Everyone has a Facebook now-a-days, which is why whenever we find out someone doesn't it kinda takes us by surprise. For example, an athlete with a Facebook is going to mean a lot more to us then one without a page will. One we see that famous celebrity writing something funny on his or her wall, we instantly know that they are just like us. Now if it turns out that they also like a particular product, then what would be the harm in trying out our new friend's favorite?
The internet has become a common ground for everyone to enjoy. Actors, athletes, even diplomats can be found on popular social networking sites. This in turn creates an entire new avenue for advertising, these Facebook pages are more then a venue for social interactions, they are a door into the homes of everyone else who has an interest.
This brings the question of trust into the equation, if we are more apt to trust someone who frequents the same websites we do who is to say that won't factor into how much we trust in them? If the internet add to are trust in people then clearly this tactic can be used against us.
Trusting what we hear on the internet can be just as harmful as trusting any form of media, but it also can't be avoided, Just be sure to keep that in mind next time Dwight Howard posts a video of his "sweet ride".
Friday, April 15, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Delete win32. That Will Fix Everything.
Online anonymity is slowly becoming a hard fought right in the United States. Are we really entitled to be completely removed from our actions online? It would seem as if the internet, is the final and true frontier. If the champions of net neutrality succeed we will always be able to find some corner of the internet to ride off towards, into the sunset.
With this area of "lawlessness" one can only expect a certain amount of unfriendly behavior. Instances such as the Jessi Slaughter debacle we discussed in class are quite common, and it only takes a brief look into imageboard sites such as 4chan to see that if any discretion is left, its hidden behind the porn.
Like other articles we have read throughout this class, we see that the internet, like the radio and news print before it is a place where anyone can publish their ideas. Unlike the forms of media that have proceeded the internet, there is a massive pool of support working to preserve the the free nature of the internet. Yet the anonymity of the internet is not yet entirely defined.
It should be known that anything posted on the internet can eventually be traced back to its origin. That being said, the illusion of anonymity on the internet is strong enough to convince others that their actions, cannot solicit reactions. Suddenly, sullen loners and basement dwellers have an outlet to vent the disparities of life, free from the vilification and resentment of the school yard.
Like all frontiers, someday we will reach the horizon. For now trolls will propagate anytime someone takes the internet too seriously, or steps out of line until the day the internet becomes regulated and restricted, and it will someday. For now however, we can feel safe in knowing, we were there when it was great.
With this area of "lawlessness" one can only expect a certain amount of unfriendly behavior. Instances such as the Jessi Slaughter debacle we discussed in class are quite common, and it only takes a brief look into imageboard sites such as 4chan to see that if any discretion is left, its hidden behind the porn.
Like other articles we have read throughout this class, we see that the internet, like the radio and news print before it is a place where anyone can publish their ideas. Unlike the forms of media that have proceeded the internet, there is a massive pool of support working to preserve the the free nature of the internet. Yet the anonymity of the internet is not yet entirely defined.
It should be known that anything posted on the internet can eventually be traced back to its origin. That being said, the illusion of anonymity on the internet is strong enough to convince others that their actions, cannot solicit reactions. Suddenly, sullen loners and basement dwellers have an outlet to vent the disparities of life, free from the vilification and resentment of the school yard.
Like all frontiers, someday we will reach the horizon. For now trolls will propagate anytime someone takes the internet too seriously, or steps out of line until the day the internet becomes regulated and restricted, and it will someday. For now however, we can feel safe in knowing, we were there when it was great.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tweeting the Pain Away
Every generation has seen its share of revolutions, both social and political. Yet with the dawn of Facebook and Twitter it seems impossible to understand how any revolution succeeded without these two resources. The internet culture seems obsessed with placing social networking on some sort of pedestal, Wikipedia already lists four separate revolutions as "Twitter Revolutions" and two of them are also known as the "Facebook" and "Wikileaks" revolutions.
It is not the internet that has caused, or even started these revolutions, rather they have been created by the same things revolutions have been cause by for centuries, unfair political practices, inequality, and tyranny. The internet has only changed the way these revolutions are waged. Things like Twitter and Facebook have allowed Middle Western protesters connect with American activists, which not only means more people hear about these revolutions but more support can be garnered. Simple donations made through Facebook add to the fight, and allow weak ties a greater ability to support causes that don't affect them.
The internet also brings revolutions another, perhaps underrated tool. All Twitter and Facebook are at their core, are ways for people to publish thoughts and opinions. At any revolutions core is the literature used to propagate the issues and ideals the revolutionaries are fighting for. We can back even further then Gladwell's argument to the Civil War, where abolitionists distributed pamphlets to slaves in the south, and in fact several slave revolts were blamed on the spread of abolitionist documents.
