When I was young, I remember watching Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise race on horseback through western territory fighting to claim the perfect plot of land at the climax of the film “Far and Away”. At the time I was extraordinarily disturbed because I was under the impression that the romantically involved characters were brother and sister due to what I like to call new-age-attention-deficit-disorder. So, my short attention span some how missed the fact that the two characters were only pretending to be brother and sister in order to save money by rooming together. However, that is another subject for another day. In actuality the two actors were playing the parts of Irish immigrants searching for land and fortune in America. In the end of the movie they finally find free land in the west. The only problem (besides the looming love triangle that overshadows their non-incestual love) is that they must beat out others to claim the land. All of the potential land owners had to race on horseback to the plot of land they desired and claim it as their own by thrusting their own flag triumphantly as the camera circled them dramatically.
As I never fully understood that the things I learned about American Indians and Boston Tea Parties were more important than, and in fact quite different than, the Disney tales of Pocahantas and Alice in Wonderland, until it was far too late to establish the common knowledge my History buff brother constantly bewilders me with, I must pathetically site this movie to convey what I think was referred to in eighth grade history as manifest destiny or the great land rush. Regardless, the question remains: where am I going with this?
These days it seems as though this tale in no way relates to the planet we live on. Today, people seem to be packing and picking every corner of mother earth. We’re running out of space and resources and approaching “maximum capacity”. I could not tell you if this means we will be packed like sardines or pickles, but I am relatively sure we’ll at least be sharing bunk beds and bathrooms rather than running with Tom Cruise through open spaces contemplating just where we should build or dream house. However, I know of a place where such a race does exist. Well, minus the tom cruise part. No, not on Mars, not even on the poor non-planet Pluto but right where you sit, yes right there, right now as you read this fabulous blog. Yes, I know you, your parents, or your landowner have claim over the physical space, but we’re talking about something much bigger here, potentially infinite. No, not Fantasia. Gosh, with that kind of thinking you’ll have no trouble finding a free place to live; you’ll even have a self-hugging jacket to keep you warm within the rubber walls. We’re talking about the World Wide Web, and more specifically, a site my generation has come to know, love and obsess over, Facebook.
In June of 2009, Facebook began giving out customized web addresses. In other words, rather than Facebook.com/random_code, people are able to get web addresses that contain their names: Facebook.com/name. When this application premiered a mad rush began. People did not want to miss out on claiming their online territory. As people grabbed for their web addresses complication after complication arose. The creation of online territory by Facebook’s personalized web addresses creates complications and limitations within the seemingly limitless, free internet. Problems concerning limited identity offers, identity theft, constant evolution of social networking sites, and determination of who has authority over these issues all serve as examples of some of these complications.
The most common problem these personalized web addresses create occurs when two people truly desire to use the same web address (most often because they both share similar names). The New York Times tells the story of Chris Hardwick, a comedian who was too busy to register for his web address in time and so lost it to a high school kid in England. By adding personalized web addresses Facebook makes the once infinite internet space seem even more crampt than the world. The number of personal web addresses available is limited by the number of names that exist. As a result, there is now a competition between any people who share names. Just imagine if everyone on Facebook wanted his own web address. There would be no way of deciding which person would claim their exact name and which person would have to compromise. “Facebook has invited trademark holders and celebrities who find their names are taken to fill out a complaint form on the site. It says it will resolve disputes on a case-by-case basis.” (June, New York Times 2009) Is it really fair that facebook gets to dictate all this? What about people with names similar to those of celebrities; are they being snubbed? Our space is now limited by the number of names we have, it seems as though we’d need an infinite number of names to accommodate everyone fairly. If this keeps up we may have to revert back to the old system of naming people i.e. Julia Laubenthal of Cleveland, OH. Which would actually be quite interesting as it would give the online world a greater dependency on the physical nature of the real world.
While many celebrities, businesses, and companies all had no trouble registering for their precious web addresses others were not so lucky. The New York Times also tells the story of Larry Winget, a personal finance author who lost his address to another person. What’s notable about Larry’s case is that the person who beat him to his claim did not share his name. Instead, one of his own fans stole his identity. This fan planned to exchange the web address for a face-to-face meal with Winget. What’s interesting about this is not just that a personal finance author has devoted fans, but that the use of personalized web addresses has introduced problems outside people of similar names. One would think the main fight over cyber space would occur when people with similar names desire to have the same address like in the Chris Hardwick case. However, people are beginning to realize the value of these online spaces. For example, Jeremy Fancher registered for facebook.com/dellcomputer and planned to sell it. What if Facebook had demanded pay like Fancher? Would people have paid the price? What if Fancher had tried to set up a sight mimicking dell’s computer service? Who would have stopped him?
Another problem that arises when people try to define their own space online involves the ever evolving nature of the web. What I didn’t mention before about the Hardwick case, is that Hardwick (the comedian) had already had to fight to secure his name on gmail and myspce. What will happen when new Online Social Networks develop? Will this fight for space and identity occur over and over? Will it become more complex and important? Right now most regular people seem unaffected by this search for identity and space. What will happen if these online spaces become more and more important?
Lastly, problems are beginning to rise all over the internet concerning it’s regulation. When it comes to Facebook and personalized web addresses Facebook seems to be in ultimate control. When future online social networks evolve, will this still be the case?
As the Internet becomes more and more integrated in our society it evolves more and more. As it explores different grounds it faces different problems and complications. The problems that have arisen with Facebook’s personalized web addresses are just one example of this. Whether or not this problem will evolve into something greater cannot be determined. However, if systems like this one continue to develop on the World Wide Web they will have to overcome find a way to fix their complications and limitations or the internet will become quite the opposite of a free, infinite space.
