Computer Mediated Communication Timeline
Create a brief 6- to 8-slide presentation of pivotal moments in computer-mediated communication. As a part of your research for this assignment, refer to the entries for computer-mediated communication in this week’s
University Library Readings
and your readings for Wk 1 from your textbook.
Include the following:
- At least five pivotal moments in computer mediated communication
- Two or three sentences that describe why the moment was pivotal–what it changed or how society was transformed
- Written credits in APA format citing information used for the images and content
Format your assignment according to appropriate course-level APA7 guidelines. cite any pictures with apa7 standards
Submit your assignment as a Microsoft® PowerPoint® presentation.
Computer-Mediated Communication
Contributors: Author:Brandon Van Der Heide & Joseph B. Walther
Edited by: Harry T. Reis & Susan Sprecher
Book Title: Encyclopedia of Human Relationships
Chapter Title: “Computer-Mediated Communication”
Pub. Date: 2009
Access Date: February 23, 2021
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9781412958462
Online ISBN: 9781412958479
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412958479.n98
Print pages: 292-293
© 2009 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412958479.n98
Computer-mediated communication is the domain of human communication in which individuals and groups
interact, form impressions, establish relationships, and accomplish tasks using networked computers.
Although the timing and stylistic features of communication often distinguish online from offline relationship
development and management, people can initiate relationships, establish effective groups, and develop
personal partnerships using computer systems.
Generally speaking, people interacting on computers have access to fewer nonverbal cues than those who
interact in person. Although early research predicted that people would not be able to form meaningful
relationships using computer-mediated communication, subsequent studies have demonstrated that
relational communication is indeed amenable to online interaction. Because there are fewer nonverbal
cues available to people who are interacting on computers, it typically takes longer for people to achieve
their interpersonal goals than when they interact on a face-to-face basis. Malcolm Parks provides a useful
metaphor for understanding this aspect of computer-mediated communication: Interpersonal interaction via
computers is a garden hose. Interpersonal information can flow like water through the hose and fill a container
(an interpersonal impression) just as well as can a large fire hose; it just takes longer with the smaller hose.
Since the language and timing of written messages exchanged via computer systems convey all the social
information, with no additional matter relayed by nonverbal behavior, it takes longer for people interacting on
computers to accrue sufficient social information with which to form and transmit impressions and affective
influence statements.
In some cases individuals form more positive impressions of others via computer-mediated communication
than they would form had they had a face-to-face conversation. This phenomenon is known as hyperpersonal
communication. The nature of computer-mediated communication contributes to the phenomenon of
hyperpersonal effects. One characteristic is that computermediated communication allows people to carefully
select the ways that they present themselves. For example, college students may carefully edit their grammar
when they interact with their professors on the computer so that their professors will infer that they are
bright and conscientious. Also, because people are not located in the same place during computer-mediated
communication and cannot observe their partners’ normal appearance and traits, people idealize their
partners’ charac teristics. For example, a couple who met on an online dating site and had their first
interactions online may overattribute the similarity and attractiveness of their partners. Computer-mediated
communication also allows users to craft their messages quite deliberately and edit them to fit their desired
self- and partner-oriented stereotypes and communication goals. Computer-mediated communication is also
hypothesized to foster mutual influence of idealizing responses so that users come to act in ways consistent
with the desires their communication partners envision of them. Hyperpersonal communication tends to occur
quickly when people plan to have ongoing interaction with others.
One feature that is common in some computermediated communication settings is anonymous
communication. Anonymous communication occurs when people communicate with one another without
knowing the specific personal identities of those with whom they are interacting. When people are anonymous
in computer-mediated groups, they tend to be influenced by group dynamics more strongly than they
otherwise would. Researchers believe that this occurs when people are relating to others and thinking of
themselves as members of social groups or categories as opposed to operating as if they were unique
individuals. This has the effect of causing people in computer-mediated groups to exhibit behavior that is
consistent with group norms. This effect is particularly strong when there is another group, an outgroup, which
members implicitly reject. The effect of group norms has been used to explain the occasional occurrence of
flaming in online groups, that is, the contagious reciprocation of insults and profanities. Early research claimed
that this kind of misbehavior was a result of the lack of nonverbal cues in computermediated communication,
and individuals’ inability to assess situational norms when they were online. Group identification research
provides a better account of flaming, however: When it appears in some groups, it is reciprocated and
becomes normative for that group. This is why flaming is not endemic to all computer-mediated
communication: It is a function of local group norms exacerbated by anonymity, and not a function of online
communication per se. Researchers continue to try to uncover what makes people using computer-mediated
communication sometimes remain anonymous and rely on group norms to guide their behavior, while other
times people seek and reveal unique information about themselves and interact on a personal level.