Social network and media has caused an evolution in the way the spread of ideas occurs. This does not mean that all of the sudden revolutions are now regulated to the domain of the internet, nor that Twitter and Facebook only succeed in, "helping Wall Streeters get phones back from teen-age girls".
With so many areas of society being changed and re-worked through the power of the internet, there is only one clear way to see things now. The internet has changed the way we think and the way we communicate, but that doesn't mean we couldn't before.
It is not the internet that has caused, or even started these revolutions, rather they have been created by the same things revolutions have been cause by for centuries, unfair political practices, inequality, and tyranny. The internet has only changed the way these revolutions are waged. Things like Twitter and Facebook have allowed Middle Western protesters connect with American activists, which not only means more people hear about these revolutions but more support can be garnered. Simple donations made through Facebook add to the fight, and allow weak ties a greater ability to support causes that don't affect them.
The internet also brings revolutions another, perhaps underrated tool. All Twitter and Facebook are at their core, are ways for people to publish thoughts and opinions. At any revolutions core is the literature used to propagate the issues and ideals the revolutionaries are fighting for. We can back even further then Gladwell's argument to the Civil War, where abolitionists distributed pamphlets to slaves in the south, and in fact several slave revolts were blamed on the spread of abolitionist documents.
Social network and media has caused an evolution in the way the spread of ideas occurs. This does not mean that all of the sudden revolutions are now regulated to the domain of the internet, nor that Twitter and Facebook only succeed in, "helping Wall Streeters get phones back from teen-age girls".
With so many areas of society being changed and re-worked through the power of the internet, there is only one clear way to see things now. The internet has changed the way we think and the way we communicate, but that doesn't mean we couldn't before.
Friday, March 11, 2011
The Grass is Consistently Greener in the Halls of Congress
The grass root strategy has rapidly evolved as E-mail and social networking sites made connecting idealogical groups to people simpler and faster. This tool hasn't been over looked by the government, who has used the principles of grassroots in order to rally opposition in a process known as "astroturfing". This artificial form of grassroots support succeeds in gathering people, however this form of networking does not create a cohesive group of like minded people, instead it acts as an instant mob.
This instant mob offers a unique tool for the two party system of government, but it is a gross misuse of the power of social networks. Astroturfing creates a fake protest, full of sound and fury but with little substance, as Clay Spinuzzi article quotes these groups are, " a vast coalition of extremely different, and even contradictory, interests and values, from the battalions of the American labor movement to the swarms of eco-pacifists, environmentalists, women's groups, and a myriad of alternative groups, including the pagan community". So What do these groups really accomplish?
As members of a new society based in technology that allows us to express our ideas and beliefs freely, what do groups of mixed activists acting as attack dogs do to that system? The general issues that bring these unrelated groups together are astroturfing's sole saving grace. Overarching subjects, like healthcare and taxes, my only be political talking points to the politicians, and the members of these "protest groups" may only be acting as a mob, but if real, positive change can come from astroturfing it can't be all bad.
Irregardless of these slight pros, the loss of respect that comes with being so easily used as political pawns hampers the blogger's ability to create change within the specific issues that these groups represent. Activist and protest groups should function as independent units, instead of manipulated tools for political parties. The only way for us to make our voices mean something is by speaking with conviction, instead of speaking for generalities.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Guess Who's Googling Porn?!
Anonymized information can be useful in the development of better research technology, however most people dont feel comfortable with companies releasing any information about them. With the creation of the internet, mounds of private information have been filling servers for years, it has to go somewhere right?
The internet has always been fraught with privacy concerns, but so has the real world; in thirty-eight states it is legal to record a telephone conversation without the person on the other end knowing and if television shows such as Cheaters have taught us anything, there are always legal ways for people to gain private information about you. In the end what does in matter if people know what movies you liked on Netflix or if Apple know exactly where you are at all times... well maybe there is some cause for concern.
The internet sees and knows all, and the information you put out there stays there, but that does not give these companies the right to expose your information to others. However people should know by now that no information is safe on the internet. The laws haven't been completely fleshed when it comes to the internet, nor do the number of stories such as those of Netflix, Apple, or even AOL seem to ever decrease. In the case of AOL, the information in question was only released for a few hours, meaning everyone who wanted that information probably has it.
The internet is a scary place for the the privacy conscious, but in my experience, aside from some joker hacking into my Myspace account the information I have put on the internet has never affected me in any negative way. If you can deal with everyone from random researchers hired by Google to insidious twelve year old hackers possibly knowing some of your personal information, why be worried about what the internet knows?
