To The Front, To The Back

In his article “Between Democracy and Spectacle: The Front-End and Back-End of the Social Web,” Felix Stalder analyzes the unique differences between the “front-end,” user dominated side of the Web, and the “back-end,” owner dominated side, the back-stage area. The front-end is the side that the average user is most familiar with: user interfaces, social media profiles, the front page of your favorite blog. The back-end, however, has even more to do with the way the Web functions in our social lives. This is where what we see on our various screens is controlled, manipulated the authors, owners, and corporations behind almost everything we view online in an average day. Stadler argues that with the strength of the vast number of individuals contributing to the front-side of the web, the “organizations” at the helm in the back-end should not be in any more control of the web than the front-end users. This, however, as he points out, is just to good to be true with the current structure of Web 2.0 at large. There is simply too much money at stake, at least for now. Citing a quote from Clay Shirky’s “Here Comes Everybody,” “we are used to a world where little things happen for love, and big things happen for money…. Now, though, we can do big things for love.” While that was sound a bit utopian given a Web structure that currently aligns more with the back-end of things, the individuals at the front have been working towards such a goal for some time now. Resources like Wikipedia, various crowd-funding websites and services, and the myriad of personal, not-for profit blogs that thousands of users read and contribute to every day, are making it clear that we, the common users, do want to big things for love; for the love of communication, community, and the advancement of knowledge and creativity. As the two competing sides of the Web continue to push and pull at one another as time goes on and technologies evolve, it is important to remember that both sides do have their place. As a common user, I want easy access to search engines and social media; no part of me wants to have to work for Google in order to search for restaurant phone numbers and driving directions. That also does not mean that I want them aggregating all of my internet activity to target me with heavily researched ad placement, but for now, that’s the case. How can we change this, from the front-end? And what will we have to concede here in order to gain there?

A Clay Shirky TEDTalk:

Positive Crowdsourcing

Felix Stalder’s article The Front-End and Back-End of the Social Web attempts to expose the current framework and operations of the social web. He addresses two very different sides of what we the users have come to know as a social cyberspace. One side is the front end. It’s the part of the social web most of us are familiar with, the interface or product. The back end is made up of everything that goes into constructing and running the programs that the average person uses. In other words, it’s the behind the scenes of the social web. Stalder provides examples of how the back end has, and is, shaping the way we use the internet. He uses the example of crowdsourcing to highlight how the back end of businesses may take advantage of user generated content, however it doesn’t always have to be a deceitful practice. 

Life in a Day is one of my favorite documentaries. It’s an experimental film, compiled entirely of YouTube videos that were created and submitted on July 24^th 2010,

by users from all over the world. The business model, or at least, how the film was organized, follows the model described by Stalder as crowdsourcing. The film was produced by Ridley Scott and directed by Kevin MacDonald. They are the back end, responsible for providing the platform for the content, however, instead of using their powers to turn a profit they use them to create art (and probably somewhere along the line turn a profit).

Life in a Day is an incredibly powerful film and it’s crowdsourcing at it’s finest (if you haven’t seen it, you can watch the film for free on YouTube, just click on the link at the bottom). Web 2.0 has now made it possible for a single editor with a computer to make a successful feature film and it’s pretty incredible at that. 

Everyone does a little and no one does a lot. The practice of crowdsourcing can have just as many (if not more) pros than it can cons, it all depends on the who, what, when, where and why.
Large scale collaborative projects definitely have an ability to produce innovative and creative works of art or modes of communication that otherwise would be impossible. What are some of the other amazing things we can achieve using the social web and crowdsourcing? 

Life in a Day - Feature Film

Arab Spring and Slacktivist Culture

                           
The idea of the Twitter Revolution and Arab Spring really fascinates me, simply for the reason why a lot us use social networks site in such a different way.  We typically use social media, such as Twitter, as a way to connect with people in a humorous way, or in a way that sheds a light on how interesting we are.  And yes, we may use it to show our support for other countries in need by posting articles and such.  The term we used in class was "slacktivist," and I think that it perfectly describes the types of users we are for our social networking sites.

Then there is the flip side, which is what this article is talking about, specifically relating to the Arab world, and what they call Arab Spring.  It is not surprise to me that something like this has happened due to the amount of technology we have, and also by how much the U.S. is involved in wars across the world.  People in the Arab world are using these social networks, and phones in a way that we could never really imagine using them in our everyday world.  While their government restricts them for what they can use, people in those countries still risk their lives to show what is going on their country to get the word out to the rest of the world. Posting videos on Twitter to show what is going on gets the mass population over here a closer look as to what is going on, and it on a networking site that we are most familiar with.

Now, whether or not we do anything about it still is up to us, but I believe because of this, we are now more fully aware and more active about our opinions over what is going on.  And while the slacktivist nature is still prevalent, it is slowly starting to diminish in my belief.

So my question is, have any of you been affected by the videos you see, and have you wanted to do something about it?  Do we just not know what to do about it?  What are some of the negative effects of these wars being so public?

Dictators = Cookie Thieves

In his article “The Role of New Media for the Democratization Processes in the Arab World,” Markus Sabadello argues against the technological deterministic notions that assert the “Arab Spring” is a result of new media technology.  He cites alternative examples of how past political revolutionaries took advantage of the technology available to them, claiming that new media is only a tool and not an instigator.
Technological utopianism refers to an ideology in which assumes that advances in science and technology will eventually bring about a utopia, or at least help to fill the utopian ideal.

