QOtW9: What is Citizen Journalism?

It is probably a passé idea that writing good pieces of news or information is only limited professional journalists. Today, everyone wants a piece of the cake. People want their voices heard. They want their opinions known. As such, this gives rise to what we term, “Citizen Journalism”.

As defined by wikipedia, Citizen Journalism is an act of citizens playing an active role of collecting, reporting and sharing information. (Wiki "Citizen Journalism", 2007). From my understanding, citizen journalism has been in practice for a rather long period of time. The most apparent example will be that of the Straits Times, whereby people write in to contribute their opinions, either regarding issues brought up by professional journalists, or through things that they observe or experience. However, with rapid advancement in technology, Blogging is perhaps one of the most common channel through which people practise citizen journalism now, in lieu of the conventional print medium.

In my opinion, citizen journalism has its advantage in the sense that it does not matter if the writer is educated or not, and it does not matter even if he has no flair in writing. Citizen journalism has provided an equal chance for everyone to voice out their thoughts. Furthermore, citizen journalism can sometimes serve as a watchdog, giving special notice to news or information that may have been left out by the mainstream media, knowingly and unknowingly.

In conjunction with citizen journalism, our local media has also set up our very own website, STOMP (Straits Times Online Mobile Print). Basically, STOMP aims to "provide readers with new avenues to express themselves, to enable them to interact with us and among themselves" (About Us, 2006). As explained clearly in the name itself, news and information can basically be shared via the Internet, mobile phone, or the print media. Anyone is free to contribute whatever news that they thought is interesting, by sending it over to STOMP over these media.

After a quick browse through the STOMP website, it did not take long for me to realize that the issues discussed are generally entertaining and close to us Singaporeans. People with similar views or interests are bonded together under the same topics, and our local Singlish is widely used to inject some local flavor as well as a homely feel to the website. People can also link to celebrity bloggers such as Xiaxue or Mia to have a browse on their views on local issues.

In sum, I feel that while STOMP is indeed a great way for us Young Singaporeans to catch up and stay relevant with the local scene in a more lighthearted manner, it still in its infancy. As seen in the website itself, the genres of the topics discussed are less relevant to serious issues such as politics, but are instead rather focused on juicy news or gossips. This may partially be due to the fact that STOMP is actually an official website with close monitoring involved. Hence, people are less willing to participate in highly sensitive topics. Gillmor (2004) urges the government to listen to the people, just as journalists need to listen to their audience. While censorship has its benefit in protecting the minds of the more vulnerable, it certainly does restrict the freedom of speech and ideas to a great extent. Perhaps with greater freedom and transparency, STOMP will be a more exciting place to visit.


References

Gillmor, D. (2004, July). We the Media, Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People. Retrieved March 29, 2007 from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?phile=WeTheMedia.html&tipe=text/html#chap3

STOMP (2006) From Singapore Press HoldingsRetrieved March 28, 2007 fromhttp://www.stomp.com.sg/

Wikipedia: Citizen Journalism. (2007, March 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 29, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism

QoTW7: Online Communities - Twitter

Twiddle dee.. twiddle dum.. twit twit… twit what? Twitter.com?
Well apparently this is the current hot social networking site as introduced by Mr Kevin Lim. Cute as the name sounds, my first initial thought about this website was, is it some kind of games website? Hell no, it is actually an online area where people come together to make friends. Bringing on to our topic of the week, can twitter be considered an online community?

As defined by Rheingold, virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Internet when enough people sustain public discussions long enough to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace. (Fernback, & Thompson, 1995). Based on this definition, twitter is considered an online community, as users of twitter actually respond and leave comments on public discussion boards and, eventually form personal relationships. Twitter.com has further defined its purpose as a tool “for staying in touch and keeping up with friends no matter where you are or what you’re doing”. (“Twitter”, 2007, Para. 1).