Keeping yourself safe online is an important lesson to learn, but understanding that the internet requires you to let go of some of that information is even more important. Those of us hung up and worried about having their privacy attacked might want to rethink signing up for sites like Facebook or Netflix, but in this day and age, not having a Facebook or Netflix seems almost ridiculous. There is a price to pay for the convenience of the internet, and sometimes that includes letting go of some unreasonable fears, and accepting the threat of reasonable ones.
The internet has always been fraught with privacy concerns, but so has the real world; in thirty-eight states it is legal to record a telephone conversation without the person on the other end knowing and if television shows such as Cheaters have taught us anything, there are always legal ways for people to gain private information about you. In the end what does in matter if people know what movies you liked on Netflix or if Apple know exactly where you are at all times... well maybe there is some cause for concern.
The internet sees and knows all, and the information you put out there stays there, but that does not give these companies the right to expose your information to others. However people should know by now that no information is safe on the internet. The laws haven't been completely fleshed when it comes to the internet, nor do the number of stories such as those of Netflix, Apple, or even AOL seem to ever decrease. In the case of AOL, the information in question was only released for a few hours, meaning everyone who wanted that information probably has it.
The internet is a scary place for the the privacy conscious, but in my experience, aside from some joker hacking into my Myspace account the information I have put on the internet has never affected me in any negative way. If you can deal with everyone from random researchers hired by Google to insidious twelve year old hackers possibly knowing some of your personal information, why be worried about what the internet knows?
Keeping yourself safe online is an important lesson to learn, but understanding that the internet requires you to let go of some of that information is even more important. Those of us hung up and worried about having their privacy attacked might want to rethink signing up for sites like Facebook or Netflix, but in this day and age, not having a Facebook or Netflix seems almost ridiculous. There is a price to pay for the convenience of the internet, and sometimes that includes letting go of some unreasonable fears, and accepting the threat of reasonable ones.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Keep your friends close, but your collaborators closer.
In the age of Facebook and social media the method of friendship has been digitized. Gone are the days of stumbling through cities looking for new friends, and the so called, "three hour conversation" as Deresiewicz puts it. We live in an age where friends, partners and even love interests can all be reached from the comfort of your computer. Deresiewicz sees this as the end of the classical ideal of friendship, however Rheingold and Shirky see this technological advance as the harbinger of a new economic and social wave of collaboration and communication. Are we paying too dear a price for the wonders brought by social media? Or have we evolved to the point that "IRL" friendships and collaborations play a close second to our digital boardrooms and play grounds?
Like so many opponents of the digital age, Deresiewicz sees the detachment of the computer screen as a detriment, asking the question, "are our friendships now anything more than a form of distraction?". Perhaps they are. I for one agree that the internet has changed the way we view other people, but like any change, we give and we take. What we may have lost in lasting, meaningful bonds between other human beings, we have gained in our ability to collaborate and communicate with the world around us. Shirky and Rheingold both make strong arguments, giving us examples of how the internet and social media are helping us solve problems, make money, and create discourse, in ways we have barely begun to understand. Rheingold goes as far to say that this new mindset could possibly be the beginnings of a new system of economy, where companies are willing to share in order to access a more efficient market place.
But again we must ask ourselves, is this worth the loss of the, "rare, precious, and hard-won" style of friendship felt between the our ancestors? Do we want to live in a world of tedious status updates and inane tweets? Are we taking true friendship for granted?
The answers depend on how much you are willing to feed the machine. Some of us are ready and willing to enter the blogosphere and create a presence on the internet, and for them their loss is minimal. Deresiewicz's "three hour conversation" can just as easily happen anywhere on the internet as it could in our homes, and for the internet savvy generation of ours we know how to communicate through the internet as well as in person. However I personally believe in the importance of the distinction between friends, and "Facebook friends".
The use of Bittorrent is commonly brought up when discussing the collaborative power of the internet, but how many of us know to whom we are seeding or downloading from? These collaborations may be increasing, but our interactions surely aren't. While social media has created great things in our world, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. We cannot abandon the ability to communicate and collaborate in person, as much as we cannot condemn the advancement of the internet's ability to do the same.
In the end there is neither a right or wrong answer. The internet has opened many doors that shouldn't be closed, but we cannot allow it to close ones we have already gone through, lest we be trapped.
