Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Always Away on Instant Messenger

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted October 10, 2007.


Instant Messenger is a medium of communication somewhere between e-mail, which can be too slow, and the phone, which can be too fast.
Annalee Newitz

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Annalee Newitz

My Last Column
After 9 long years, it's time to move on. One final thought: don't ever stop ruthlessly criticizing everything that exists.
Jul 2, 2008

Three Myths About the Internet That Refuse to Die
The Internet will not magically bring the world together; nor is it likely to destroy us.
Jun 20, 2008

Using Sci-Fi to Change the World
Science fiction isn't escapist; it can help us envision how to make the world a better place.
Jun 5, 2008

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

My social world is divided into two camps: people who use instant messaging and people who don't. When I start my workday by booting up my computer, I consider myself to have arrived at the office when my IM program comes to life and is suddenly populated by dozens of tiny names and faces. In fact, it's sometimes hard for me to work with people who aren't on IM. E-mail just isn't fast enough. And the telephone is too fast.

I find meetings on the phone frustrating because I can't multitask easily while talking. Sure, I can check e-mail or browse the Web, but usually the person on the other end of the line notices. All of those awkward pauses between sentences make it obvious that I'm only giving this call 85 percent of my attention. That's considered rude on the phone, but not so with IM. Sometimes I'll be exchanging a flurry of messages with a colleague on IM when suddenly she'll take five minutes to answer a question. And that seems normal. She's dealing with another task and will get back to me when she can, and we'll resume where we left off.

Although IM technology has been around for years, I feel like it's reached a kind of singularity that early users of "chat" would hardly recognize. There's an etiquette culture that's grown up around IM, a set of appropriate and inappropriate behaviors that varies across groups of IM users. For example, most of the people I talk to via IM are colleagues. I work from home, so most of my human contact during the day comes via quick exchanges and meetings on IM. Nearly everyone on my IM list has their status set to "away," which is technically supposed to mean they're not at the keyboard. But in reality most of us set our status to away because we're at work and don't want to be disturbed by random people or purely social messages.

That's why every time I IM somebody who claims to be away, I discover they aren't. Acknowledging this, we add custom messages to our away flags to tell the truth about our status; "work only pls" is a common message, as is "on deadline do not disturb unless urgent." Other people set their messages to explain where they are: "in a meeting" or "in New York" or "eating lunch." What's great about the away flag, though, is that it gives you plausible deniability if you don't want to talk to somebody who has messaged you. After all, you might really be away. Who knows?

For a couple of years Sun Microsystems researcher Nicole Yankelovich has been studying the habits of people like myself who work remotely. What she's discovered is that people who don't work in a physical office tend to miss the casual chatter and bonding that happen before meetings or at lunch. These social interactions wind up improving work flow because people come up with good ideas while chatting casually, and brainstorming is easier in an informal environment. IM is how many of us are filling the gap. IM is our office space, where work chatter can become casual chatter. Like a closed office door, the away flag means "Please knock." And once you're in the office with the person, you can have a pretty interesting talk, even though you're supposed to be concentrating on your work.

It's funny how software that was first used primarily as a goof-around, social tool has become a way for people to have business meetings and talk shop.

Other groups of people who IM, however, do it mostly for social reasons. These people are generally flagged "available," and they have vast contact lists that look more like MySpace friend lists than office contact sheets. Occasionally, these social IM users and I have passed in the night, as it were: one of them will casually message me because they don't consider it weird to approach a stranger on IM to chat. For them, IM is like a giant nightclub or a college campus. Usually my away flag wards these people off, but sometimes it doesn't, and I have to politely tell them I'm busy. And I frankly refuse to respond to a repeated "Heya wassup?" from anybody whose name is something like SFKitty233. Unless, of course, SFKitty233 happens to be my colleague. Which she just might be.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: instant messenger, aim, im, email, technology, communication

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who is probably messaging somebody on IM right now.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
OTOH
Posted by: Kevin Carson on Oct 11, 2007 12:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a different classification scheme for communication media. I'm an IM Luddite for the same reason I'm a cell phone Luddite. A good old land-line phone with an answering machine is the perfect excuse to be unreachable even when you're at home. On the other hand, if you've got a cell phone plausible deniability is a lot harder, because the presumption is you're probably carrying it and made a conscious decision to turn it off because you want to be left alone. Email's also good, because you can answer it several days later, when you feel like it.

Both cell phones and IM require being available in real-time, which it is my life's work to avoid. I don't see how anything can think or accomplish anything with such interruptions. A major part of everything I've ever written was was organized in my head while I was walking from one place to another. When I see every single person on a sidewalk talking on the phone, it makes me think of Harrison Bergeron--only they actually line up and voluntarily pay money for a "handicap" that disrupts all concentration and sequential thought. If our masters wanted to come up with a way to prevent us from ever engaging in critical thought, when we're not engaged in tasks assigned by corporate/state authority figures, they couldn't top the cell phone.

