There was an interesting article in NYTimes today about blogs and the over-exposure of one's personal life [1]. Well, interesting in a few ways. The article itself, while rather self-absorbed, was also well-written and pulls you along for all ten pages. Then, there are the hundreds of comments, the majority scathing. That's pretty amazing and kinda sad.
However, the article and comments raises an interesting point -- that of over-exposure and over-sharing. How much (personal) information is too much? I've thought about this too, when we started this blog. In fact, I was highly wary putting up personal photos for a while at first.
Years back, there would be loads of horror stories over some abuse of personal information and especially personal photos posted on the web. I wouldn't have dared blog. Surf as an anonymous user, yes; identify myself, no. Now, there are still horror stories, but our attitudes seem to have evolved, and we now see it as an acceptable risk. It's like many new technologies -- when the car or airplane was first introduced, I'm sure people must have clucked their tongues over the accidents and declared that the best thing to do was not to ride the car or airplane. Avoid all new things like the plague!
But like it or not, these technologies, whether cars or the internet, are here to stay. These days, there are a lot more car accidents (because there are a lot more cars) but I can't imagine people saying that we should all avoid cars (and roads); instead, we see cars accidents as acceptable and unavoidable risks, and instead focus on how to mitigate those risks. Likewise, I think the internet has reached a stage where it's here to stay and it's definitely going to change our lives. So rather than hiding our heads in the sand and thinking that the internet is a scary place (I wonder if people would rush to take down their blogs, facebook accounts, etc. after such an article?), we should focus on how we can sensibly utilize the internet.
Interestingly, many of the negative comments on that article seem to come from the older folks, sneering at the young ones for wasting, nay ruining, their lives in front of the computer screen; basically, they told the writer to "get a life". Some of the younger readers say, "This IS our life; this is our generation." Speaking as someone who spends more time online than asleep, I am of the opinion that an online life these days can be as rich as so-called 'real life', or RL.
Blogs are controversial, because they are highly personal and because they are used for a wide variety of purposes, from writing about serious to the terribly inane. Blogs started small but somehow along the way, they've exceeded people's initial expectations. Unexpected connections and trends emerge. The blogosphere is an accidental social microcosm. People might argue that while blogs represent a new means of transmitting information, social etiquette still applies. I generally agree with that; however, where this boundary between interesting and 'TMI' occurs is highly debatable -- I wouldn't write about most of what the writer of the article blogged about, such as her urinary tract infections, but I'm not saying that she shouldn't because that's her prerogative. But this boundary between what's acceptable and what's not is vague and controversial, and continues to be redefined.
My own experience and opinion of blogging has changed over the past few months; I started tentative and bland, almost like a generic form letter or holiday card sent out to friends saying, "All is well", but lately I am thinking that our blog has more potential than that. Why do people blog; what do they hope to achieve? And do they get it? Do their blogs change; do they change? Blogging is a fascinating social phenomenon, and rather than staying at the sidelines and shaking one's head like the commentors in the NYT article, maybe one should just jump right into this virtual world.
And my main point to all this rambling? The article raises again the oft-discussed issue of over-sharing on blogs, but I ask, is it possible to delineate a threshold beyond which it would considered TMI? Given that these boundaries keep shifting with time (what would not have been acceptable ten years ago would be more acceptable now), virtual location (a candid discussion on urinary tract infections might be considered distasteful for a personal blog but it would have been fine for a medical forum) and cultures (some cultures are more liberal, others highly conservative), defining such boundaries is not easy or trivial at all.
[1] Gould E, Exposed, NY Times, 25 May 2008.
However, the article and comments raises an interesting point -- that of over-exposure and over-sharing. How much (personal) information is too much? I've thought about this too, when we started this blog. In fact, I was highly wary putting up personal photos for a while at first.
Years back, there would be loads of horror stories over some abuse of personal information and especially personal photos posted on the web. I wouldn't have dared blog. Surf as an anonymous user, yes; identify myself, no. Now, there are still horror stories, but our attitudes seem to have evolved, and we now see it as an acceptable risk. It's like many new technologies -- when the car or airplane was first introduced, I'm sure people must have clucked their tongues over the accidents and declared that the best thing to do was not to ride the car or airplane. Avoid all new things like the plague!
But like it or not, these technologies, whether cars or the internet, are here to stay. These days, there are a lot more car accidents (because there are a lot more cars) but I can't imagine people saying that we should all avoid cars (and roads); instead, we see cars accidents as acceptable and unavoidable risks, and instead focus on how to mitigate those risks. Likewise, I think the internet has reached a stage where it's here to stay and it's definitely going to change our lives. So rather than hiding our heads in the sand and thinking that the internet is a scary place (I wonder if people would rush to take down their blogs, facebook accounts, etc. after such an article?), we should focus on how we can sensibly utilize the internet.
Interestingly, many of the negative comments on that article seem to come from the older folks, sneering at the young ones for wasting, nay ruining, their lives in front of the computer screen; basically, they told the writer to "get a life". Some of the younger readers say, "This IS our life; this is our generation." Speaking as someone who spends more time online than asleep, I am of the opinion that an online life these days can be as rich as so-called 'real life', or RL.
Blogs are controversial, because they are highly personal and because they are used for a wide variety of purposes, from writing about serious to the terribly inane. Blogs started small but somehow along the way, they've exceeded people's initial expectations. Unexpected connections and trends emerge. The blogosphere is an accidental social microcosm. People might argue that while blogs represent a new means of transmitting information, social etiquette still applies. I generally agree with that; however, where this boundary between interesting and 'TMI' occurs is highly debatable -- I wouldn't write about most of what the writer of the article blogged about, such as her urinary tract infections, but I'm not saying that she shouldn't because that's her prerogative. But this boundary between what's acceptable and what's not is vague and controversial, and continues to be redefined.
My own experience and opinion of blogging has changed over the past few months; I started tentative and bland, almost like a generic form letter or holiday card sent out to friends saying, "All is well", but lately I am thinking that our blog has more potential than that. Why do people blog; what do they hope to achieve? And do they get it? Do their blogs change; do they change? Blogging is a fascinating social phenomenon, and rather than staying at the sidelines and shaking one's head like the commentors in the NYT article, maybe one should just jump right into this virtual world.
And my main point to all this rambling? The article raises again the oft-discussed issue of over-sharing on blogs, but I ask, is it possible to delineate a threshold beyond which it would considered TMI? Given that these boundaries keep shifting with time (what would not have been acceptable ten years ago would be more acceptable now), virtual location (a candid discussion on urinary tract infections might be considered distasteful for a personal blog but it would have been fine for a medical forum) and cultures (some cultures are more liberal, others highly conservative), defining such boundaries is not easy or trivial at all.
[1] Gould E, Exposed, NY Times, 25 May 2008.
1 comment:
Hi guys, I too have thought about this topic a lot. Especially considering that I'm a public servant and by virtue of the fact that I see about 120 to 150 students every year am by default 'famous'. So, I have a walk a very fine line.
Blogging, the way we're doing it, is really important to me. I can stay connected to your guys and participate or witness your thoughts/lives/environment without having to be there with you or actually spend time with you. While this may seem impersonal, it's better than losing touch with a friend completely.
I like it that you guys share your life online with lots of pictures. Ironically, I feel more in touch with you guys than when you were living in Singpaore.
One last thought. With so much stimulus available in our modern lives. The only people who will read our blogs are those who care about us.
Post a Comment