Just like real-time chats such as the Internet Relay Chat (IRC), twitter also allows multiple users to chat simultaneously, and the public display page is being refreshed each time a person leaves a message. Furthermore, with the ability to use pseudonyms in lieu of real names, twitter users are allowed to generate profiles that will suit whichever groups they wish to get involved in, without giving away too much information. Signing up for an account is as easy as just giving a name (supposedly your full name), email address, as well as a password. Pictures are optional, depending on how well the user wish to complete his profile. In retrospect, twitter has definitely met the criteria in being an online community; whereby communication is tuned to the way the user want it to be – how he appears to other users (profile), which groups to join, what topics to discuss, how he wants to go about interacting with others. “Community within cyberspace emphasizes a community of interests, usually bounded by the topic under discussion that can lead to a communal spirit and apparent social bonding. These communities can be purely instrumental in nature that is, they may never extend beyond talking to one another; or, they may promote action that is, virtual communities may manifest themselves in real political action, such as educational reform or political caucuses” (Fernback, & Thompson, 1995)
Unlike other social networking sites such as friendster, twitter is unique in such a way that it allows users to let others know what they are doing at the very moment. There is not much emphasis on pictures or photographs, but instead, people simple communicate via the public display boards. Twitter users “use words on screens to exchange pleasantries and argue, engage in intellectual discourse, conduct commerce, exchange knowledge, share emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, find friends and lose them, play games, flirt, create a little high art and a lot of idle talk” (Fernback, & Thompson, 1995). This somehow makes twitter seem more “real” as a virtual community, as almost everything can be ambiguous, even when communication is going on.

Of course, critics may argue that twitter can never be considered as a form of online community, as it is just one of the tools whereby people leave comments, and relationships may not even develop at all. Some may even argue about the existence of online communities, as they are intangible and unreal. “The Net is only one of many ways in which the same people may interact. It is not a separate reality.” (Wellman & Gulia, 1996)

In my opinion, I feel that twitter can be considered as an online community. It is a channel by which people come together to make friends and socialize, just like any other social networking sites. With its special features such as allowing Instant Messaging (IM) and mobile services to keep track of what is going on in the community, there will be constant communication going on, and most importantly, personal relationships can thus occur.

References

1. Fernback, J., & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html

2. Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1996). Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://www.acm.org/%7Eccp/references/wellman/wellman.html

3. Twitter. (2007). What is Twitter?. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://twitter.com/faq

Qotw6: Privacy, Surveillance, Sousveillance

Perhaps it is high time for us to come to terms with the fact that privacy is no longer possible in the realm of virtual reality. Or is it?

From credit cards to phone bills, from personal blogs to social networking sites such as friendster and facebook, our personal information is, in one way or another, being constantly revealed to people whom we do not even know exist. We are naked and vulnerable, or so to speak.

In the age of the internet, we are experiencing something that might be called the 'Omnipticon' in which the many are watching the many, even though no one knows precisely who is watching or being watched at any given time. (Rosen, 2004).

Such is the vulnerability of self disclosure online, and it is even more amazing at how relationships can be forged in this manner.

Just like how Jeffrey Rosen has aptly described, the basis for intimate relationships of trust is no longer the same as before. Today, intimacy and trust are increasingly obtained not by shared experiences or fixed social status but by self-revelation: people try to prove their trustworthiness by revealing details of their personal lives to prove that they have nothing to hide before a crowd whose gaze is turned increasingly on all the individuals that compose it. (Rosen, 2004)

Having to live in this internet era, the Internet is now the commonplace for people to communicate and exchange whatever information is desired. However, just like any other form of communication, there has to be this level of acceptance before anyone is even willing to interact with you. People have to like you first.

As a result, people tend to come up with profiles that may or may not be who they truly are, so long as they get people interested in knowing them. This spells trouble, as people may eventually forget and lose their own identity, and behave according to how society wants them to behave.

