QotW7: Tweety Twitter- Restoration?

During one of my usual chats with my distant cousin online (through messenger), I found out that she has been keeping in touch with her soon to be ex-husband. This news was both shocking and interesting to me. Her filing for divorce was a result of many unbearable incidents and conversations. Their marriage hit rock bottom just eight months into their new life as husband and wife. Divorce then became the only viable decision to make. With their situation appearing to be unsalvagable, it was a major surprise for me to find out that they have been keeping in touch through Friendster and Twitter!!! (What a coincidence since I have a blog assignment on this to complete)

MY VIEW

Just has how “Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder”; the definition of a virtual community depends on what an individual considers it to be. Different people may have different meanings behind the term community and this is also a major reason why some of us feel that “Twitter is” and “is not an online community”.

What started off emails has now through the progress of technology developed into instant messaging. These Instant Messenger (IM) services can be likened to face-to-face communication as now you can see the person you are chatting with and also have live conversations with a simple device know as the microphone.

Personally for me, whenever I think of the term community, I often picture a spiral. Just like the continuous connected circling of the spiral, once in an online community, we are all in a continuous connection with one another. It is interesting to note that once connected to eleven people on Friendster, I am actually linked to thousands of others automatically. It is like a network of people together (Rheingold, 1993). This continuity will only end when we leave the community and break all forms of contact. Twitter does function in a similar way. Once added under the friend list, we are in direct contact with the added party. Through our direct friends, we are indirectly linked to others and fed with their information. This is especially true when we visit a friend’s site and view the updates posted by others whom you may know nothing about.

Another characteristic of a community is that it can be static or fluid. Everyday people are signing up and deleting their accounts online. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for people to be apart of multiple communities. Twitter allows this (just like my cousin- Twitter and Friendster). Moreover, communities also have certain boundaries between members and non-members (Rheingold, 1993). Not only in Twitter, but in all communities, information revelation can be restricted. Though Twitter allows continuous updates to be posted about oneself, the details updated are under the control of the member posting it. This limitation becomes a negative aspect of most online communities. The possibility of faking information is a serious consequence of online communities. Just because Twitter allows immediate updates, it does not make it any much safer. Another thing I was wondering about is do people simply appear nicer in online communities? Maybe it is the need to present themselves as appealing and good mannered. This sounds logical when we are in contact with those we just got to know, but how about to those we have known for some time. I guess my chat with my cousin got me thinking along this line. She was confused with her conversations online with her husband, as he seemed like a totally different person. Unfortunately, when they decided to meet, the gentle and warm feeling she experienced online disappeared as the coldness and arrogance was vividly evident. Can this be likened to the negative repercussions virtual communities have on real-world interactions?

Anyway, communities are believed to provide individuals with certain benefits. Twitter is beneficial as it provides instant information of friends just like the IM. Even though Friendster is a popular online community, it does not have this feature. Just as how reciprocity is a key element in online communities, the updates and conversations posted in Twitter creates a form of reciprocation. There appears to be an unwritten social agreement between community members (Rheingold, 1993). Similar to online communities, members in Twitter can decide on their levels of interaction and participation among other members and themselves. Finally, just because I am connected or have a huge number of friends in my list, it does not mean that I share a strong bond among members (another characteristic of online communities). To be honest, there are some friends in my Twitter whom I know very little about.

CONCLUSION

I personally feel that Twitter is an online community. It does fit into the characteristics of a community in my opinion. Well, for now I wonder if this form of connection can help restore a broken marriage.

ReFeReNcEs

Fernback, J., & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure? Retrieved March 16, 2007 from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html

Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Retrieved March 16, 2007 from http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=4AAFDF98-AA07-4D29-9B42-A356DC54A8D7&ttype=2&tid=3823

Virtual community. (2007, March 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:58 p.m, March 15, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_community&oldid=115277136