Internet Community

I chose ESPN.com for the place of my internet group. I have been a constant visitor of their website, but did not know one could become an ESPN member. In joining the wide world of sports internet community I created a member name (the maniel) as well as a profile. The profile included picking my favorite teams and sports, giving my location, and giving my school history. In the community one can invite friends, send messages, pick winners for sports events, and take part in conversations.
I would guess that most people in the online community mostly just pick games, but a surprising amount of people do use the site as a discussion board. The conversation link pulls up heavily commented on topics. I am hating my sports life these days with the Mariners and Seahawks collaboratively sucking, but the NFL draft is just months away. One conversation I participated in involved who the Seahawks should take with their fourth pick in the draft. I assimilated into the community completely after my first post.
Sports discussions generally do not have high levels of acceptance, especially because many people feel as though they are experts. I found myself accepted in the community whenever someone responded to my posts. If no one responded to what I had to say then I did not feel like I was a part of the community. Based on how many people post afterwards can indicate the level of acceptance. Agreement and argument are both responses that validate acceptance.
Agreements and disagreements are often expressed and rarely if ever resolved. The reason many people are interested in sports is because of the competitive feel. Agreement or resolution of conflict feels like a tie. Ties are bad, because competitive people like to win. At ESPN.com when disputes are resolved then there is no reason for conversation.
The community would be much bigger if it weren’t for Hauben’s definition of non-participants. I have been a lurker in the community. I would still be a lurker if it weren’t for this project. I enjoy not contributing, and for that reason I haven’t been a member of the community in the past. Apparently I was exercising netiquette, for rule number three for Wood and Smith explain the need to “lurk before you leap”.
Society obviously needs more of a sense of community, because unmet demand of belonging is being supplied virtually. I think that people might also be shifting their communities. With the ease of the internet some people may by substituting actual communities with virtual groups. Each blog I write seems to revert back to the public’s growing dependence on the internet. I can’t help but write from that angle again. Was our society in need of community before the internet? Did I not have people to debate with in regards to sports before ESPN.com? Is there really an unfilled void of personal connection within our everyday lives? I want to say no to all three of those questions. I wonder if people in society have just integrated their lives onto the computer due to the internet aggressively integrating into how they operate. Internet communities aren’t the devil, but could they be a symptom of the lovable cancer society has been diagnosed with that is the internet?

Advertisement