The key question here is: Does that matter? (Sullivan, 2007)

In retrospect, people do not really seem to mind even if they have changed and lost their own identity. It is, in my opinion, actually a way to protect oneself. Given the fact that there is still no foolproof way to ensure absolute security in this digital world, it is more prudent to protect oneself, either by assuming a pseudonym or simply just alter one’s particulars.

The digital bread crumbs you leave everywhere make it easy for strangers to reconstruct who you are, where you are and what you like. In some cases, a simple Google search can reveal what you think. Like it or not, increasingly we live in a world where you simply cannot keep a secret. (Sullivan. 2006)

There you go. Neither is there any privacy nor any sense of security. We are that vulnerable in this digital age. In a bid to allay the fears in people, the ICTW has actually come up with a guideline to help people protect themselves better. Advising people from giving out their social security numbers, and advising them to use private phone numbers when doing online dealings are few such examples.

Just like how Bob Sullivan has described, privacy is like health: when you have it, you do not notice it. Only when it’s gone do you wish you’d done more to protect it. (Sullivan, 2006).
It is indeed up to each individual to make efforts in protecting themselves and their privacy, be it in the online or offline settings. Laws and advices just ain't enough.




References

1. Rosen, Jeffery (2004). "The Naked Crowd" Retrieved March 9, 2007 from http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm

2. Sullivan, B. (2006). Privacy Lost: Does Anyone Care?. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/

3. "ICWT: In Corruption We Trust - 13 Easy Ways to Safeguard you Privacy in 2007". Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.icwt.us/index.php/2007/01/23/13-easy-ways-to-safeguard-your-privacy-in-2007-update/

QotW5: Online Identity

It is common sense to know that we will usually communicate with people whom we know, or whom we like. In the world of communication, identity assumes a rather crucial role, simply because it lessens the ambiguity between the communicators. This is even more important in the virtual world, where communication is based on gut feelings and what the other party reveals to us. However, how accurate is the identity portrayed by the other party? Can we really trust what we perceived?

In communication, which is the primary activity, knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction. Yet in the disembodied world of the virtual community, identity is also ambiguous. Many of the basic cues about personality and social role we are accustomed to in the physical world are absent. (Donath, 1996)

We all understand that the internet has not only provided us with a faster and more efficient channel to retrieve a vast range of information, it is also a way in which people are able to come together to communicate freely. There will be no laws to restrict us like in the physical world, and more importantly, we are able to become what we want to be.

So, ambiguity is the key.

Online identity is far more malleable than "real life" identity; the latter is shaped by factors that are difficult to control (including race, class, occupation, and level of educational achievement). By means of online identities, people are free to redefine themselves as they wish. (In Peter Steiner's famous New Yorker cartoon, a canine computer user says, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.") The redefinition may involve deception: Gender-switching is common in MUDs and other virtual communities. Still, some Internet users say that their online identity more accurately reflects their "true selves" than the identity they have acquired offline. (Wikipedia, 2007)

True enough, due to the malleability of the online identity, we are able to choose freely, or do freely, the things that we barely have the courage to do in our real life. Being humans, we are very much concerned with the impression that people have of us, for this very reason, we tend to restrict ourselves in many ways. For instance, a girl who appears to be an introvert may turn out to be someone who is really outspoken online, based on the idea that no one knows her. Compared to the physical world, it is relatively easy to pass as someone else online since there are relatively few identity cues. Silly as it sounds, people do tend to hold the idea that online pseudonym gives them anonymity. (Wikipedia, 2007)

In my opinion, the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) is probably one of the most common places in the virtual world where people take on different identities. From my previous entry, we understand how the IRC function, and that we know that it is one of the few places where people could actually come together and engage in real time conversations. Apart from all these, one of the more interesting features of IRC is that it allows the chatters to have nicknames, and they can change the nicknames as and when they fancy. Once they become regular chatters, they tend to use the same nicknames each time they log on to interact with others. This is when reputation sets in. It is inevitable for one to establish a reputation (be it good or bad) when he participates actively and regularly in the IRC.
Usually, when one has managed to establish a good reputation, he will try to maintain the good name, by continuing to assume his online identity, then unknowingly(or vice versa, depending on his motive) create a brand new persona, which may or may not be what he really is in real life. The reason why a person is able to assume an online identity so readily is due to the very fact that there are hardly any restrictions, and that the people whom he communicates with probably would not know him in real life.

