<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More time online hurts real relationships?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.frontporchforum.com/2007/04/27/more-time-online-hurts-real-relationships/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.frontporchforum.com/2007/04/27/more-time-online-hurts-real-relationships/</link>
	<description>... about neighbors, community and Front Porch Forum</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:05:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://blog.frontporchforum.com/2007/04/27/more-time-online-hurts-real-relationships/#comment-9566</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:51:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontporchforum.com/blog/?p=164#comment-9566</guid>
		<description>Thanks Kevin... is it too late to amend my initial post?  I have to admit to only reading the paragraph quoted above and not the actual study.

I recently &lt;a href=&quot;http://frontporchforum.com/blog/?p=162&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;analyzed the past six months&lt;/a&gt; of postings on one of our neighborhood forums.  I found that 50% of the neighbors (about 175 out of 350 members) had posted a message in that time.  This seems much higher than what I&#039;ve read about other online social media.

Our neighborhood forums feel more like a block party than a large public meeting.  That is, most people feel comfortable chatting with neighbors at the annual summer picnic, but only certain folks will feel compelled to stand at a microphone and give testimony to a committee in an auditorium fill with hundreds of people.  Front Porch Forum is more like the block party, many online social sites feel more like the large public meeting.

Regardless, I concur with Kevin&#039;s points.  -Michael</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Kevin&#8230; is it too late to amend my initial post?  I have to admit to only reading the paragraph quoted above and not the actual study.</p>
<p>I recently <a href="http://frontporchforum.com/blog/?p=162" rel="nofollow">analyzed the past six months</a> of postings on one of our neighborhood forums.  I found that 50% of the neighbors (about 175 out of 350 members) had posted a message in that time.  This seems much higher than what I&#8217;ve read about other online social media.</p>
<p>Our neighborhood forums feel more like a block party than a large public meeting.  That is, most people feel comfortable chatting with neighbors at the annual summer picnic, but only certain folks will feel compelled to stand at a microphone and give testimony to a committee in an auditorium fill with hundreds of people.  Front Porch Forum is more like the block party, many online social sites feel more like the large public meeting.</p>
<p>Regardless, I concur with Kevin&#8217;s points.  -Michael</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Harris</title>
		<link>http://blog.frontporchforum.com/2007/04/27/more-time-online-hurts-real-relationships/#comment-9176</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Harris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2007 08:39:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontporchforum.com/blog/?p=164#comment-9176</guid>
		<description>Whoa there, looks like selective choice of evidence to support preferences... The article, in a somewhat alarmist way, is talking about mental health, and a certain proportion of people have mental health difficulties. It says &#039;About six percent of people surveyed ...  said their personal relationships have suffered as a result of their Internet use, and nine percent reported actively hiding their online habits at home or at work.&#039; This in the context of increasing proportion of population using online. Not a big deal.

There is a real danger that the argument about face-to-face communication being more &#039;authentic&#039; than online (as it is often put) comes across as trite gospel, but it&#039;s pretty unconvincing. Apart from anything else, it&#039;s worth thinking about how disabled and expecially visually-impaired people feel about it; and the many others who simply feel less comfortable with engaging with others in jolly-chummy backslapping style but who benefit hugely (in terms of self-esteem and confidence) from connections made and developed online. Refigerator Rights&#039;s impromptu parties (replicated commonly on college campuses all round the world, I&#039;m sure) are to be welcomed and applauded, but that doesn&#039;t mean either that this style of interaction suits everyone or should suit everyone, nor does it mean that online connections (with or without f2f) are necessarily damaging.

It&#039;s great to be good at local social interaction, but important to recognise that to many people it don&#039;t come easy. Meanwhile we should celebrate the fact that others perhaps less clubbable now have alternative means (like front Porch Forum and similar systems) of establishing connections, which weren&#039;t there before.
(BTW there&#039;s a 2003 paper about f2f, online and &#039;community&#039; on my site at
http://www.local-level.org.uk/uploads/Public_Documents/Keep%20your%20distance.pdf)
best
kevin</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whoa there, looks like selective choice of evidence to support preferences&#8230; The article, in a somewhat alarmist way, is talking about mental health, and a certain proportion of people have mental health difficulties. It says &#8216;About six percent of people surveyed &#8230;  said their personal relationships have suffered as a result of their Internet use, and nine percent reported actively hiding their online habits at home or at work.&#8217; This in the context of increasing proportion of population using online. Not a big deal.</p>
<p>There is a real danger that the argument about face-to-face communication being more &#8216;authentic&#8217; than online (as it is often put) comes across as trite gospel, but it&#8217;s pretty unconvincing. Apart from anything else, it&#8217;s worth thinking about how disabled and expecially visually-impaired people feel about it; and the many others who simply feel less comfortable with engaging with others in jolly-chummy backslapping style but who benefit hugely (in terms of self-esteem and confidence) from connections made and developed online. Refigerator Rights&#8217;s impromptu parties (replicated commonly on college campuses all round the world, I&#8217;m sure) are to be welcomed and applauded, but that doesn&#8217;t mean either that this style of interaction suits everyone or should suit everyone, nor does it mean that online connections (with or without f2f) are necessarily damaging.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s great to be good at local social interaction, but important to recognise that to many people it don&#8217;t come easy. Meanwhile we should celebrate the fact that others perhaps less clubbable now have alternative means (like front Porch Forum and similar systems) of establishing connections, which weren&#8217;t there before.<br />
(BTW there&#8217;s a 2003 paper about f2f, online and &#8216;community&#8217; on my site at<br />
<a href="http://www.local-level.org.uk/uploads/Public_Documents/Keep%20your%20distance.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.local-level.org.uk/uploads/Public_Documents/Keep%20your%20distance.pdf</a>)<br />
best<br />
kevin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