SAGE
© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
Page 2 of 3
Encyclopedia of Human Relationships
As new technologies develop, innovations allow people to interact with others across multiple communication
channels. Research is beginning to focus on mixed-mode relationships in which people interact via
computers, other media, and in person. Often this occurs when people meet by way of the Internet and
continue their relationship through other telecommunications, leading to face-to-face interaction. This
progression is typical when people utilize online dating Web sites to meet and establish relationships with
potential romantic partners, but it is also common for spontaneous friendships that develop in Internet
discussions that are not romantically oriented. An important issue for these mixed-mode relationships is
whether people judge the information their partners present about themselves as truthful. Indeed, some
research shows that people becoming involved in romantic relationships seek more information about their
potential romantic partners than people who are simply friends with one another. Current research is exploring
the characteristics of personal information about online acquaintances which make it either more or less
believable. It appears that information is more believable when the person it describes is unlikely to be able
to create or manipulate it.
New technologies also support mixed-mode relationships that began offline. Social networking technologies
such as Facebook and MySpace allow friends to carry on relationships that move between online and offline
venues. Social networking technologies also help people to stay in touch easily with larger networks of
acquaintances. These technologies have allowed people who were once out of touch to reconnect easily with
one another and continue their relationships online. They are a vital tool for relational maintenance.
Brandon Van Der Heide & , and Joseph B. Walther
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412958479.n98
See also
• Communication, Instant Messaging and Other New Media
• First Impressions
• Internet, Attraction on
• Internet Dating
• Technology and Relationships
Further Readings
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C.(2007).A familiar Face(book): Profile elements as signals in an online
social network. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.
435–444). New York: ACM Press.http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240695
Lea, M., O’Shea, T., Fung, P., & Spears, R.(1992).“Flaming” in computer-mediated communication:
Observations, explanations and implications. In M.Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication
(pp. 89–112). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Parks, M. R., and Floyd, K.Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication46(1996). 80–97.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01462.x
Walther, J. B.Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction.
Communication Research23(1996). 3–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R.(2002).Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication
and relationships. In M. L.Knapp, & J. A.Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed. , pp.
529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
SAGE
© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
Page 3 of 3
Encyclopedia of Human Relationships
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412958479.n98
https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/humanrelationships/n86.xml
https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/humanrelationships/n221.xml
https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/humanrelationships/n283.xml
https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/humanrelationships/n285.xml
https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/humanrelationships/n538.xml
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240695
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01462.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
- Encyclopedia of Human Relationships
Computer-Mediated Communication
Further Readings
Computer-Mediated Communication
Contributors: Author:David Holmes
Edited by: Stephen W. Littlejohn & Karen A. Foss
Book Title: Encyclopedia of Communication Theory
Chapter Title: “Computer-Mediated Communication”
Pub. Date: 2009
Access Date: February 23, 2021
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9781412959377
Online ISBN: 9781412959384
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384.n64
Print pages: 162-164
© 2009 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384.n64
In the broadest sense, computer-mediated communication (CMC) can be any form of communication that is
mediated by digital technology. Thus, a telephone conversation can be said to be computer mediated if each
speech act is converted into digital code, transmitted, and then decoded for the listener.
In relation to the speech acts themselves, such a conversation is no different from that mediated by an
analogue or human-operated telephone exchange. However, when the conversation is converted into a
form that is managed by computing systems, the spatial, temporal, and social contexts of telephony can
be radically transformed. Speech acts can be digitally recorded and digitally recognized in ways that are
storable and exchangeable with other digital information. Calls can be screened, forwarded, and blocked, and
conversations can be timed in ways that are linked to billing; all these properties impact how people use the
telephone, whether they use it at all, and how long they use it.
While CMC can take in the study of telephony and interactivity in any computer-mediated form, the most
common meaning of it is related to the direct use of personal computers for communication, to the point
that today, CMC is often used interchangeably with online Internet communication. Thus e-mail, chat rooms,
bulletin boards, and simulated worlds are all forms of CMC. But the distinguishing feature here is that what
is being mediated is communication—not information or entertainment. Browsing the World Wide Web and
downloading information—the primary activity of Web 1.0 (the original use of the Internet)—are not examples
of CMC. Rather, communication between individuals, whether one-to-one or many-to-many, sharing text,
sounds, and images in Web 2.0, and interacting in next-generation environments are examples. However,
the most common forms of CMC are e-mail, with its very low bandwidth, or the broader-banded online social
networking outlets, in which users can post images or music. But in each case, text predominates.
