One of the most interesting aspects of the couch surfing phenomenon is the way in which it brings together the 'online' world with the physical one. Much has been written about people adopting particular online personas, however CS works - and only works - when people are up front and honest about a) their lives, interests etc and b) their intentions. The online vulnerability of children and the technologically ignorant has been well documented, however CS exposes that even the most thorough and switched on can be taken advantage of. Take for example the story of a chinese tourist who was allegedly raped by a man she had met through the couch surfing website. The couch surfing community is built around the concept of people helping people, yet this case shows that ill-intentioned people can infiltrate even the most well-intentioned of groups.
When a user has been sufficiently 'verified' by the couchsurfing.com they are given a small green tick in the corner of their profile picture, supposedly meaning that they can be trusted. But is it enough? Can we, as rational and sensible social beings, wholeheartedly trust relatively unknown John Citizen to house us and look after us based solely on a small 'about me' and a little green tick?
I think it's also important to note that unlike other online communities, CS is predicated on the relevant actors actually meeting at some point in person; does this affect the degree of honesty surfers feel comfortable using? Conversely could it mean people are more honest in the knowledge that lies will be exposed?
ReplyDelete