Charles Gallant

The internet has allowed us to see exactly what we want. It’s not a broadcast medium like TV, where we sit back and take it all in. We choose what we want to focus on. As the internet grows, so does it’s ability to provide us with exactly what we want.

Bloglines (RSS Reader) is a newspaper custom built for our taste.

Netflix can recommend movies we’d be likely to see

Amazon.com will give us products we’re likely to enjoy

Match.com will find you a “match” according to your personal criteria.

The questions that I have about this topic all revolve around perspective. If I can be presented with exactly what I want, whenever I want, will that be potentially limiting for me? If my newspaper ONLY relates to information about celebrities and boat racing, will I miss out on another article that could prove to be really interesting to me?

Noah started an interesting discussion about all this in his latest post, and brings up efficiency. It’s efficient to find people who are like minded. It’s efficient to see the news that relates to you. It’s efficient to have this personalization of content. Noah’s mindset seems very optimistic, and (correct me if I’m wrong) implies that people will be reasonable enough to seek out that other perspective should their personal content become limiting.

For the most part, I agree with him. However, I can’t help but picture someone who chooses not to focus on any point of view other than their own, simply because it’s more comfortable for them to do so. They could FILL the free hours in their day with… say… motorcycle racing news, and be perfectly content with it. After all, ignorance is bliss…right?

Presence: Online and Off.

Everyone makes this decision.  How much of yourself do you put online?  For my generation, referencing AIM profiles can provide a simple starting point for this topic.  Certain people have profiles filled with content (where they go to school, what fraternity they belong to, photos of themselves etc.), and some have nothing at all.  Very few people, however, had problems editing their profile in the first place.  Understanding the medium simply isn’t a problem anymore.

Over the past few years this decision has become much more complicated.  In keeping with the “student social network” vibe, the questions are now more like:  How much do you post on Facebook?  Do you post your IM handle on MySpace?  How much can you learn about yourself through Google?

I’ve asked several of my friends and colleagues why they choose not to publish online, and below are the most common topics of discussion:

Questioning personal importance: What’s so important about me and my information?  I have nothing I need to say to everyone.

Questioning the value of the medium: I don’t need to resort to publishing personal information online.  I have enough real friends.

Questioning the audience’s credibility: My information is privileged and private information, that only certain people can obtain.

For me, there’s no black and white to any of these issues, but I know were I stand.  Because the medium itself (publishing something online) isn’t an issue anymore, I think we’ll encounter these questions more frequently than ever before.

How will the digitization of IDs (passports, licenses, etc) effect this notion of “presence” online?

With regards to technology & socializing, what will be the “norm” (or at least “acceptable”), in 10 years?

How has having myname.com changed my circle of friends?