It’s clear that this is a topic that divides not only personalities, but opinions. At the outset, I was quite clear in my belief that the sense of two-facedness in having more than one online identity is not worth the gain, but what I learned during the writing process and from my colleagues’ own posts and comments has helped give me a more balanced view of the matter. Not enough to change my mind, but to afford me a better understanding.
In Topic 1 I struggled to find useful ways to incorporate different media forms to convey my point, so this week I made a concerted effort to make the most of the wide range of coverage available on the topic of multiple online personalities, as well as my own experience in the online world. This had a noticeable impact on the visual and interactive appeal of my post, and is certainly a technique I intend to carry forward.
Others also took a visual approach, and I particularly enjoyed Tobie’s use of visual stimuli such as Hurwitz’s ‘Meta Ego’ installation, something which I came across in my own research but would not have been able to include as eloquently as he did. He also made me consider the potential advantages of online anonymity for activism and security, concepts I had potentially overlooked.
Similarly, Harry’s post offered a new perspective to me, arguably a more cynical (but no less valuable) perspective. His suggestion that multiple identities allowed for the protection of our personal data from ‘privatisation’ by corporations was intriguing, bringing to the forefront questions of the hidden impacts of choosing, or not choosing, to have multiple online identities.
I was also pleased that my post managed to generate such tantalising discussion, with comments such as Davina’s and Nikhil’s in particular giving me additional questions and angles to consider and respond to, casting a refreshing new light on my own work.
Click here to read my comments on Tobie and Harry’s posts.
What would Will do? 