A further division here is between synchronous and asynchronous CMC. Many chat sites, such as the early
Internet Relay Chat and “I seek you,” Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs) and MUDs object oriented (MOOs), and
today’s Second Life are in real time. The bulk of CMC, however, is asynchronous, with e-mail and online
social networking offering the convenience of communication that can be stored in a threaded conversation.
The fact that there are several varieties of CMC, according to temporal and bandwidth qualities, has led some
researchers to problematize the status and nature of interactivity in CMC.
Interactivity
Founder of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Sheizaf Rafaeli is a key theorist who can
assist in understanding interaction within CMC. In an important 1988 article, Rafaeli distinguishes between
connectivity, reactivity, and interactivity. Networks must have a human interface, but they must also have an
architecture that makes interactivity possible. Such interactive networks, once established, take on a history
of their own, and through such a history, relationships are formed. Two-way communication does not, in
itself, guarantee interactivity. Rather, an exchange or action-reaction must develop into a relationship in which
one utterance becomes a context for another. Without this form of connectivity, relationships become either
circular or solipsistic.
Rafaeli also wants to abandon the dyadic model that is applied to most CMC. Online interactivity is distributed
across a network and cannot be reduced to the sum of a point-to-point exchange. Every message takes
into account preceding messages, as well as the ways in which previous messages react to one another.
This view of interactivity suggests that the actual use of CMC is seldom interactive, particularly in cases of
anonymity in CMC discussion groups. For this reason, a fundamental distinction needs to be made between
CMC users and groups that have other outside relationships and those that do not.
Computer-Mediated Communication Research Directions
This distinction corresponds to two dominant directions in CMC research—the cues-filter ed-out approach,
which focuses research on users, and avatar research. When CMC is experienced as an extension of
interpersonal or institutional relationships online, interlocutors are generally referred to as users. When
SAGE
© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
Page 2 of 4
Encyclopedia of Communication Theory
interlocutors have no off-line relationship and identities exist only online, they are referred to as avatars.
Cues-Filtered-Out Approach
Research into users is distinctively concerned with the way computer-extended communication mediates
face-to-face forms of communication. The face-to-face becomes an analogue and benchmark for measuring
the “success” of CMC, which is viewed as substituting for the face-to-face. It is known as a cues-filtered-out
approach because it examines which cues of nonverbal communication are missing in the communication
event and how they are put “back in.” Particularly important to this perspective, then, is the study of emoticons,
the symbols used in e-mail to denote facial expressions, and netiquette, the ways that cyberspace demands
the forms of polite protocol expected in embodied life.
Nancy Baym argues that in computer-mediated interaction, people are not able to see, hear, or feel one
another, which eliminates their ability to use context cues. This leaves them in a kind of social vacuum that is
different from face-to-face talk. Because of this, CMC participants typically find ways of “putting back in” the
cues that are lost from external contexts. Therefore, much effort goes into bringing these external contexts
into the content of interaction.
Baym also identifies five different sources of impact on CMC: (1) external contexts, in which the use of
CMC is set (language, city); (2) the temporal structure of the group (synchronistic or asynchronistic); (3)
the infrastructure of the computer system (speed, number of computers, capacity for anonymity, user-
friendliness); (4) the purposes for which the CMC is used (interest oriented, uses and gratifications); and (5)
the characteristics of the group and its members (group size, educational level of participants).
Avatar Research
The second direction of CMC research—avatar research—which was very popular in the late 1990s,
champions the exclusion of external contexts of CMC. This research argues that online identities, or avatars,
enjoy a neutral space of interaction. Because there are no cues that can spontaneously signify an
interlocutor’s appearance, gender, class, and ethnicity, avatars are seen to communicate on an equal footing,
without any of the social discrimination that accompanies the above categories. An avatar can exist in a
number of CMC environments. The avatar’s identity may be limited to textual representation, or in the case of
many synchronous forms of simulated CMC—such as MUDs, MOOs, and Second Life—an avatar can take
on a visual form and adopt voices and behavior that are constructed online. The avatar does not have an
identity or a history other than what is formed online.