“You can't see people when you are computer-chatting with them; you can't even ascertain their true identities, and you are unlikely ever to run into them on the material plane or recognize them if you do.” (Rheingolds, 1993)

Since everyone is free to choose their own desired nicknames, it is possible that two or more people may choose the same nicknames at the same time. Even if they don’t, it is also possible that someone may want to impersonate someone who is rather prominent in the IRC channel. As a form of precaution, chatters may choose to register their own nicknames so that they become password protected and will have lesser chances of having their online identities stolen or misused.

Apart from stolen nicknames, there also lies the danger of having your personal identification being misused. In IRC, where there are hardly or no laws governing whatever that is being communicated, it is nothing surprising to have vast amounts of information being trafficked around. The ways in which each user is being recognized are either through his nickname or through his IP address, and with that, a person’s particulars can be reached.

All in all, online identity is something rather intangible and is almost impossible to have it fully protected from potential harm, such as identity theft.



References

1. Donath, Judie(1996). "Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community" Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

2. Online Identity(2007). Wikipedia. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_identity

3. Rheingold, H. (1993). Visionaries and Convergences: The Accidental History of the Net, Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/3.html

QotW4: The Gift Economy

I have always loved to receive gifts since young. Gifts are always given freely to us, and there is no explicit demand that you have give something in return. (Kollock, 1999) However, the unspoken rule of reciprocity still applies.

The notion of “Nothing is free in this world” does not quite seem to stand today, especially in the realm of the gift economy, and the internet is probably one of the best examples.




A gift economy is an economic system in which the prevalent mode of exchange is for goods and services to be given without explicit agreement upon a quid pro quo (the Latin term for the concept of "a favor for a favor"). (Wikipedia, 2007) Pollard (2005) defines the gift economy as an outlet where people can come together "to learn, to understand, to change and take charge of the world."

Today, you can basically download anything and everything from the internet at absolutely zero cost. This is also applicable to specific-information sharing; you can simply join an interest group, and from there you can actually obtain whatever relevant information you need. Even if you do not join one, you can still Google or surf around, and it is almost 100% sure that you will get what you want (usually free). For instance, if I am interested in knowing about topics that are related to soccer, I can easily obtain what I want from http://www.asianbookie.com/. Either that or I can simply join networks such as multiply.com in order to form a community where I can make friends with similar interests, exchange ideas, and even give advice. This is indeed an amazing and tremendous change, for it was merely a decade ago where hardly anyone would ever anticipate that we could easily gain access to the world through the little computer screens in our homes.

“Ten years ago, it was easy to dismiss visions of a wondrous screen in our homes that would provide the whole world in its magical window. The idea of a universal information port was considered uneconomical and too futuristic to be real in our lifetimes. Yet at any hour of today, most readers of this paper have access to the full text of the Encyclopedia Britannica, precise map directions to anywhere in the country, stock quotes in real time, local weather forecasts with radar pictures, immediate sports scores from your hometown, any kind of music you could desire, answers to medical questions, hobbyists who know more than you do, tickets to just about anything, 24/7 e-mail, news from a hundred newspapers, and so on. Much of this is for free.” (Kelly, 2002)



Since the gift economy operates in such a way that everything is given free, it is indeed interesting to know what exactly drives people to share? I mean, we can always take without giving anything in return at all.