Sabadello criticizes this idea, but, he too slips into the techno-utopian trap. After discussing some of the “Countermeasures” governments have taken, Sabadello addresses the counter-countermeasures protestors can take using new media. This is where he gets hypocritical “A number of technology projects are under way that promise to make access to information, social networking, and other interaction on the internet more free, open and democratic, more empowering for individuals, and less vulnerable to manipulation or restriction” (Sabadello). By suggesting that we are only one tiny advancement away from a device or program that will finally liberate users from oppression, Sabadello takes up the techno-utopian argument. Although, to be honest, I can’t blame him. It’s very difficult not to imagine science and its technological advancements as the savior of the human race. Isn’t this why we invest in space programs, medical research, and any new discovery that looks as though it can somehow help us out? I think it gives us hope to believe there’s a machine out there, waiting to be developed, that will solve most of our problems. I tried to think of some recent scientific discoveries that have nothing but positive consequences, but we’ve even found a way to abuse antibiotics. Do we already have a technology or the ability to develop one that can do no wrong in the hands of a human being?
The video below is an example of how science failed to protect people even in a “perfect” simulated environment.

Science can replicate an environment suitable for human life, but we’ll still find a way to lose the pollinators and sneak in some candy bars. In other words, the innate characteristics of the new technologies that Sabadello promises will promote democracy, will be the same ones that restrict it. Tor may give the protestor or hacktivist anonymity when communicating over the internet, but it allows the opposition the same advantage. 
 

Citizen Journalism...Fan or Anti-Fan?

                             

One of the most interesting parts of this article is in relation to the anti-fans of Citizen Journalism versus the fans of Citizen Journalism.  Most forms of social media are going to have some kind of fandom and anti-fandom.  However, with some as specific to Citizen Journalism, it is interesting to me to see both sides of why it can be bad, or be good. 

The first argument was talking more about the beneficial side of Citizen Journalism.  Some people see it as our right to see what is going on around our community, our country, and also around the world.  No matter what the content is, it should be something that could be seen by all people.  When you watch the news or read a newspaper, it is almost forcing you to think about certain things.  While you form your own opinion, you only get an opinion over what is being presented in the article or news story.  With Citizen Journalism, any content can be added to the internet with a push of a button, and can spread pretty quickly.  That's why the speed of Citizen Journalism is another factor that makes it so appealing. I hadn't even heard the news about the West fertilizer plant explosion, but I looked on the internet, and saw the video, with a short description of what had happened. While it was difficult for me to know what exactly happened or really how much damage had been caused, I was informed of it before the news stations or newspapers ever got to it.  People can be informed faster through Citizen Journalism, and that is seen as a positive with some people. Also it can be used to raise activism about countries around the world that we may hear about on the news.  Videos get posted to the internet about riots, or police brutality, and other issues happening in other counties.  It makes people more aware about what is truly going on, rather than being filtered material through the news. 

Then there is the side of people who are against Citizen Journalism.  This mainly stems from people wondering why the person was videoing rather than helping what is wrong with what they are shooting, such as gang violence, or police brutality, or a house burning down, etc....Also there comes an issue as to the content that we view on the internet.  With as much access that we have nowadays, it is easier for anyone to get a hold of violent content including teenagers and children.  Some parents may not want their children to be exposed to such things, and with Citizen Journalism it is that much easier to find these things. The question of censorship is brought up a lot with Citizen Journalism, because a lot of these videos are hard to regulate, especially when twitter and facebook can spread them so fast. 

I also found the app Signal to be most interesting.  The fact that there is an app for Citizen Journalism shows the rise of it, which could then threaten traditional news media as well.  Signal allows users to post videos of newsworthy content, with a 60 character description.  Also if there are different videos of the same event, Signal puts them all together, kind of like a full news story.  

So I guess the question is, are you a fan of Citizen Journalism, or an Anti-fan?  What are some, if any, of the regulations that you would put on Citizen Journalism?  

It's Kind of Almost Citizen Journalism

In their article ‘This is citizen journalism at its finest': YouTube and the public sphere in the Oscar Grant shooting incident Antony and Thomas compare traditional forms of media to a guard dog, “a sentry not for the community as a whole, but for groups having sufficient power and influence.” They make the argument that media only publish news that corresponds with the status quo or supports an elite or dominant classes ideals and in turn claim that public platforms such as YouTube represent more diverse perspectives. They suggest that YouTube is a “democratic forum for otherwise oppressed voices, YouTube has afforded individuals who are victim to repressive state and federal authorities the opportunity to broadcast their strife and turmoil for the world to view” (Antony and Thomas.)
Although I believe citizen journalism benefits the American public by presenting alternative opinions during national debates, alerting people to news worthy events they might not have heard of, or allowing almost anyone to have a voice who wants one, YouTube is essentially no different than any other traditional form of media. Although anybody can upload, view, and discuss content on the site, Google still holds the ultimate authority on who gets access to that content. As the owner of YouTube, Google dictates what gets to be uploaded, viewed, and discussed. They are the editor and chief. Antony and Thomas use the example of how the cellphone footage of the Oscar Grant shooting demonstrated citizen journalist’s spreading the word of oppression. The video’s went viral overnight. Eventually television stations, according to Antony and Thomas, were “pressured” into broadcasting some of the videos because of the public outrage at the incident. However, are media moguls really pressured by citizen journalists if they are publishing their stories on these companies platforms? Is true citizen journalism out of our reach when we use websites like YouTube?
As citizens of the United States we are guaranteed the freedom of speech as well as the freedom of the press, the government legally cannot censor public opinion. But a newspaper isn’t obligated to publish your letter to the editor and a website isn’t bound by law to broadcast your content.



I agree that citizen journalism is a more democratic model of media. It holds traditional forms of media accountable and encourages them to relay news and information honestly and accurately. However, as long as citizen journalists communicate through privately owned mediums such as YouTube, there will always be the possibility of censorship and that’s not
democracy.

