Collective Individualism

Reading about how sites like Myspace, LiveJournal, and now Facebook allow people the freedom to posts any aspect of their lives and share it with anyone who comes across their page made me think about the type of society that is forming. The United States is noted for being an individualistic society with an emphasis on personal space and private life. Yet as social media on the internet blurs the lines between personal and private lives it becomes harder to put a label on this new type of hybrid society. I believe it is a hybrid society because even though social networking has brought about a more collective mindset there are still many things that remain personal and somewhat private. This can be seen when people post pictures and stories that depict intimate aspects of their lives but fiddle with security settings so that only certain people can access the information. There is also an interesting dynamic with social networking sites where everyone is sharing information with everyone else yet there is a tendency to try and be an individual, seen most notably in Myspace with their different page layouts. As social networking becomes further integrated into people's lives it will be interesting to see how this tension between collective and individual plays out.

The Masses need a King

As we read more and more about the beginnings of various New Media I find it interesting how much of that media was originally suppose to be egalitarian. The Internet was originally open to anyone who could access it and there was little to no regulation of what could or could not be posted. Wiki's were a way for everyone to contribute what they know in order to create systems of vast information. Yet as these things gained mass appeal, the inherent democracy of the media transformed more into a hierarchy. I understand that sometimes things like cost require certain changes to be made, someone has to pay for the telephone/cable lines and servers that run the Internet, but why does cost imply regulation? Why can't information be hosted freely. Most of these things were created freely without the motivation of money. Even in the case of Wiki's where it does not seem like money was an issue, a hierarchy arose. Why does some information have to be more important? It could be that since the small groups that were first on this New Media thought alike and thus had no need for a hierarchy until the masses came in and started changing and not agreeing with everything. It's always interesting to see how the masses can change a medium.