and demonized; adults fear them but they also seek to protect them…youth have very little access to public spaces. The spaces they can hang out in are heavily controlled and/or under surveillance” (414-415) which is why according to boyd, teens are drawn to social media. The idea of networked spaces as ideal places for teens, are made in comparison to the metaphoric “mall”…as the place to be seen in public. The internet allows teens to loiter in the spaces of the internet.

Interestingly, “…what teens are doing with this networked public is akin to what they have done in every other type of public they have access to: they hang out, jockey for social status, work through how to present themselves, and take risks that will help them to assess the boundaries of the social world. They do so because they seek access to adult society. Their participation is deeply rooted in their desire to engage publicly” (415). While hanging out online is all for show of social status, not having online presence can be seen as social suicide.

In a Ryerson mediated presentation about privacy policies and social media by University of Western Ontario professor, Jacquelyn Burkell, the question of our honesty on Facebook is raised. She found there was a common thread of projection on what she calls Facebook insiders (as opposed to the conservatives): who are younger, with larger social capital, lots of usage, lots of pics of them drinking, perhaps a sense of naiveté that they may later regret and reconsider their image. However, she also points out that these images and portrayals are carefully contrived and engineered. They know what they are doing because they post with the understanding that it will be looked at, and as such, they post it to look good.

In understanding and misunderstanding of what our audience, and who are selected audience is, it may seem that we can pick and choose our followers. The reality is, the entire world has access to our online profiles and identities whether we like it or not. While employers can look at a potential hire’s Facebook page, teens argue otherwise that it’s private only to them. But such is the nature of posting online. It’s an unwritten agreement of sharing it with the entire online world.

Burkell also touched on an idea of a “biographical record” as being scary and complicated. As stated, stories are told and re-told. But in re-telling stories, like the game of broken telephone, or embellishments of narrators, things can get misconstrued along the way. Thus, can people misinterpret my online identity thus understanding my real being as something entirely different from what I set out to construct?

People, No Photos Please! Can’t Catch a Break…

In retrospect to a previous post of the artist Robert Williams and his painting Symbiotic Mediocrity, Young makes references to author Gary Shteyngart and his novel Super Sad True Love Story, and how the people in the novel walk around like living avatars. I picture us the same way thus reminding me of Robert Williams. Rather than seeing and identifying someone by their face, I see them through their social media profile.

To sum up Young, she states that “…the boundary between what we share online and what we keep private seems to be moving in one direction only, toward being more public…Perhaps you will start to look as if you have something to hide if you don’t want to be public” (p. 113). Furthermore, Young points out that we are “…now routinely encouraged to have well-curated online identities, even if that shiny, impersonal simulacrum of a self doesn’t really reflect the real you” (p. 113). Which I thought was interesting in how it plays into our lives. It seems that we are breeding, enabling, and promoting the idea that it’s okay to be fake, so long as you share something…anything, so that you don’t seem suspect to the masses that you might be hiding a secret.

This leads me into Steeves and the perception of privacy. She states that technology has enabled privacy to die. As we are in the habit and obsession of documenting everything, we leave “virtual tracks” which ultimately is surveillance without the intrusion. We are willingly letting outsiders monitor us. Think Google and Gmail, if you’re signed in, it tracks everything you look up. Yet Steeves also maintains a Foucauldian view that surveillance is needed as a means of regulation as it “…increases security, reduces crime, cuts costs, and fuels the information economy” (p. 342). BUT! She counters this view by saying that “The right to privacy is not about secrecy; it’s about autonomy” (p. 342). Thus, it’s not about keeping things tight-lipped and classified, but rather, it’s about the right to being our own beings as individuals with agency.

Hmm, what about Trudeau’s famous quote: “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. With technology, social media, and the internet, it HAS in a sense entered the bedroom. Only, things don’t seem so private anymore. Agree? Disagree?

To further our right to privacy and autonomy, Steeves argues that “Privacy, the right to be free from being watched, spied upon, and tested, is a human right because it is an essential part of human dignity and autonomy. Life without privacy makes it impossible to enjoy the dignity and freedom that human rights seek to protect” (346). However I can’t help but consider the circumstances of the internet and social media. On the one hand there’s the invisibility of “watchers” ie: media dogs that track us online such as Google. On the other hand are the masses, us as watchers of each other – the ease of photographing and videotaping with smartphones, posting on YouTube, you get the picture. No matter where we turn, big brother is watching, God is watching, Santa is watching, and we are watching. I can’t catch a break!

Steeves argues that information given “freely” online is too valuable as a market tool. Furthermore, the government and institutions will argue in favour and position that its beneficial to the public ie: crime reduction. Steeves also points out that while there are legislative practices that claim to protect privacy, there is a loophole. “Consent” has to be given to allow for the access of private information, but that consent is hidden as part of the agreement that allows us to use the service in the first place – it’s built into the package of signing up. So if we refuse consent then we can’t even use the service. This not only extends to online, but also with banks, employment etc. Yet, a lot of these services also have online applications like mobile cellular online banking. Which you need to sign in through email, or your Facebook, or your cell phone number. Ultimately, the bank (or whatever it is you signed up for) now has access to your email and phone information, and anything else you’ve “agreed” to.

Convenient, yes. Safe and sound, could be – although that’s up for debate. Feeling a little naked from leering eyes, that’s probably more like it. Thus, is there such a thing as privacy anymore?