Steven Colbert on YouTube Comment Censorship

The 4 Phases of Internet Regulation

       In "The 4 Phases of Internet Regulation," John Palfrey of Harvard university walks us through the various eras of the internet and the transition towards heavier regulation. It’s been a long a grueling process, with most regulations being a result of a reaction to something apparently undesirable, rather than a preemptive strike against things which are presumedly undesirable. And even once these regulations have been imposed, is it truly possible to enforce them? Especially when one considers the range of technology at individuals disposal in terms of circumventing firewalls and content filters such as Tor (anonymity online) and VPN (virtual private network) proxy servers.

In the earliest days of the World Wide Web, access was unlimited, but not necessarily easy. In stark contrast to the idea behind safe-harbor times in terms of broadcast indecency, originally there was no concern at all due primarily to the fact that most people simply did not have access to the technology. Of course, once computer systems have risen to prominence by the mid-1990’s, attitudes begin to change. As computer became more and more common in the home, there was an increasing concern that indecent material would be accessed (possibly involuntary) by minors and children. Much like the issues surrounding the regulation of the telephone and broadcast radio and television, a great deal of concern is placed around the idea that children need to somehow be protected from the harsh truths of reality which envelope their existence. While we as a people must respect certain people’s desires for how and when their children are exposed to certain content, are we not doing more harm than good by attempting to pretend that it simply doesn't exist at all?

Even when there is a push to limit access to, or even remove certain content entirely from the internet, Tor is making it possible for individuals to host website anonymously, making it nearly impossible to hunt down any sort of responsible (culpable) individual. In China, the go-to example of a heavily content-filtered web, many people are able to circumvent the country’s firewall simply by maintaining a private connection to a computer located outside the country, which can then act as a proxy server to the individual still within China’s boundaries. Even beyond that, Tor, whilst providing a free-speech outlet in many places which are afforded no such civil liberties, has enabled the establishment of much less desirable internet activity such as drug dealing and the distribution of child pornography. It is a constant give and take, between the freedoms which this technology has granted us, and what we consider as something that aught to be limited or prevented. It is ultimately subjective; and governments must weigh the concerns of their citizens equally before enacting legislation which regulates internet content in terms of both access and distribution.

It is a complex problem, but ultimately, can the internet truly be regulated at all? As long as someone has the resources to mask their identity online, how can anyone be charged with any crime? And even if something is considered undesirable, doesn't the expansiveness of the internet and range of available technology in the current era of there internet make it nearly impossible to filter out?

Interesting links to explore:

https://www.torproject.org - Anonymity Online; an array of software tools which help you mask your internet presence and allows access to ‘hidden’ sites being hosted from private servers embedded within the network (often times illicit or clandestine).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWfUOG0EA9w  - A very good visual representation of the implications concerning internet regulation (especially with the involvement of third parties) in China.

To Whom am I Speaking?

After reading "I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet passionately,"  I sort of have a brand new outlook on Twitter.  I have never had a Twitter until this class, because I didn't really understand what I was supposed to use it for.  But after seeing the responses from this article, it was interesting to see what some people use it for.

One of the most interesting parts of the article was when it was talking about how we are pretty much talking to ourselves.  When Twitter users responded to the question about who they tweet for, there were a number of answers that said they were just tweeting for themselves.  Some people like to look back and see what they said at a certain point.  Some use Twitter as a diary of sorts, to write down everything that is going on with them.  Some said they just do it, just to do it.

 However, I feel as if some of these statements are not true.  I don't know these people, but I believe we don't just tweet for ourselves, we tweet so that people can relate to us, or maybe just to get the comfort of knowing that at least someone has read what you have to say.  While I agree that some people with minimal followers may be doing it for themselves, people with large followings are not just doing it for themselves, but for others to take a peak into their lives.

Then there are the people who are completely anonymous as to who they are.  This is the most fascinating to me, because you could virtually be whoever you want to be.  Maybe you are someone who has accomplished all that you wish to accomplish.  Or maybe you are someone that you admire.  Or maybe you act on Twitter the way you wish you acted in real life.  This is also the complication with Twitter that I personally have, is the fact that you  may be following someone who isn't really who they say they are.  But in the Twitter world, that doesn't really matter to us, because we enjoy reading them still.

The article talks a lot about audiences and who people are really catering too as well.  Some people Tweet to get a large number of followers; maybe they are comedic, or maybe they go on interesting adventures.  Then there are people who just Tweet for their friends; maybe it's the only way to stay in touch with everyone they personally know.  Then there are the ones that do it for themselves, like I talked about before.  It made me think about who I am Tweeting for.  Honestly, it is just for the class to get the grade.  But after this class, I honestly think that I will be much more active on Twitter.

So my main question I guess is, who do you Tweet for and why?  Also, if you could come up with a a made up Twitter account and be whoever you wanted to be, what would you be?

Are We Trying to Force Obsolete Educational Models To Work?

The definition of knowledge has changed. In Danah Boyd and Kate Crawford’s “Six Provocations of Big Data,” the authors encourage us to ask how “Big Data can change the meaning of learning” and some of the people answering their question are impoverished Indian children.

TED Talk with Dr. Sugata Mitra

 In his Ted Talk, Dr. Sugata Mitra addresses his experimental approaches to elementary education all over the world, showing evidence, that in  many cases children without any formal schooling or training are overcoming language barriers, learning complex biochemical curriculum, and even pumping out record high test scores. Dr. Mitra’s students aren’t attending expensive charter schools or studying under certified teachers, they’re simply being left alone in a room with high speed internet access. In one example he tells a story in which he walked into a classroom of grade school students in Italy. The children didn’t speak a word of English, nor did Dr. Mitra a word of Italian, however, after asking questions on the blackboard in English such as “Who was Pythagoras and what did he do?” the children were not only answering his questions in a matter of minutes but correcting his spelling. 

