I Can Read Clearly Now: Blog Theory Chapter 3 & 4

Before I go on, I must say that I really enjoyed reading chapter 3. As oppose to the previous chapters it was much more relatable, in the sense that I can understand the claims being made (priarily due to the touches of modernity that Dean threw into the chapter).


As I read chapter 3 there were a few things that really stood out to me. The first was the seemingly comparison of blog to social networking sites, such as Facebook and Myspace. The reason is because although Facebook has some similarities to blogs, where you can make it as impersonal or personal as you like; I do not think comparing blogs to social networking sites are comparable. When Dean aid that social networking site share a 'similar fantasy' to that of blogs I found that very hard to see. Why? Because with blogs you do not have to post a picture, you do not have to post your real name and you can make it as personal as you wish. However, with Facebook, there is that barrier barring you from reaching that anonmity that blogs provide. Sure, one can use the privacy setting to control who cannot see what they are posting in their status or notes; but that takes away from the freedom that blogs provide. Additionally, Facebook has an outline set for its users, it dictates how much you say, what you can say, what pictures you can poster; whereas blogs are designed for you to do what you please.


Another thing that stood out to me was Dean's discussion of the networked media's challenge to collective identity. Correct me if I am wrong but my interpretation of this was that we as a collective society are control through social mediums, that strip us of identity, something she speaks about on page 76. I agree with Dean because influence by what is fed to us through these mediums,in fact the social norms that we live by are what was channeled though networked media.


As I read through chapter 3, I found Dean's criticism of word clouds pretty interesting, especially the claim that word clouds:


"...transmit the intensity, it might incite a feeling or a response, but it doesn’t invite the interrogation of that response or what induced it."


The reason is because word have more than one meaning. For example, the word hot can mean someone is attractive, sometihing is cool, or something is literally hot. In addition, Martin Luther King used "dream" over and over in his famous speech, yet people were still able to understand what induced it.


Chapter 4 was also interesting, I agree with Dean's critism of trying to build a relationship between one's online activity and actvisim. The reason is because people tend to think that saying things against the government online is going to change something and from what I understood about Dean's points, is that online activity does not and will not equal political change, that is just like saying Twitter led to the revolution in Egypt. Although, it helped people get information out, the revolution was already boiling up prior to its use.