Online Presence - My Thoughts and Personal Review

Online Presence - Good or Bad?

The more technology advances, the more people have to try to the best of their abilities to advance with it. It's almost unsafe to think that without an Internet presence people are less in harm's way - in fact, in our society today, each individual should have some sort of online base. This could vary between Facebook, Blogger, Twitter and the variety of other accounts being used, but it all comes down to one thing; it's almost necessary to have an entity in social media. Of course, as with anything, there are pros and cons. Without an account in any of these forms, you are very vulnerable. An online presence solidifies the second life we live, as it seems we have two existences. Identity theft is really quite easy when the web page people view is comprised of pictures and words only, and if someone knew of another person without a Facebook account, let's say, they could easily pretend to be them. However, removing oneself from social media can also have many benefits. Numerous people make mistakes every day, thinking that what they write on the web will be private forever, when in reality it will not. An increasing number of employers base who they hire on whether the person in question is respectable, honest and doesn't commit any illegalities - and it seems that people are very honest online, so why not check their social media profiles? Some view it as too much of a chance to take to bother with them. Another huge factor is popularity, the nightmare of many, many people.

As aforementioned, a 21st century human in our society has two entities - the online and the physical. Without the internet-connected one, the real one can suffer.  The web can be a fantastic tool to connect people and to start discussions, to push ideas forward, like through blogging. Those who choose not to participate can fall victim to the exclusion from many events and conversations, because if they aren't connected they cannot see the invitation or discussion. Unfortunately many people don't bother enlightening the internet-free beings because they were simply, "not there." Let's not even mention the constant competition for getting comments and "likes" on Facebook. Now, it seems that there is a new giant, Klout, coming along to further squash those who keep to themselves online. Its principle is to give points out of one hundred to each person online - the more you have, the more so-called influence you have. The problem is, this can become just another popularity competition - and this one is based on an algorithm, not even human opinion.

                                                                 

The donation of these Klout points is based on the amount of friends on Facebook or followers on Twitter, the amount of times a person posts, the response these posts generate, and more. Having a low score is often enough to spur the competitive nature in anyone, and the method to raising it can be quite simple - add more friends, post more posts. The more friends a person adds, the less online privacy they have, and depending on what information they release, the more these seemingly random people will know. Once upon a time, the village knew everything everyone was doing, but now the neighbourhood has expanded to surround the planet and the information leaks are self-induced. Obviously posting an increasing number of updates will expose even more information, and if a person isn't careful, some that could get back to their future employer, family, or others they won't want to expose it to. Employers also seem to be falling into the Klout trap as well, basing who they hire on the higher Klout score. What they seem to fail to realize is that this number is based on an algorithm, not a human opinion. Even marks at school have a human judging them, but Klout cannot take the time to do this. There could be people with very low scores doing work forming real human connections in the world, so they don't necessarily have time to spend online. It's the human connections that should be evaluated, shouldn't it? In Wired.com's article, What Your Klout Score Really Means, Sam Fiorella wasn't hired because of this. (Read article here.) Also, each score depends on the kind of activity a person is doing. Someone who "likes" a lot of pages but posts very little can have an equal Klout score to somebody who does the opposite.

What happened to our own judgement? People should not be reduced to a number by a computer, they should be evaluated in person. Just because someone posts more obnoxious posts and adds as many people as they can on their social media pages does not mean they are more competent in public relations. Such a thing can be observed through personal interaction. The trick is to keep the level of online activity consistent with the real-world activity, so that a person can establish themselves in both realms to further their chances.


My Personal Online Experience

Somehow I achieved a Klout score of 48, which was actually quite shocking, considering I think it's such a waste of energy...and resources, based on the prizes that are given out to high "achievers." I also pushed my blog out to a variety of places, so a diverse range of people could read it. I posted it on Facebook several times as well as the Blogger Facebook page, and this generated a response - in total I have had 375 pageviews from many countries. Most of them are from Canada, but I've had readers from Australia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Russia, Mexico and the US.

Having so many different people read my blog has caused me to be more careful about what I write about. I'm a fairly private person, so only my opinions go onto the page, no facts about my life, and nothing indicating who I am. I'm not really blogging to be known. Without showing myself to my audience I could create a better opinion and I feel like I wrote the articles more bluntly than I would have otherwise. I like to be honest in my writing, and blogging is the perfect media to do so. Knowing all these other people have read what I wrote also pushed me to write well. I'd never just post something half-hearted because I wouldn't want someone who doesn't know me to think the writer of the blog doesn't care.

My personal passion is music, and so I wrote on this subject, but I also have many random thoughts that pop into my head on a, well, regular basis, so it was fun to write those down and get the full idea out. I also get angry a lot, so blogging can be a little bit of an outlet as well. I may put out the occasional blog entry from now on because of this, but only when I have time between my other priorities.

To be perfectly honest, I wasn't sure about blogging when it was brought up in class, but I have to say I've thoroughly enjoyed this unit. Without proper exposure to technology, students cannot learn. In a classroom environment where we are taught the basics there is some guidance, and if we choose, we can stem off of this outside of school. I still think, however, that school should not just be comprised of technology. Computers aren't always reliable, and although handy, cannot beat a human. People now seem to have a dependence on technology and many are incapable of doing mental math, using a dictionary or encyclopedia, and even handwriting. These are skills that have been founded for many generations and all throughout out primary school lives, we shouldn't rid ourselves of them and start depending on computers.

Youth already have quite a good grasp on the advancements of the 21st century, and I personally think only guidance should be provided with technology, like this blogging. Computer science courses are available for those who want to go further, and I really can't say I'd ever want to write an assignment on my phone...ugh. School is all about learning, so the opportunities should be there, but nothing should impede our gathering of knowledge. The internet is a huge distraction, I can't lie about that.