This leads us back to Big Data and the shifting paragon of learning. If these Italian children, without any prior knowledge of a foreign language, were able to solve problems presented in  English in only a few minutes, why should the educational institutions waste their time and money trying to teach kids something they can accomplish so easily? Access to Big Data such as Google or Wikipedia is changing the way we think of intelligence, knowledge and learning. It seems as though, memorization, one of the traditional methods of learning is almost rendered obsolete with new technologies. It’s important to ask ourselves whether it’s still necessary to spend years of ingraining facts, dates, and formulas into the minds of students, when it’s all just a few clicks away. I’m pretty sure that at some point while growing up every one of us cried out in despair “Why do I have to learn how to solve this stupid math problem without using a calculator?” and if your teachers were as naively sensible as mine they would of said something like this “Well your not always going to have a calculator with you are you son?” and then I’d say something like “But I’m never even gonna need to know this in real life!” 

Anyway...the point being we do have calculators with us all of the time, our smartphones are translators as well as encyclopedias and dictionaries. Technology has advanced to a point that’s shaping all aspects of human life. It’s doing it the same way the alphabet did. Before writing, an oral culture taught their children poetry and rhymes to remember stories or retain information, when technology advanced the modes of learning did too. Has the computational turn made traditional models of learning obsolete? Should we spend our lives packing our brains with information that’s available at our fingertips?

Big Data and Privacy Management: Why it Matters

       While Google and Facebook continue to track every last bit of our internet activity, how much access aught we as users have to such information? How much can we rely on new information systems as being accurate when they depend entirely on aggregate and collective data to produce their statistics? What are the ethical questions involved with data collection when it seems that the bulk of its resources are aimed at constructing more effective advertising as well as painting a digital picture of our lives as we traverse the internet? Danah Boyd and Kate Crawford observes the issue quite exhaustively, and attempt to answer some these questions.

The authors try to argue that ‘Big Data’ collections change the very definition of what we consider to be “knowledge,” but I feel this is as much up for debate as it was before such data-gathering techniques had been implemented into our society. Perhaps knowledge has transcended from beyond just ‘what we know’ to now ‘what we are capable of learning simply due to our constant interaction with resources of information, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that something is incorrect because it was assembled/translated by a computer or that humans are all that better at observing things themselves either. Perhaps they are merely pointing out that the methods of information or ‘knowledge’ transference have undergone a massive transformation during the past decade alone (or century for that matter).

I think one of the biggest provocations of ‘Big Data’ collection is its immense implications in the establishment and maintenance of our personal privacy and individual rights. As Boyd and Crawford point out, while Facebook continues to log away information about your likes and dislikes, pages visited, and keeps a backlog of previous posts on each page, navigating between these things can be cumbersome and confusing. If we can’t retrace the data ourselves, should someone (anyone) else be able to? People plead for transparency on the web, and yet we often aren’t provided the necessary tools to retrace our own steps on the internet. Boyd and Crawford point out that typically only researches have the resources and permission to access the information, and how the choose to interpret and represent it in turn may be entirely subjective. Even when we as users are able to access the information in a straightforward manner, does that make it okay for ‘Big Data’ collectors to be collecting and/or using it initially?

Things start to get scary when governments and corporations are capable of lifting the finest details of our personal preferences and involvements and catering to those tendencies specifically. How much is too much? To cite a pop-culture example, consider Minority Report (2002). In it, Tom Cruise is faced with an environment in which all things are constantly being monitored by video cameras, and personally crafted preference recommendations are offered at every turn based on retina-scanning ID devices which cites a database of the individual’s past activities/habits. This collection of data (in conjunction with a trinity of telepaths capable of foresight) allows for the “Future Crime” division to extrapolate potential murders and arrest assailants before any harm has come to the victim. Things get rather messy when he is implicated in a crime which he has yet to commit, thus raising ethical questions as to how much personal control an individual aught to have concerning their personal identity, interests, and whereabouts. Okay, so maybe that’s not a perfect example but hopefully I’ve made my point...

Even if the data is being collected ‘in our best interest’ (to prevent crime/identity theft/etc), does it do just as much to expose us to an even wider range of threats in terms of data transparency and privacy control? How should we begin to tackle such issues in an age where so much of the information we consume has been the result of ’Big Data’ collection algorithms and aggregated individual responses? Is there any way to strike a balance between safety/convenience and privacy/protection?

An interesting article over the potential influences of ‘Big Data’ collection on privacy.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/06/big-data-predictive-analytics-privacy

Gender Norms and Web 2.0, And Why MySpace Is a Jerk.

Tanja Carstensen’s 2009 article “Gender Trouble in Web 2.0: Gender Relations in Social Networking Sites, Wikis, and Weblogs” explores the relationship between gender norms and Web 2.0, where they intersect and where things get messy. Referencing various studies and research, she outlines the different ways men and women use the internet based on gender roles, specifically from a social media standpoint. While there are still more male internet users than female, the number of female users involved in blogging and social media has grown in recent years. However, the gender-binarity forced upon users of most profile-based social networking leaves something to be desired for those internet users who consider themselves neither male nor female. Facebook, for example, will not let a new user activate an account with specifying which of the two traditional genders one subscribes to, leaving transgenders, transsexuals and the like to either choose an online identity that does not match their real life identity, or to abandon the site altogether. In the age we live in today, where things like homosexuality and non-normative gender choices are becoming more accepted in the mainstream, things like this show that we are still living in a sort of social dark-age in some aspects of our online lives, even with incredible technologies coming to life every day.

