Blog Post 1

Networking using social media can mean many different things to different people, and even different things to the same person within different contexts, i.e. networking for their career vs their hobby. I want to start off by saying that as an person with asd, I will have a fairly unique experience with networking, as social interactions already tend to be intellectualized, so I end up in the mindset of “active networking” even when that isn’t really what other people are doing, simply by the nature of how I as a person understand and navigate these social spaces. As such, what I view as under the networking label, others might not, but that’s okay to me.
To me, most social interaction falls into one of two categories: I am discussing something I love with someone I know or am comfortable with, and all other social situations. When I am talking about my specific interests with people that I know want to hear me talk about those things, I can just let myself talk without having to engage in the constant self-analysis and monitoring that mark most other interactions in my life. When I am talking with people who I don’t know I plan to already follow a more structured script and focus on just making the connection in a more “professional” sense. Most of my networking in social media follows similarly.
On social media platforms, I tend to interact in a very personable manner with those that I am already close to, and in a far more professional or calculated manner with those that I am not. To me, networking on social media is quite similar to networking in person; if there is someone that I happen to find myself in the same space as I will intentionally create some of those “weaker links” with them, as that is what I have internalized as the right social script to follow in these situations. Something else I wanted to touch on was regarding how the reading by Rajagopal et al. described the lack of ways that technology and social media networking applications can facilitate the differences between their three different levels of lengths. While it is true that very few social media sites have ways that help to make the level of these connections explicit, it is also the case that there is nothing in our real life networking and social spaces that makes the levels of these links explicit either. The level of the link is all contextual within the interactions of the people involved in that link. If someone is a strong link in a network, then both individuals will understand and recognize that to varying degrees based on the social markers that both people use in their communication, like the language used, the rate of communication over time, tone, etc.. This works the same way in real life as it does in social media interactions. As such, I find the author’s implication that these technologies could be improved by making the levels of these links more explicit within the technology fascinating.

As I began to describe above, there are a few ways that we are motivated to involve ourselves in networked publics, ranging from simply believing that it’s the right thing to do in the social situation in which one finds themselves, to seeking out people who share hobbies and build those networked connections for more personal reasons, to building a network of people with the motivation of moving up in their careers, to people who simply want to get to know as many different people from as many different walks of life to learn as much as they can in their life. The motivations and benefits relating to each of these specific examples of networks/subnetworks are all varied, but each involves interacting with others to learn new things and experience the world from the perspective of another person with whom you relate in some way. The motivations that drive participation in networked publics are as many and varied as the possible motivations for people engaging in any social activity. Again, this specific belief/understanding of these concepts of mine could be related to my own specific experience with how I view and understand social interaction and the motivations behind it, but I am still resolute in the my own conceptualization of how these social constructions of networking and interacting are motivated and brought about by the people that participate in them.

There are of course risks and rewards to this kind of public communication. The most obvious of each comes from the fact that it is public; that is, public communication allows for others to witness or even join in to the conversations and interactions that take place. This is a double edged sword, because that ability for others to glean information from and join in on the conversation can both lead to more in depth or constructive conversations, or allow for the information that if being discussed to be abused by others. For example, by writing about my ASD here on this public forum, I may be reducing my ability for employment once I graduate, since many workplaces are still reluctant to hire people with ASD. However, by having these discussions in the public space we allow for people to see and consider these perspectives, which can contribute to the de-stigmatization of things like ASD. In this sense, by writing about myself in this manner here, I am both increasing and decreasing the likelihood that my diagnosis will have a negative impact on my future. As such, I think that having public conversations about things is a great way to help move society forward, and construct new knowledge in a manner that allows for input from all people. I do still think people are entitled to their own privacy though, and I am aware that my own discussion of my experiences with ASD may contribute to how other people with ASD are stereotyped or interpreted, like in how the reading about networked privacy discusses.