In the 1990s, the question of online identity represented by the avatar was a major source of fascination for
CMC scholars. Social-psychological and psychoanalytic frameworks have been used to understand virtual
identity as a unique form of self-identity without the social inhibitions that exist in real life. The notion of
cyberpsychology emerged, and new journals, such as Cyber-Psychology & Behavior, were established. Much
of the work in this approach sought to analyze the way CMC relationships might deviate from real-life
relationships with respect to honesty, morality, and empathy. Other writers, such as Sherry Turkle, saw CMC
as emancipatory because it allowed people to explore their identity in a socially and physically safe simulated
reality.
The euphoria that characterized the social psychology of CMC that was popular in the 1990s came under
attack from a number of writers who argued that it ignored empirical research showing that CMC is one
medium among many by which the same people interact. The concept of the avatar makes sense only if too
sharp a distinction is drawn between the virtual life and real life. However, a series of everyday-life types of
empirical studies in the late 1990s showed this approach to be unhelpful in explaining why some people spent
a great deal of time online while for others, CMC represented a minor part of their communication practices.
Moreover, at its height, avatar research could hardly lay claim to providing a representation of some kind of
neutral, asocial human nature when it is considered that CMC in the mid-1990s was very much dominated by
North American upper-middle-class professionals who shared similar interests.
SAGE
© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
Page 3 of 4
Encyclopedia of Communication Theory
In recent years, the interest in the avatar has waned and is of little interest to the net generation of young
people who are born as “digital natives” and have not faced the novelty of having to migrate to digital culture.
As Susan Herring has noted, the net generation does not relate well to the utopian speculations or the
debates about online democracy, identity, and virtuality of earlier decades.
• avatars
• interactivity
• cues
• computer-mediated communication
• speech acts
• computers
• telephony
David Holmes
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384.n64
See also
• Digital Cultures
• Media Equation Theory
• Network Society
• New Media Theory
• Presence Theory
Further Readings
Baym, N.(1998).The emergence of online community. In S.Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated
communication and community (pp. 138–163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B.(2002).The Internet and everyday life: An introduction. In B.Wellman, &
C.Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet and everyday life (pp. 3–41). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Herring, S.Slouching towards the ordinary: Current trends in computer-mediated communication.New Media
and Society6(2004).26–36.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444804039906
Nancy, J.-L.(1991).The Inoperative Community (ed. P.Connor; trans. PeterConnor, LisaGarbus,
MichaelHilland, and SimonaSawhney). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rafaeli, S.(1988).Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P.Hawkins, J. M.Wiemann, &
S.Pingree (Eds.), Sage annual review of communication research: Advancing communication science, Vol.
16 (pp. 10–134). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rafaeli, S., and Sudweeks, F.Networked interactivity.Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication2(4)(1997).Retrieved February 11, 2009, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/v012/issue4/
rafaeli.sudweeks.html
Riva, G., and Galimberti, C.Computer-mediated communication: Identity and social interaction in an electronic
environment.Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs124(1998).434–464.
Turkle, S.(1995).Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet.New York: Simon & Schuster.
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M.(1999).Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers don’t ride alone. In M.Smith,
& P.Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 167–194). London: Routledge.
Whitty, M.Liar, liar! An examination of how open, supportive and honest people are in chat rooms.Computers
in Human Behaviour18(2002).343–352.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632%2801%2900059-0
Whitty, M., and Gavin, J.Age/sex/location: Uncovering the social cues in the development of online
relationships.CyberPsychology and Behaviour4(2001).623–630.http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/
109493101753235223
SAGE
© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
Page 4 of 4
Encyclopedia of Communication Theory
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384.n64
https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/communicationtheory/n114.xml
https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/communicationtheory/n236.xml
https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/communicationtheory/n257.xml
https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/communicationtheory/n259.xml
https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/communicationtheory/n301.xml
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444804039906
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/v012/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/v012/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632%2801%2900059-0
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/109493101753235223
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/109493101753235223
- Encyclopedia of Communication Theory
Computer-Mediated Communication
Interactivity
Computer-Mediated Communication Research Directions
Cues-Filtered-Out Approach
Avatar Research
Further Readings
Loading…
Accessibility Information and Tips
Revised Date: 07/2015
Back
1 article(s) will be saved.
To continue, in Internet Explorer, select
FILE
then
SAVE AS
from your browser’s toolbar above.
Be sure to save as a plain text file (.txt) or a ‘Web Page, HTML only’ file (.html).
In FireFox, select
FILE
then
SAVE FILE AS
from your browser’s toolbar above.
In Chrome, select right click (with your mouse) on this page and select
SAVE AS
EBSCO Publishing Citation Format:
APA (American Psychological Assoc.):
NOTE: Review the instructions at
http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost&lang=&feature_id=APA
and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.