She talked about two particularly troubling instances gender based bias online, the deletion of a MySpace profile for a gay-lesbian band Kids On TV, and the deletion of several feminist entires on Wikipedia, a space that is supposed to exist so that all users may disseminate information, not just heteronormative male users (Wikipedia is still heavily dominated by male users and input, and feminist articles and entries are unfortunately often challenged and removed from the site). As to the MySpace debacle, the band’s profile was eventually restored and MySpace apologized for the “mishap,” still admitting no wrong-doing. But an empty apology is too little too late, in my opinion, when such blatant disregard for another human being’s lifestyle has been displayed on such a large and public stage. It is hard to believe that things like that still go on in today’s supposedly more accepting world, so why is gender inequality on the internet still a problem? Why do users need to subscribe to specifically male or female gender roles just to sign up for Facebook? And whose business is it in the first place? We’re closer to the “global village” than ever before, but there is still a ways go to before we get there.

Glee Twitter Fandom and Anit-Fandom

You would be lying if you said that Glee is not one of the most popular shows in T.V.  I believe the reason why it is so popular is simply due to the fact that while some of the story lines are a bit over the top, the fans still relate to the characters and the plot lines.  People get connected to this idea of this certain actor or actress really being that character in real life though, which is what particularly interests me.  You have these actors portraying characters that are extremely popular, that fans have this notion that that is what they are like in real life as well.  This is why I feel that people feel the need to make Twitter accounts based on those characters.  It gives the fans a chance to act like on their friends through Twitter, and essentially "be a part of their day to day lives," even though they are not real people.

However, this idea of actors being portrayed as the characters they play can have a very negative effect.  As most of us know, the lead actor in Glee, Cory Monteith, passed away over 2 months ago, due to drug and alcohol related issues.  When the news of this tragedy came out, Twitter blew up with Tweets talking about this tragic accident, and how supportive they are of him.  Even when it was stated that Monteith's death may not have been a suicide, the fans still stuck by his side.  The only issue with this that I have though is the Tweets stating things like, "Finn will always be in our hearts,"  and "we will miss our star quarterback."  It's sad to me to see actors like this portrayed as the character they play, rather than the people they are in real life.  I almost even believe that when popular shows have such large fandoms and cult followings, that it is hard for actors to separate themselves from who they play on Television.

This was also a large issue on Twitter with the Anti-fandoms of Glee.  People posted things such as "He must have committed suicide because of choosing to be on Glee," and "I guess the star quarterback isn't as perfect as you Glee fans think."  While a lot of these posts were taken down, it was still on Twitter for all to see.  It is very disrespectful I believe to have thoughts about a person's life like that.   This is another reason why it is hard for actors to really pull away from their character, because they are almost expected to be like that in real life.  Especially if you are playing a star quarterback/singer/popular guy.

I guess my question for you guys would be, do you sometimes find it hard to see actors act differently in real life than they do as their characters in TV shows or movies?
Also,what are the negative effects of people pretending to be characters on TV on Twitter?

Rachel Berry in Space

Gender and Web 2.0

In the article, “Gender Trouble in Web 2.0” by Tanja Carstensen explores the gender relations on web 2.0. Part of the article discusses the gender restrictions social networking sites place on their users. Most networking sites require that once you join you must select a gender. For some sites, like the German site studiVZ, if you do not select a gender you are not allowed to join the site. I was shocked by this. So, I went to Facebook to see if the same thing applied. I joined Facebook my junior year of high school and didn't really remember if I had to select a gender. So I started to create a fictional account. I honestly thought to myself that Facebook must have an “other “option. For a site that is so prevalent in our cultural zeitgeist, it must allow you to not select a gender. I was mistaken. When I tried sign up for Facebook it wouldn't allow me to continue without selecting a gender. See below:

I found this astonishing. How is that one of the most powerful and popular sites in the world would force you  to select a gender. I honestly don’t see the point.  Social networking sites, are specifically made for our own personal enjoyment. They are controlled by the users and all the content is user generated. Yet the users must select a gender. I find this very restricting and small-minded, we should not have to force users into a specific gender. Carstensen finds this gender selection limiting, yet quotes statistics that are purely based on sites that have a forced gender selection. Why is it that sites require a gender? I feel it is so marketers can form statistics like the one below so they can market to us better:

This goes back to the previously discussed issue of privacy. Our gender or at least the gender that we a line with should be up to the users to disclose. The only reason why sites want us to put a gender is so that it is easier for those sites and marketers to target products towards us. Half the banner ads that appear on my Facebook would not appear if I didn't have a gender selected. I feel that selecting a gender should be up to the user themselves and not be required to log onto the site. If we didn't have genders selected on blogs or social networking sties I feel that content would be judged on the quality of the post not the gender of the user.  Do you think gender selection should be optional and if so how would that change web 2.0?

Different identities on different social networking sites: A Scavenger Hunt for Marketers

A central feature of many forms of social networking sites is the ability to create a profile. Creating a profile requires a form of self-reflection: which side of you do you want to portray? Which photos of you would best support this portrayal, and what kind of content must you create? The answers to both of these questions depend on your audience. If you’re broadcasting to your friends, you may be more comfortable sharing silly photos and revealing your personal thoughts and beliefs. If you’re broadcasting yourself to potential employers, you may prefer to uphold a more professional image; your photos probably won’t be of you mimicking the white-girl-pose with your friend and your status probably won’t be a mini rant on the barista who messed up your Starbucks order. It’s a good thing there are different social networking sites that cater to the different sectors of our lives.