Like so many opponents of the digital age, Deresiewicz sees the detachment of the computer screen as a detriment, asking the question, "are our friendships now anything more than a form of distraction?". Perhaps they are. I for one agree that the internet has changed the way we view other people, but like any change, we give and we take. What we may have lost in lasting, meaningful bonds between other human beings, we have gained in our ability to collaborate and communicate with the world around us. Shirky and Rheingold both make strong arguments, giving us examples of how the internet and social media are helping us solve problems, make money, and create discourse, in ways we have barely begun to understand. Rheingold goes as far to say that this new mindset could possibly be the beginnings of a new system of economy, where companies are willing to share in order to access a more efficient market place.
But again we must ask ourselves, is this worth the loss of the, "rare, precious, and hard-won" style of friendship felt between the our ancestors? Do we want to live in a world of tedious status updates and inane tweets? Are we taking true friendship for granted?
The answers depend on how much you are willing to feed the machine. Some of us are ready and willing to enter the blogosphere and create a presence on the internet, and for them their loss is minimal. Deresiewicz's "three hour conversation" can just as easily happen anywhere on the internet as it could in our homes, and for the internet savvy generation of ours we know how to communicate through the internet as well as in person. However I personally believe in the importance of the distinction between friends, and "Facebook friends".
The use of Bittorrent is commonly brought up when discussing the collaborative power of the internet, but how many of us know to whom we are seeding or downloading from? These collaborations may be increasing, but our interactions surely aren't. While social media has created great things in our world, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. We cannot abandon the ability to communicate and collaborate in person, as much as we cannot condemn the advancement of the internet's ability to do the same.
In the end there is neither a right or wrong answer. The internet has opened many doors that shouldn't be closed, but we cannot allow it to close ones we have already gone through, lest we be trapped.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Creativity + Copyright Laws = Pirate
As college students, most of us have used peer to peer applications to illegally download everything from course materials to pornography. This practice is inherently illegal and unfair to the producers and distributors who make their livings off sales. However the term "piracy" not only applies to people who are illegally downloading music and software, but also people who use copyrighted materials to create unique works of art.
In Larry Lessig's presentation he sates that due to current copyright laws, kids are growing up in a society where common forms of expression (such as creating an AMV) are against the law. This means that the idea of breaking the law has become commonplace, and Lessig thinks this disregard for the law will only lead to worse things, and possibly greater infractions. The conclusion he comes to is that the laws need to be changed to accommodate the ever increasing presence of technology in our world today. Changing laws to make it things easier for people to post videos lip syncing to copyrighted music seems a tad bit ridiculous though.
Copyright laws are meant to protect intellectual properties from being passed off as someone else's work, or from being used for commercial purposes without permission. These laws are necessary for musicians, writers, and almost anybody who creates a unique intellectual product. Yet as Mark Helprin mentions, copyright laws are not without flaws; namely the time limit on how long something can remain under copy right. The law was made to be ambiguous with the changing times, however, and efforts have been made to redefine the interpretation of the law to adjust.
Maybe then the whole of copyright law should be viewed in the same manner. While some Youtube-ers have found financial success, it has been with unique works, and just because someone uses other people's work to create this unique product does not mean either product would be the same independently. This is a slippery slope however due to the fact that illegal downloads have steadily increased. This culture where posting a uniquely made video on Youtube is seen as a criminal offence has only fed a community of online pirates. The two problems go hand in hand, so changing the laws will be easier said then done. The laws will eventually have to change, but the problem of living as a pirate may not go away.
In Larry Lessig's presentation he sates that due to current copyright laws, kids are growing up in a society where common forms of expression (such as creating an AMV) are against the law. This means that the idea of breaking the law has become commonplace, and Lessig thinks this disregard for the law will only lead to worse things, and possibly greater infractions. The conclusion he comes to is that the laws need to be changed to accommodate the ever increasing presence of technology in our world today. Changing laws to make it things easier for people to post videos lip syncing to copyrighted music seems a tad bit ridiculous though.
Copyright laws are meant to protect intellectual properties from being passed off as someone else's work, or from being used for commercial purposes without permission. These laws are necessary for musicians, writers, and almost anybody who creates a unique intellectual product. Yet as Mark Helprin mentions, copyright laws are not without flaws; namely the time limit on how long something can remain under copy right. The law was made to be ambiguous with the changing times, however, and efforts have been made to redefine the interpretation of the law to adjust.
Maybe then the whole of copyright law should be viewed in the same manner. While some Youtube-ers have found financial success, it has been with unique works, and just because someone uses other people's work to create this unique product does not mean either product would be the same independently. This is a slippery slope however due to the fact that illegal downloads have steadily increased. This culture where posting a uniquely made video on Youtube is seen as a criminal offence has only fed a community of online pirates. The two problems go hand in hand, so changing the laws will be easier said then done. The laws will eventually have to change, but the problem of living as a pirate may not go away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)