References
Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Future of the networked. New Scientist, 215(2875), 24–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(12)61936-8
Future of the networked
OPINION
An always-on world is rapidly reshaping human social interactions. Expect a battle between freedom and control, say Lee Rainie and Barry Wellman
OUR social relationships are changing and technology is at the centre of this unfolding story.
Take stock of your own world. You probably have a few family members and friends who mean the world to you. Then there are the many acquaintances, contacts, “followers” and “consequential strangers” who you only interact with occasionally but who serve useful purposes when you have questions, need to make decisions or require a helping hand.
Your ties to all of them, especially those in the outer reaches of your network, are increasingly mediated through digital technology — from email to Facebook to Skype calls.
This new social operating system has been emerging for several generations but has accelerated in growth thanks to the recent triple revolution: the widespread adoption of broadband, ubiquitous mobile connectivity and the move from bounded groups — largely closed circles of interlinked contacts — to multiple social networks.
We have dubbed the result networked individualism because loose-knit networks are overtaking more densely knit groups and traditional hierarchies as the dominant structure of social interaction.
In the world of networked individuals, the individual is the focus, not the family, the work unit, the neighbourhood or the social group. Each person creates their own network tailored to their needs, maintaining it through their email address and address book, screen name, social and technological filters, and cellphone number.
Networks are thriving. People have more strong ties as well as weak ones. The number of people on the periphery of each network is growing. In this Web 2.0 world, community-building can take new forms. Hobbyists, the civic minded, caregivers, spiritual pathfinders and many others have the option of plugging into existing communities or building their own — which they often do.
This revolution doesn’t mean physical isolation, as some fear. People still value neighbours, because they remain important for everyday socialising and emergencies. Yet neighbours are only about 10 per cent of our significant ties. While people see co-workers and neighbours often, the most important contacts tend to be with people who live elsewhere in the city, region, nation — and abroad.
The new media are able to facilitate such contact, and, in effect, have become the neighbourhood. And it is heavily populated. Data from the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project suggests that more than two-thirds of American adults and three-quarters of teenagers have become online content creators through social media and rankings, ratings, commenting and remixing applications. In this world, people can easily locate and connect with others who share their tastes, lifestyles, politics, spiritual practices, ailments or professional aspirations.
With such a fundamental social shift linked to still-developing technology, how it unfolds needs to be considered. We think there are two possible scenarios.
In the first, virtual assistants operating in a semantic web-one in which machines can better assess the ocean of information — seamlessly mesh a user’s life logistics and interests, allowing people to be more productive and more effective at integrating their needs. The merger of data and the physical environment, especially in augmented reality apps, enriches people’s experiences as they can summon information about the things they are observing — a landscape, buildings in an unfamiliar city or even faces of those they encounter.
In this benign world, the challenges of information overload are reduced as these smart agents perform filtering and relevance tests. This lets people interact with their social networks and growing information stores in productive and socially beneficial ways.
In the second scenario, a walled online world of tight corporate permissions and Big Brotherish surveillance by business and the state limits networked life. Personal agents turn out to be double agents, feeding back information on users that can be sold. People are limited in what they can do with their media and networks by those determined to prevent pirating of content.
Moreover, tech firms and their advertising allies scan users’ behaviour for commercial exploitation. People’s social network practices are quarantined inside filter bubbles that assume they want homogenised content and contact with like-minded individuals, rather than a diversified, broad outreach.
Which will unfold? The future will likely include parts of each. The architecture of the internet — dominated by the hacker ethic-will facilitate open networks and all the social connection that goes with them. Legal struggles over content ownership and the cost of access may lead to restrictions that could limit the capacity for users to do what they want.
Evolving social norms will push both ways. Some will encourage openness as people want to connect; others will encourage limits as the hassled and hard-pressed withdraw occasionally.
In short, the world will fragment, with some parts moving towards the brighter side of networked individualism and other parts moving towards gated communities and more tightly controlled information flows.
The triple revolution has given rise to far-reaching consequences, though it is not yet clear what the outermost points of impact will be. What is evident is that networked individualism is tightly tied to technological changes on the horizon and that the time is ripe to contemplate the shape of things to come.
~~~~~~~~
By Lee Rainie and Barry Wellman
Lee Rainie directs the Pew Research Center’s Internet& American Life Project based in Washington DC. Barry Wellman is a professor of sociology and director of NetLab at the University of Toronto, Canada. Their new book, Networked, is out now (MIT Press)
Copyright of New Scientist is the property of New Scientist Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Back