In his article "Why Mainstream Social Networks Complicate Our Identities", Beckland discusses Google+ and why its attempt to consolidate all our social networking through its 'circle' feature doesn't mesh well with the variety of relationships we have with others. He argues that an eclectic feed composed of all the individuals we connect with is frustrating and confusing, because it requires us to mentally sift through content that comes from different parts of our lives. However, Beckland's argument is only concerned with the complications that arise when users consume content from many sources. I believe that social networking sites allow users temporary escape. When you have a bad day at work, you may want to express these frustrations to your personal friends and find ways to forget about the workplace temporarily. These desires would be difficult to satisfy if your social networking sites meshed your personal and professional lives. Seeing your boss’s face on the homepage while you write your mini-rant status update may make the experience less stress-relieving than you’d like.

I, personally, am glad that there are so many different social networking websites, each with its own dynamic and niche. Collectively, they allow me to comfortably express different parts of my personality. I like that I can get on Facebook and share silly photos and thoughts with the comfort of knowing* that I can still maintain my professional and academic side that teachers and administrators are familiar with. I like that I can get on LinkedIn and share my professional and academic experiences without the judgment of my peers, who I know in a different context. I like that I can get on Tumblr and express my intimate thoughts with an audience that I don't necessarily know in real life. If these social networking sites converged, I would feel restricted in my ability to express myself.

Beckland concludes that the myriad of social networking sites allow marketers to gain a "more nuanced, unified understanding of their customers." I agree with these sentiments. With so many different social networking sites serving as outlets for different parts of our personality, we're essentially creating a scavenger hunt for marketers, who must find and piece together different parts of us. While this scavenger hunt may overwhelm marketers, it actually provides them a better understanding of their consumers. Distinct social networking sites that handle distinct parts of our lives facilitate more self expression. More self expression equals more insight into the personalities of individuals and their wants, needs, and frustrations. The varied landscape of social networking sites is beneficial to both users and marketers. With that being said, in the interest of time, is there a particular social networking site that marketers should target first? If so, which? This article thinks Twitter's the one. Maybe we should take the marketer's ambitions and goals into consideration - do you think different social networking sites cater better to different marketers? 

* after last week's material on privacy, I don't know if this is something I know

Privacy Management on Social Media and Social Network Sites

Where do we draw the line between public and private? As we attempt to perpetuate an increasingly visible presence within our social circles (digital or otherwise), likewise are we are becoming increasingly concerned with the issue of privacy. Social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook and Twitter allow users to connect with friends and share anything from what’s happening at the current moment (via text or photo) to links to other web pages they find interesting. However, how much control do we have over who actually sees the things we are sharing?

Madden points out an increasing trend in users of SNS changing their privacy settings to allow only ‘friends’ to view posts. Not surprisingly, women surpass men in private profiles by nearly 20%. One might assume this correlates with the increasing threat of internet stalkers and the rising fear that someone unknown might learn more than you would be comfortable disclosing. Women usually tend to be the victims of these stories, resulting in an increased concern for internet privacy amongst women rather than men.

However, this raises the question of how public the internet is. When we post something to a SNS, we do so with the assumption that only our friends or followers are ever going to see it. In reality, privacy is a much murkier situation than that. What’s keeping one of your friends from taking a screenshot of a more sensitive post and uploading it to Reddit for everyone to ogle or laugh at? The obvious answer would be to simply not share such information in the first place, but, in an age when an increasing number of personal interactions are occurring over the web, should we not be able to feel comfortable sharing ‘personal’ information with our ‘friends’?

The simple fact is this; when it comes to the internet there is no such thing as absolute privacy. Where the difference between a public audience and complete isolation is abundantly obvious, the privacy scale is infinite different shades of grey. While we can control certain interactions on certain sites, once a user submits something to the world wide web, they have left a traceable artifact which can be dug up and shared with any number of individuals outside of those for whom the content was originally intended. This fact becomes quite amusing when one considers the typical response to the question of “Overall, how difficult is it to manage the privacy controls of your profile?” is “Not difficult at all.”

This may be a scary thought, but these are consequences that come with navigating a digital territory. While nobody is essentially at risk outright, the potential for malicious activity is limitless. Things like automatic location identification and facial tagging are only adding to people’s concern, leaving them unsure if they are accidentally leaving geotag bread-crumb trail of everywhere they’ve been and whom with. As Madden mentions himself, there is an increasing trend amongst SNS users to delete tags of themselves within photos containing compromising material. While it should be noted that Facebook and Imgur claim to “wipe location-identifying metadata” from the image files that users upload to these sites, this will not protect users from photos containing sensitive or compromising material of themselves. How does this apply to the phenomena of ‘drunken party photos’ and the concept of public versus private spaces? Should someone be able to enjoy a party without concern for easily misinterpreted photos being unsuspectedly taken of them? Or did they forfeit that privilege by deciding to show up the party? These are just some of the many complex questions that internet privacy raises. The notion that digital artifacts can be shared instantly and can be accessed essentially forever casts them in a very different light from the sharing of physical artifacts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G1-fpHSYXU A FOX Business news report on the security issues surrounding internet privacy and reputation management. 

Social Media is in a complicated relationship with Privacy

Social Media. Privacy. The juxtaposition of these two terms rings bells. Social media allows users to connect and share media with others. Privacy, on the other hand, restricts what media is shared and with whom. As the title of the Troni's article suggests, the two terms themselves are contradictory. Due to the conflicting natures of social media and privacy, does social media privacy even exist? In a world where we share more information with more people both intentionally and unintentionally, has privacy become a luxury of the past?