One of the biggest possibilities will be the rule of reciprocity. By virtue of the reciprocity rule, we are obligated to the future repayment of favors, gifts, invitations, and the like. (Cialdini, 2001) As such, when we receive something, we will tend to want to return the favor, even when there is not a need or demand to do so. As we receive more, we would tend to feel the need to return more. The cycle continues, and eventually a network of information would be shared and disseminated.

The second possible driving force will be recognition and reputation. High quality information, impressive technical details in one's answers, a willingness to help others, and elegant writing can all work to increase one's prestige in the community. (Kollock, 1999) Incessant helpful acts and contribution in an online group allows one to be recognize, and once a reputation is established, the person will naturally continue to provide more help and information.

The third possibility will be that of self-efficacy and commitment to the group. As human beings, we do want to feel important from time to time, in order to establish self-esteem. When we feel that we are important and that we can make an impact to the group, we tend to upkeep our image by continuing to give contributions. Having commitment to a group pushes one to contribute as well, but it all depends on the extent to which the person is attached to the group. (Kollock, 1999)

So far, the above three mentioned motivations are related to self-interest. The last that I am going to mention would be that of altruism; we cannot deny the existence of people who are truly willing to share whatever they have, all for the benefit of the community.

Here is an example of an online community; Flowerpod. This is basically a Singapore online community, primarily meant for girls. From beauty to health, from career to entertainment, family to pets; there are basically forums for each topic, and all that we need to do is to sign up and we are free to post our comments and share our ideas, all for free. There is no obligation as to how much you have to share, but people just keep coming in. My guess is that there is this sense of commitment and belonging as members of the group, thus they will make it a point to contribute as much as they can.

www.flowerpod.com.sg

In sum, while it is true that money is the fundamental push factor to keep an economy going, it is also true that there are exceptions to this. The gift economy has illustrated that people are still willing to communicate and share ideas and information, even when money is not involved. Of course, in the midst of doing so, people may, knowingly or unknowingly get involved in tricky issues such as copyright infringement. This is when authorities such as the creative common come into the picture to help moderate or ensure that everything is done legitimately.

References

1. Cialdini, Robert B. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. 4th Edition. Boston, MA :Allyn & Bacon.

2. Kollock, P. (1999). The economies of online cooperation: Gifts and public goods in cyberspace. Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm

3. Gift Economy. (2007). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

4. Pollard, D. (2005). The Gift Economy. Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2005/04/17.htm

5. Kelly, K. (2002). Web runs on Love. Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://www.tresser.com/web_runs.htm

6. www.asianbookie.com

7. www.flowerpod.com.sg

QotW3: Copyright

To date, no one has been able to come up with an exact definition of the internet. However, it is rather safe to say that the internet is a big ocean of information, where sharing and learning is made possible with just a simple click on the mouse. The vast and explosive growth of the internet has rendered it impossible to control. As such, issues such as copyright infringement come into the picture. How do we go about protecting the public and the content creators?

For starters, maybe we should first define what is copyright. According to Wikipedia, copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or an expression. (Wikipedia, 2007) Copyright is about protecting content providers and giving them credit and rewards for their efforts and originality, in the monetary form.

Each year, great losses are incurred by music and movie industries due to illegal file sharing. “We estimate we lose millions of dollars a day to all forms of piracy” (RIAA, 2003) Despite much effort put in to bust all forms of piracy, there is little or no control over the current rapid increase in illegal file sharing.

With more and more P2P software and programs coming into the picture nowadays, the public no longer sees any need to pay for music or movies that they wish to hear or watch. This is pretty much common sense to most people – why pay, when you can get it free? Furthermore, we get to choose what we want before we download anything, then compile it altogether so that we get our own personalized album. The invention of Ipod and other MP3 players have also made buying CDs and DVDs seem rather redundant.

It may be argued that it is important to give credits to those who have spent huge amounts of effort, time and energy to produce great music and movies for us, but the issue here is, why does it have to be in the monetary form? Does it mean that if and only if we pay, we are truly giving good appraisals to the content creators and that we are truly admiring their work?

