Difference between revisions of "Talk:Stephanie Schouman"
(Created page with "I really enjoyed that you discussed the idea of our online personalities abilities to be shaped by the choices of our past, like a nick name change, and how this choice could...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I really enjoyed that you discussed the idea of our online personalities abilities to be shaped by the choices of our past, like a nick name change, and how this choice could help mask the actual identity of your name legality in real life. It is a really good segway into talking about the different identities we hold ourselves in online environments. I think it was great how you talked about how all the data on social media you chose to release about your self depends on your relationship with the people who will have access to the data. This fact directly correlates with a person's offline presence, or lack there of, in your life. If would be really interesting to continue this battle between both of your names, Steph and Stephanie, on the online environment by showing side by side comparisons of both searches and gaging which one seems more data rich (Don't necessary put the data points out there though if you do not feel comfortable doing that). I liked the idea that it was not the revealing of content related to a specific online environment that was an infringement of privacy but rather the accumulation of those data points into a neat little package that was an infringement, breaching a concept you talked about call "conceptual integrity". Awesome piece of work. | I really enjoyed that you discussed the idea of our online personalities abilities to be shaped by the choices of our past, like a nick name change, and how this choice could help mask the actual identity of your name legality in real life. It is a really good segway into talking about the different identities we hold ourselves in online environments. I think it was great how you talked about how all the data on social media you chose to release about your self depends on your relationship with the people who will have access to the data. This fact directly correlates with a person's offline presence, or lack there of, in your life. If would be really interesting to continue this battle between both of your names, Steph and Stephanie, on the online environment by showing side by side comparisons of both searches and gaging which one seems more data rich (Don't necessary put the data points out there though if you do not feel comfortable doing that). I liked the idea that it was not the revealing of content related to a specific online environment that was an infringement of privacy but rather the accumulation of those data points into a neat little package that was an infringement, breaching a concept you talked about call "conceptual integrity". Awesome piece of work. | ||
| + | -Isabell Astor | ||
Revision as of 21:33, 18 February 2019
I really enjoyed that you discussed the idea of our online personalities abilities to be shaped by the choices of our past, like a nick name change, and how this choice could help mask the actual identity of your name legality in real life. It is a really good segway into talking about the different identities we hold ourselves in online environments. I think it was great how you talked about how all the data on social media you chose to release about your self depends on your relationship with the people who will have access to the data. This fact directly correlates with a person's offline presence, or lack there of, in your life. If would be really interesting to continue this battle between both of your names, Steph and Stephanie, on the online environment by showing side by side comparisons of both searches and gaging which one seems more data rich (Don't necessary put the data points out there though if you do not feel comfortable doing that). I liked the idea that it was not the revealing of content related to a specific online environment that was an infringement of privacy but rather the accumulation of those data points into a neat little package that was an infringement, breaching a concept you talked about call "conceptual integrity". Awesome piece of work. -Isabell Astor