Social media privacy often refers to the content visibility controls that social media platforms provide. However, any form of media that we post on these social media websites is no longer truly private. We don't know what the individuals we choose to share this media with will do with our content. For example, there are many blogs on Tumblr dedicated to sharing humorous Facebook posts, such as the one on the right. Even if the person who posted this status limited its visibility to his or her approved Facebook friends, it only takes one Facebook friend who finds it humorous and a screenshot to increase the audience of the intimate thought by 900.

Troni brings up an interesting argument in her article: companies should provide consumers methods of "erasing" the mistakes they have made in sharing content or information. While this idea is ideal in theory, it is unattainable in practice. The replicable and scalable nature of anything uploaded to Internet simply does not allow for true 'erasing'. Once content is uploaded to the Internet, it is free for consumption by anyone. Anyone who views the content has the ability to replicate it in some way. Text can be copied. Images can be saved. Videos can be screen-recorded. Once content is in the hands of another, it lives on despite its original creator's efforts to "erase" it. Troni also states that companies should rectify any mistakes that they make with consumer data. However, this notion, too, is ideal in theory and unattainable in practice. Just as it is difficult for companies to ensure users the ability to erase their mistakes, it is difficult for companies to 'erase' their own mistakes. For example, many companies nowadays store their consumer's private data - such as credit card numbers - in online databases. Any security breaches in these online databases are "mistakes" on the company's part. On many occasions, hackers have targeted Sony's databases and stolen credit card information from its consumers.  Sony has NO way to erase this mistake. Even if Sony improves the security of its databases, Sony can NOT insure that the hackers will not post or share the stolen information. Nowadays, privacy concerns not only which individuals can see certain content but also what these individuals choose to do with this content.

Troni makes a suggestion that I feel is part of an approach to maintaining quasi-privacy online: knowing that "stuff happens." Companies can't expect users to never make mistakes and vice versa. In knowing that "stuff happens," we understand that nothing we post is truly private, keeping what we really feel needs to be private private. However, this understanding is under the assumption that true privacy can not co-exist with social media. Under this assumption, should efforts to obtain privacy be abandoned altogether?

Privacy: Dead and Gone?

The world is small and has become even smaller with the introduction of social networks. I look at my Facebook’s friend list and see names that I do not even recognize. These people have complete access to my educational background, my favorite movies and can see where I ate last night. It seems I have no privacy. The definition of privacy is the state or condition of being free from being observed by other people. By definition, if you have a social networking page you do not have privacy. The so called “privacy” that people want is the ability to control who views their private information, yet people can’t even control that. A person can block an unwanted friend from their Facebook, but that is nothing compared to the number of people who are able to view your Facebook on a daily basis. The article by Susan B. Barnes, “A Privacy Paradox”, discusses how marketers are able to target their products to teens based off information those teens put onto social networking sites. This is not why teens use social networking sites. Yet, there seems no way to stop them, except maybe this way:

Though the video is overdramatic, it brings to attention that we are constantly being viewed. Saying that makes me sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but it doesn’t make it less true. The article, “A Privacy Paradox” also discusses privacy solutions. How our lack of privacy can be solved by social, technical and legal solutions. I don’t think this is the case. Our social networking sites are a social convention. We post our thoughts and feelings for the world to see and it is socially acceptable, and I feel there is no easy way to fix that. Our social networking pages, be that Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram are constantly being viewed. Hashtags even makes it easier for people to find our pages. All I have to do is type in #dexterfinale and low and behold there is someone’s rant about the disappointing finale to Dexter. I have never met this person, but I know that one of their favorite TV shows is Dexter, well at least it was. No matter how many blocks or privacy settings you have, this invasion of privacy seems unstoppable. Isn’t that terrifying? Or is it? I honestly find it all very disturbing and honestly creepy, yet should I? Maybe this lack of privacy is just a norm that we will all come to except one day. Right now, it seems strange that someone you have never met before, who lives half way across the world can read your most intimate thoughts. Or that a marketer can learn that people your age really don’t like a certain product based of your Facebook. Maybe privacy is nothing more than a distant memory. Is privacy a lost norm or can it be achieved once again, and if so by what means?

Online Privacy

In A privacy paradox: Social Networking in the United States, Barnes focuses on what she refers to as the 'privacy paradox': the contrast between teenagers willing to share intimate information online and government agencies and companies collecting data. Throughout the article, Barnes holds a specific interest in teenagers and their usages of these social networking websites. The following infographic provides an aesthetic overview of what teenagers share online and with whom:

As a teenager, I can relate to this privacy paradox. Admittedly, my Facebook profile contains a lot of personal information, such as where I live and what school I attend. I also own blogs on Tumblr, where I keep journal-like entries that catalog my inner thoughts and daily excursions. While I am willing to share this information online, my father is constantly surprised with the amount of his personal information he finds online. As a public school teacher, my father is considered an employee of the state. The state government keeps an online database that stores the salary of every state education employee, and my father was appalled to find that his salary was on the Internet for the whole world to see without his consent. In a frenzy, my father Googled himself and found even more of his personal information online, such as his address, previous locations of residency, the value of his home, and the individuals he lives with. While my father is an avid Internet user, his online activity is mainly constituted of checking email and consuming any content related to Jeremy Lin - he does not own any social media accounts. For my father, he is taken aback by the disparity between the amount of his personal information that he uploads onto the Internet and the amount that can be found on the Internet.