There is absolutely no doubt about the passion involved when content creators come up with every one of their masterpieces, and surely, their creativity will/can never stop so long as their passion is involved and so long as there are people wanting to enjoy their work? It sounds pretty ridiculous to say that piracy stifles productivity. It is almost equivalent to say that money is the only driving force for these content creators to come up with good pieces of work. For most musicians or movie makers or artists, their ultimate goal is probably just to communicate their emotions, thoughts, culture, and interests to people of the same frequency. Say if one good album comes out piping hot and fresh in the market, I would assume that the content creator prefers his album to land in the hands of someone who truly appreciates it, rather than in the hands of someone who feels otherwise. Money can never be the best gauge to see if the work is a good piece or not, but instead, it is usually the response of the people who have viewed the work.

So does it mean that content creators work for free? NO.

In actual fact, there are still many people who are willing to buy and collect CDs/ DVDs that they like. It is like paying royalties to content providers. Most consumers of the media industry's product are generally law-abiding and will not resort to piracy if given reasonable options - in fact, they'll willingly pay more money if they perceive that they're getting more value. (Stillman, 2002) People nowadays are smart. They only pay for things which they feel are worthy and reasonable. Take the recent craze over the Korean pop star, Rain, for instance, people are willing to fork out exorbitant sums of money just to listen to his two-hour concert. Reason being, apart from his amazing dance moves, part of the profits would be donated to world vision to aid children who are suffering from AIDS.

One of the best solutions to ensure a balance the interests of the content creators and public will be the creative commons – a non-profit organization devoted to expanding the range of creative work available for others legally to build upon and share. (Wikipedia, 2007) Content providers are able to share their music and videos with the public selectively, by providing them with free licenses. In this way, public can get a fair share of information without infringing copyright laws, and after which they can choose whether or not they wish to buy the original pieces of work.

In conclusion, copyright is just a rule to ensure that the rights of content providers are protected, and it should not be a tool to create monetary gains. Prices of movies and music pieces should be charged just sufficient to cover costs and they should never be profit oriented. It is indeed because people enjoy the work of the artistes, and that they are not willing to pay huge amounts for them, that is why they resort to downloading.

References

1. Wikipedia (2007). Copyright. Retrieved February 2, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

2. Wikipedia (2007). Creative Commons. Retrieved February 2, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons

3. RIAA (2003). Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved February 1, 2007 from http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp

4. Rich Stillman (2002). What's wrong with the DMCA. Retrieved February 3, 2007 from http://www.waystation.net/stillman/DMCA/dmca.html

COM 125 Week 2: History of the Internet – Internet Relay Chat (IRC)

With the proliferation of the Internet, communication has been made so much easier and convenient. Constant breakthroughs and advancement in technology have given rise to a new form of communication in 1988, otherwise known as the Internet Relay Chat (IRC). (Wikipedia, 2007)

IRC was created by Jarkko Oikarinen in late August in 1988, but it only gained prominence in the year 1991, when it was used during the media blackout to report on the Soviet coup attempt. It was meant as a form of real time chat via the internet, allowing group-to-group conversations via forums such as Channels, or one-to-one conversation via private messages. (Wikipedia,2007) It is a virtual meeting place where people from all over the world and from all walk of life can come together to talk, and eventually be exposed to different cultures, human interests and experiences. (mirc.com)

In the realm of IRC, there is almost absolute freedom, where people could voice their thoughts on any and every single issue, or they simply use is as a channel to vent out their frustrations by whining and ranting. All these are done at the advantage of not disclosing their true identity, and without burning a hole in their pockets.

“You can't see people when you are computer-chatting with them; you can't even ascertain their true identities, and you are unlikely ever to run into them on the material plane or recognize them if you do.” (Rheingolds, 1993)

As with most computer-mediated communication (CMC), people have the option of whether they want to disclose their identity or not. In IRC, the users usually assumes a new identity, or even take on a new persona, by having nicknames to represent themselves, and some even speak in a different manner than they normally do. I guess this really allows those who are introverts or are usually shy from the public to speak up.

