Online communication: an increasingly complex panorama
New models of communication are developing as the popularity of online tools grows. In offline communication, these models are relatively clear, based on the channel in question: a face-to-face or telephone conversation is private, and although the other person can reveal it to another, the message will no longer be exact or entirely reliable. If we are looking to reach a large number of people then we write something down, or choose an asymmetric channel. Something that is recorded takes on greater meaning.
A casual conversation between a politician and somebody standing next to him or her, belongs, in principle, to the private sphere, and only transcends that sphere if somebody listens in and that person decides to reveal the content of the conversation to somebody else. But if there were a live microphone close by, the conversation would take on greater transcendence, because many people could listen to it over and again. All communication tools have a theoretical model of application, defined by their characteristics, philosophy, and limitations. And then there is the way that they are used in practice, which is defined by a range of factors. There are also several other interesting areas subject to other variables.
On some social networks, such as Twitter and Instagram, a message can be labeled “public”, that is to say it is given a permalink and can be seen by anybody who accesses a certain URL. On others, such as Facebook or Google+, it is necessary to belong to a sub-group that the user can filter, or we can wait until somebody that belongs to that first circle makes it public. Access to what we publish on Facebook is restricted, by default, to those users we define as friends, along with their friends, and privacy is difficult to control, and even more so if we bear in mind that any of these can, with a click, increase the reach of the message. On Google+, the reach of messages is more clearly differentiated, and they can be either public, or shared with a limited circle of users.
What’s more, tools evolve over time. The evolution of the Twitter of 2006, based on the question “what are you doing?” to today’s, which is about “what’s happening?” represents a change in thinking, a change to the tool, and the way that it is used. In the case of Snapchat, for example, the model is based on impermanence: “now you see it, now you don’t” and if you want to resend the message, you have to do things that might be defined as “anti-natural”. But in its latest version, it seems to be moving toward models that allow for greater transcendence, by offering the possibility of seeing the message more than once.
Instant messaging provides us with a communication model that in principle is private, although it is subject to transcendence because messages can usually be stored, in the same way that a conversation in a bar might be if somebody was taking it down in shorthand. Similarly, a conversation can take place with many others, as with WhatsApp groups of friends or family where information circulates that can later be resent, commented on, etc. In a way, the Snapchat model best captures the fleeting quality of a conversation: I say something to you, through the technology, but I deprive you of the possibility of storing it.
In general, thanks to the success of instant messaging applications such as WhatsApp, Line, KakaoTalk, Spotbros and others, the social networks are evolving in such a way as to provide themselves with private channels, or are strengthening those they were already using. Instagram now allows for private messages, Facebook is trying to boost its email and chat, Twitter is strengthening its DMs, and is thinking about giving them other possibilities, etc. A universe of communication options is taking shape in which choosing one channel over another is beginning to depend on many, not so obvious, questions: does the person you want to talk to have the application you use, and do they use it actively?
I try, as much as is humanly possible, to answer my emails, but I find it hard to answer on Facebook, and on many occasions, there are mails that I simply do not see. On LinkedIn, however, I tend to answer quickly. On Twitter, I tend to answer promptly using DM, but it is a channel restricted to those I follow. I use Skype a lot, but I am not connected all the time, and so restrict my conversations to pre-arranged calls. I have a WhatsApp account, but I do not have the application installed because I hate it (it is probably one of the worst apps I’ve ever seen in terms of security and overall quality), so basically, I’m never there and thus, I never answer. But who, other than my family and close friends, would necessarily know which of the above services I use and which ones I don’t?
I understand the appeal of the temporary nature of the first version of Snapchat (despite being an application that I have found difficult to put to the test: either I couldn’t find users, or didn’t see the context for using it), but it has nevertheless caught my attention enough to ask myself why people don’t use these kind of tools more, and where there is no possibility of recording the conversation. Google Talk has an off the record facility, but nobody seems to use it much: it doesn’t prevent you from making a screen capture or a simple copy & paste, but in principle it doesn’t store the conversation. Perhaps the closest to an old-fashioned conversation is a video chat: what you say on Skype, in a Google hangout, or on Apple’s Facetime, unless you agree to record it, usually disappears into the ether, just like a telephone conversation or a chat at the bar.
The explosion of online communication has brought with it a hyper-abundance of channels and possibilities that are increasingly difficult to manage, and that will become more so over time. In terms of our personal use of such channels, we are soon going to need to define our communication preferences, to avoid the “broken phone” syndrome, such as “I sent you three messages, to no avail”: LinkedIn, for example, allows you to specify the means by which people can contact you better. In terms of work, we need to establish guidelines about which channels are appropriate for professional or business contact. In general, we are still waiting to see how many of these communication tools are widely adopted, and what their specific use is. We probably have a long wait ahead of us.
(En español, aquí)