The people who miss bonding "at lunch" must be extraverts. I get entirely too much interaction from my job itself, and always look forward to lunch as the time I can go somewhere and just be left the hell alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ettiquette? Guess I Missed the E-Memo...
Posted by: grumble-bum on Oct 11, 2007 3:51 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I not too long ago signed up for an IM account, at the invitation of a record label owner who I was interested in shopping my tunes to. It just so happened that I had an old friend that was more comfortable chatting this way, so I used it for that too.

What I noticed (besides the annoyance of the program itself, which basically was constantly interrupting me, not with messages from people, but alerts that it was turning itself off or had advertisements I should subject myself to), was that the "ettiquette" described by the author was more what I would call "rudeness". It wasn't the "away" setting that bothered me, that made a certain amount of sense & I employed it myself. It was the fact that I could see people actively ignoring me in real time.

If I send an email message or a social networking "comment", I don't know whether or not my recipient has read it, but I can assume that they will eventually & get back to me if & when they choose. With IM, you can send a message & actually watch as someone looks at it, figures out who it's from & then logs off their account completely rather than answer it!

In the case of the record industry player, I guess my feelings were a bit hurt (no one enjoys figuring out that someone else thinks their creative efforts aren't worth the time), but I'm man enough to take a polite, professional written brush-off. I'll stress again that this guy offered me his IM information, & I in no way abused it. A simple "not interested" or "needs more work" would have been fine. Instead, I ended up feeling confused & as though I'd done something "wrong" in regards to our artificial, electronic relationship. Who needs that?

As for my friend, he pulled the same crap, although not consistantly (we did have quite a few interesting conversations in this fashion), but in a way this overt snubbing on his part was even more galling than that of the record company dude. Seriously, it only takes a few seconds to pound out "kinda busy, get back @ me around _:__", or something similar. The end result is that I feel uncomfortable contacting this person in any form, now. Due to the transparency of IM, I'm unsure if he really wants to talk to me at all...

So, I scrapped the service. I may re-up at some point, should business or pleasure require it, but I doubt it. There are certainly upsides to the whole thing, especially trading files & links rapidly, but in this age of general human disconnect I think I will try to keep things as "face-to-face" as I can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

R.I.P. the yahoo revolution
Posted by: Neilium on Oct 12, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instant Messenger, it boomed when yahoo allowed user made chat rooms " now defunct from a lame excuse to hide the real one 'only2%ads compared to the rest of yahoo' "
The world online really got together in these places and formed many friendships that still survive today and I can assure you that many of these chatters were on work pc's, at work with a second screen page to cover the messenger room page. Msn had them also but it seemed to me to attract a very different sort of human and they only kept them to compete with Yahoo as they also removed them when yahoo did. Yes instant messenger is basically a lame personal email nowdays. Sadly Missed, "Yahoo! get the flu!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The strange social world of instant messaging
Posted by: heftysmurf on Oct 14, 2007 6:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For me, the instant messaging world is a strange and rather disturbing one.

In principle, it's a wonderful concept that came across as sheer genius the first time I encountered ICQ 10 years ago. Instant online communication with someone anywhere in the world! WOW! It's like email, but you can get a response instantly and actually collaborate, and it basically costs nothing!

Then over time you discover all of the really horrible aspects of it that the boffins didn't consider when they wrote it.

How about the random conversations for the sake of it (often with multiple people) that have real world parallels with groups of kid loitering on a set of stairs mumbling to each other about how bored they are. Hours whittled away talking about nothing.

How about the way that people seem to change when they chat online? Intentional or not, the roleplay that sneaks in to every person's online persona creates fantastical and sometimes downright disturbing interactions that you would never see 'in the real world'.

If not the first two, then how about the way that people seem to have no trouble treating others like dirt when they're hidden safely away behind their computer monitor? I've seen things said and threatened that could earn them a jail sentence if they said it in person.

I don't even need to go into the way that those with a dedicated instant messaging life lose their real life social skills. There's a big difference between being able to type, retype and spend 2 minutes thinking about each sentence and having to communicate with a person in real time!

Ironically, the only people that I spend any time talking to on instant messenger nowadays are those I see regularly in real life. "Coming home now, see you soon!" "What time do you want me to come over?" "When's the movie? Want me to check or book tickets online now?" That's all you'll get out of me nowadays, and I'm definitely happier for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Military chat
Posted by: Arkham42 on Oct 15, 2007 10:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While deployed to Afghanistan, we found chat was one of the best ways to communicate for just the same reason. Since a Tactical Operations Center (TOC) is always busy with something odd going on, chat was great. So if the Colonel came in and asked you a question, the pause in having to deal with him is okay.

Plus, as she says, you can IM and be doing other things. Almost by definition, TOC work is about doing 3 things at once. People would just shake their head when they would seem me working on a spreadsheet on my Secret computer, while doing Open Source work on the Unclassified computer while trying to do some disk copying on my personal computer. >=)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]