I've no clue who you are, I barely have an inkling of who I am. One thing that I found interesting about the articles is the way that they are defining identity on the internet. If you don't state your race, then your identity is defined as that of a white, middle class man. It makes sense, and it is true, but, it brings once more the question of what identity truly is. I don't know, maybe I'm looking too into this question, but, even in the Warschauer article, it seemed that language, and race were the only factors that defined this particular "identity." Perhaps the other factors that make up identity are of no importance when it comes to the internet, but they should not just be discarded, and seem as less important than what they are.
As discussed in class and in Cameron Bailey's text, if one does not mention his or her gender or race, it is assumed that whoever it is, this person is male and white.
Is this broad statement outdated? Do alterations of these assumptions apply to certain sites that are aimed at different demographics? Can it be assumed that Brad Pitt discussion forum participants are different from bloggers on Barack Obama's website?
Is it ever safe to make assumptions as to who the general participants are? In Lisa Nakamura's article, she discusses that the new media furthers racial and cultural steretypes.
It seems as though the attempt to achieve immediacy through the internet can be successful or not depending on the personal motive for this immediacy.
Success seems to go awry when people truly hope for reality through the computer medium. In a program on ABC several years ago, it discussed how online dating services like Match.com did not work because relationships never really work out once people who seem to connect online actually meet person-to-person. For people who seriously want to emulate reality, they meet disappointment.
Then again, immediacy attempts like fantasy sports have proven themselves extremely successful.