You can choose your nickname

One really interesting fact about IRC is that it allows room for creativity. This could largely be due to the fact that there is little or no restriction on what a user wants to talk about, and how he wants to talk. Who would have thought that symbols such as }, - , and @ could be used to represent items such as flowers, or even the way the user feels? (Note: IRC is a virtual world, no one can see the user while he is typing away and sending his messages.) For example, @}--- will represent a flower, ^_^ will represent a happy face, T.T or :~~ will mean crying. That simply is not all; over the years, as people continue to engage in IRC, a new lingo is formed, otherwise known as the IRC-language. This language does not require the chatter to speak at all. Instead, words are usually shortened, to aid in faster typing. For instance, words like “also” has been shortened to “oso”, “through” to “thru”, “think” to “tink”, “don’t” to “dun”, and “with” to “wif”. The list goes on. Of course, such language is not recognize everywhere, but if one were to chat regularly over IRC, he would surely pick up one of two such words unknowingly.

You can even choose the colors you want for your screens and texts

Today, chatting on IRC is as simple as logging on to any of the servers, filling in your desired nickname, joining any of the listed channels, and you are able to mingle and connect freely with all other users. The interface and tools are made user-friendly, so it means that even people who are not tech-savvy are able to use IRC without much trouble.

The advantages of IRC are pretty clear thus far – freedom of expression, room for creativity, an easier and faster way to expand social networks. However, the disadvantages are pretty much obvious as well, and definitely not to be overlooked.

While giving people the room for creativity, IRC is has also fallen prey to abusive users such as the hackers, extremists, or even porn-site advertisers. IRC are also prone to attacks such as the IRC-takeover (which is the acquisition of the channel other than the owner(s)), and “nuking” (which is to disconnect users continuously to annoy them).

As a prevention method, IRC networks will k-line (temporary ban) or g-line (permanent ban) anyone who is suspected to do potential harm. (Wikipedia, 2007)

Apart from all these technical disadvantages, IRC also tends to have some insidious effect on people. The way we communicate via Emails and SMSes is one such apparent example. Like I have mentioned above, people who use IRC often enough will tend to pick up some IRC language. As such, when we are so used to the language, we tend to apply it on our everyday lives as well. This may not be a healthy sign, as we this language is definitely inapplicable to formal communication. (E.g. business letters, resumes, newspaper articles, etc.)

Addiction to IRC poses another social problem as well – addiction to IRC. Just like computer games and television programs, IRC can get people addicted to it too. Addicted users tend to spend most of his time chatting, and this will eventually be detrimental as they neglect their health, family and work. Here's a figure to illustrate the statistics of IRC users. The blue line indicates the rising number of IRC users.

In sum, IRC is certainly one of the most successful medium in which people communicate today. Unlike emails and letters, IRC allows real time chatting, to save time. Direct communication has created greater chances for them to gain more instant exposure to the whole diversity of human interests, ideas, and issues. Freedom of expression and the ability to hide one’s identity has also opened a new door for those who are usually shy and afraid to speak up. Advantageous as it sounds, there are also bad influences for those who are using it. Addiction to IRC and the widespread use of the IRC language can pose big social problems in the long run.

References

1. Internet Relay Chat (January 24, 2007) From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved January 24, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat

2. Forms of abuse (January 24, 2007) From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved January 24, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat#Forms_of_abuse

3. Rheingold, H. (1993). Visionaries and Convergences: The Accidental History of the Net, Retrieved January 26, 2007, from http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/3.html

4. "What is IRC?" (2006), Retrieved January 26, 2007, from http://www.mirc.com/

5. IRC statistics (November 22, 2006). Retrieved January 26, 2007, from http://hinner.com/ircstat/