Media Integrity: Pt.1

I recently had a conversation with my mother in which we were discussing her relationship with my father during their college years. She told me of how he would leave her little messages in her mailbox (sometimes with candy), and how this communicated that he cared about her, that he was thinking of her, etc.

This whole account was in juxtaposition to my experience at college. I hardly ever write any type of message on paper, even to those I care about the most. Usually, I use the all-encompassing Facebook to communicate with my peers.

Now, my mother was concerned that if I only used this type of Internet communication (in addition to face-to-face communication), I might not send a strong-enough message to those whom I cared about the most.

This makes me question: Does a message lack meaning simply because of its form? Am I being relationally lazy when I use Facebook as a form of communication, or is using this type of Internet-based communication more closely related to the generation or the semiotic domain to which I belong?

I would like to make the case that I am not being relationally lazy when I use Facebook to communicate with peers.

I think that the form of communication I am using is more telling of the semiotic domain to which I belong than the integrity of the message itself.

So to what semiotic domain do I belong in this instance?

Facebookers.

Delving in further, I would say that the affinity group to which I belong is not necessarily semantically synonymous with the semiotic domain itself.

The affinity group to which I belong is comprised of all my high school and college friends I allow to view my profile, and all students at Malone with a Facebook account. Not everyone who is on the Facebook network can view my profile.

My fellow Facebook friends and I have a design grammar which we alone are able to understand without much thought. Examples of this grammar include being "poked," having a "friend request," viewing a "Wall-to-Wall," updating "My Status," and interpreting the "Heart Symbol."

The common texts we work with are wall posts, messages, photos, invitations, notes, and videos.

Whereas the argument I am attempting to make is that Facebook can be a forum for meaningful communication, I think it should also be recognized that the axiom "the media is the message" is still applicable.

Within the world of Facebook, different media texts carry different meanings. Wall Posts tend to focus mostly on day-to-day matters, and simple questions and statements. My Messages, however, leaves room for more meaningful dialogue as it functions like a private email account. Notes can either serve in a blog-like capacity or just as empty space for goofy messages.

This structure of meaning is understood by all Facebookers, so that if someone violates this structure it is apparent. Generally speaking, if you are interested in someone romantically, or want to tell someone something romantic, you do not use the Notes function to do this. I have seen it done before, and it struck me as odd.