The Multiple Brands of the 'Networked' Self

I have a LinkedIn profile. I have a Facebook profile. I have a Twitter profile. I have a Google Plus profile. I have an e-mail address.

It's hard to manage all those Corey Allan Smiths running around out there in cyberspace. Creating and maintaining profiles on social or professional networks is a time consuming process, especially when you have to think about your audience, which can vary from profile to profile.

This is where our course discussion on network theory comes heavily into play. Why do we create multiple profiles of ourselves online as opposed to just one? As Manuel Castells iterated, increasingly our social livelihoods are dependent upon the connections we forge with others through networks, or an interconnected system of nodes having some form of relationship. Many of us belong to layer upon layer of networks like family, friends, work colleagues, those within our career field, age range, hobbies and interests or other defining social characteristics.

So, we need profiles to fit each one of these trajectories, right?

LinkedIn is purely about self-branding and is used as a virtual resume where any potential employer can view your career or educational background. Hence the reason career networking is so popular for this website. The whole point of LinkedIn is to connect with your colleagues so you can see who else is in your network that may be of use to you. We admire those with hundreds of LinkedIn connections because they appear to have more influence, depending upon their field. I know that I have a few people I am connected to on LinkedIn that have led me to other organizations and work contacts that I never knew would have had any relation to each other.

Facebook has less of a push to connect with others, but chooses to focus on interacting with others using their interface. Facebook is more socially acceptable, as it enables the user to integrate with photos, video, text, games and other interactive features. The networking that comes out of this is more of a way to maintain already forged relationships in a new, online environment.

Twitter seems to be the least networked, as many project their tweets into the twitter-sphere where they may just float in existence forever, but it is still a way of networking. The use of Twitter as an aggregate of information allows the user to network by searching topics that are trending or by hashtags, thereby connecting them to others within their network surrounding a particular notion. Response and feedback from others is also welcomed warmly on Twitter with the use of the @ symbol.

Google Plus is attempting to make a stab at being the champion of all of these socially-based networks. With a Google Plus account, one can manage their various network memberships and tailor their appearance to the various users that interact with their profile. In this singular profile, a user can present a potential employer with a comprehensive, professional looking type of account that does not detail their summer vacation in Europe whereas a close friend may be privy to such information and more.

What is the point of balancing all of these networks? They are all online projections of self, and, no matter if you use a social network for putting up pictures of your cat or are displaying all of your career work, you are self-branding to any others in your network that have access to you. As Castells pointed out, being at a certain level of involvement within a network enables power and influence within that network - either if you began the network or if you are a gatekeeper and are a moderator of the norms within that network, you are given authority.

To that end, perhaps that is why we seek to have many Facebook friends, link to tons of connections on LinkedIn and follow ten million others on Twitter - because quantity can sometimes translate into authoritative power and reverence from others. I would like to explore how these topics are transnational in that networks know no national boundaries, especially when they form in an online environment, but would welcome any practical examples as well.

The Internet: A Case of Industrial & Societal Regulation

The Internet serves as a perfect case study of how industrial and societal regulation can play out in the same medium.

Industrial regulation, essentially meaning to treat the media as a commodity or good, is seen in various domestic and international regulations that have already been set into place. Such an area is copyright or other issues of intellectual property, where ideas, art, products, etc are given exclusive ownership by their creator or patent holder. There are regulations in place that if anyone attempted to replicate or use another's copyrighted material it is punishable by law and the creator is owed damages. Examples of how this can be seen on the Internet are music, movies, photos, scripts or other products that are available for others to view but not utilize as their own.

However, this type of industrial regulation does have its fair share of circumvention. Many use various Internet tools to illegally copy these materials for their own use, and without a highly sophisticated method of immediately tracking down perpetrators, the laws surrounding the piracy of these materials online can be weak.

Not only are government bodies and private industries attempting to alter the seemingly "wild west" characteristics of the Internet, but the general citizenry do so as well.

Think of the many online social platforms we have available to us (Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube etc). Nearly all of these platforms have a built in social regulator - the ability to flag any content that is deemed inappropriate or unsuitable. Oftentimes we are the ones to catch and blow the whistle on those who are posting unsavory items online when the social platforms themselves would not have the capability to do so as efficiently. This doesn't have to be limited to social networks either. Any article or forum that has interactive elements and allows commentary can be subject to socially unacceptable statements, which, in many cases, will face a wave of moral backlash from other users.

I personally am fond of a post by Natania Barron for Wired Magazine in which she details the outright vulnerability of having an online persona and the possibility for social regulation.

Barron writes, "Both my husband and I have run into conflict in the last few months as more and more people we know join Facebook. I’ve been scolded for being snarky; my husband has been called out for being too political. And it occurred to me: our audience has changed drastically. We can no longer pick and choose—our audiences are now related to us, people in our daily interactions. That puts a whole new spin on social networking: obligation. It’s societal regulation all over again!"

In this sense, we are protecting our normative social atmosphere, enforcing what our society has collectively determined as appropriate and inappropriate. The social platforms have instituted flagging as a way to make it extremely easy for us to use social regulation online, but this 'flagging' would continue in some fashion even if an official system didn't exist.

With both industrial and societal regulation taking place in regard to the Internet at the same time, it is critically changing how we perceive it as an information communication technology. With more stakeholders entering into the discussion on how to regulate the Internet, especially across international borders, it is getting to be a hot button issue for nation-states all over the world. The only way to regulate, it would seem, would be to consult international bodies and groups, but at the same time nation-states want their individual authority. It is a tender situation, and I don't believe a clear answer will come in the near future.