I am hesitant to believe that teenagers are unaware of the public nature of the internet, which is what Barnes argues. I believe that this may be due to the fact that this article was written in 2006 - almost 7 years ago. When I first began using the Internet more frequently, I remember many reminders about ‘cyber safety’, such as campaigns at school and NBC's To Catch A Predator. These efforts are examples of social solutions that Barnes proposes near the end of the article. Personally, I feel that these efforts have reduced the amount of information teenagers willingly provide online; I grew up knowing that I shouldn't post my home address or social security number on the Internet. I feel that teenagers nowadays are aware of how public the internet is but have these erroneous assumptions about the social platforms and their default privacy settings, which leads to more personal information exposure than intended. That is, teenagers don't think that the Internet is private; they think the platforms they use are private by default - which is not true amongst popular platforms such as Twitter and Instagram.

Even if teenagers were more careful about the personal information put online, can we even be sure that their personal information won't find its way online somehow? Barnes also brings up this interesting point in her article and asks "In an age of digital media, do we really have any privacy?"

I believe that as the role technology plays in our lives becomes larger, our privacy diminishes. Because digital media overlaps so many sectors of our lives, I believe that everything we do leaves a footprint somewhere - both intentionally and unintentionally. Consider the anecdote I gave earlier involving my father.  Something like his salary ends up on the Internet because the usage of the Internet has extended into organizing state information. Something as simple as using a credit card to pay for groceries catalogs where you were at a given time and what you purchased in a database somewhere. If you go somewhere with a friend and he or she decides to tweet about what you two are doing and where, where you were at a given time and who you were with is now recorded on a database somewhere. Essentially, everything - what you do, who you’re with, where you are - has the potential to become public. That begs the question: is privacy even attainable?

The following video ponders a similar question: 

Copyright and Fair Use Today

Urs Gasser and Silke Ersnt’s essay From Shakespeare to DJ Danger Mouse: A Quick Look at Copyright and User Creativity in the Digital Age explores the recently problematic and ever-evolving relationship between long established Copyright and Fair Use laws and the Internet as we know it today, an endless source of user-created content. As digital technologies and the Internet continue to grow and foster an environment of “participatory culture” among its countless users, more and more often creative works, new and old, are being are being integrated into practices such as fan fiction, remix, sampling, and mashups. The way that Copyright and Fair Use laws stand today, many users who are simply looking for a creative outlet are subject to lawsuits, fines, and in some cases even jail time for violating laws that are simply outdated today. The origin of Copyright Law was based upon print material of the last millennium, a time before it was quick and easy to find content on the Internet, modify/remix/sample it (ie. a “derivative work”), and make it your own in no time at all. Gasser and Ernst argue, and I agree, there there is great potential for reform of these laws that will bring them up to speed with the current state of our new digitized world. The old guard of Copyright and Fair Use advocates would argue that allowing our new participatory culture to pick and choose from any media that is available and make it something new disincentivizes the creative process by possibly decreasing the monetary value of an original creative work. However, some specific changes to the structure of Copyright and Fair Use laws would inherently dissolve the problem. Legislation that would ensure that derivative works would not interfere with the monetary value of the original work and/or be non-commercial works themselves would certainly lessen the tensions between original creators and active receivers/remixers because in the end, creators get to make their money and everyone else gets a change to create derivative works. This “Top-Down” approach, and many of their other suggestions would require a vast overhaul of the entirety of Copyright and Fair Use laws, and with the pace at which Congress typical works, this could take years to finalize and cost many people and companies on both sides of the issue a lot more money. On the other hand, a “Bottom-Up” approach in which content creators authorize that their work be shareable (such as the idea of the creative commons license) would avoid governmental interference from the start. The problem here is that large corporations that like to make large amounts of money would worry that their revenue streams would diminish. This approach is much more practical for independent creators/companies. So my question is, where is the middle ground? How do we make creators, active receivers, remixers, samplers, the government, and the money counters all happy? Or, can we at all?

Related Links:

http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use/related-materials/codes/code-best-practices-fair-use-online-video

This is a guide to acceptable practices of Fair Use in creating online video.

http://www.remixinstitute.net

A collection of remix videos that constitute Fair Use.

Remix Culture and Copyright Law in the Digital Age

In Lessig’s Remix: How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law, he dismisses the traditional view that various forms of technological communication would inevitably usurp the oral tradition. He asserts that the difference in how copyright law treats text and non-text based media is ultimately detrimental to the development of new and original, non-text based media. This is obvious when one considers the multitude of publishing platforms available in the current technological age. The internet has substantially compressed the time and space in which we live–things are no longer bought, sold, and traded as mandated by the first sale doctrine, but rather downloaded, copied, and shared as quickly as our browsers can deliver. Nowadays, anyone can upload an image to Imgur, share it on Reddit, and before the hour is out, (if it was popular enough) someone will have likely copied, modified, or redistributed the image for their own purposes. In the process, no one (not the authors or the sites hosting the images themselves) is bothering to cite the work of previous creators/contributors. This is evident in the phenomena of internet memes, particularly the creation of image macros. The fact that macros consist of merely a modified phrase or saying applied to a static image, which, through repetition of use, has established a certain context in which the text is to be placed, along with their relative ease of replication makes it particular successful in generating user participation on the consumer’s end. Lessig brings up the idea of commercial versus sharing economies, and continues to point out that the internet has essentially become a hybrid of both. Where it encourages shared-user involvement for all the aforementioned reasons (availability, accessibility, and relative association of produced texts), it has also become a battle ground for digital commerce, with many companies leveraging sharing platforms to encourage repeat users and establish a continued customer base. Amazon would not be what is today without its rating and review system, allowing its users to review items and vendors alike, creating a dependable level of trust between shoppers and veritable vendors. Without this sharing platform being implemented into its overall design, Amazon’s commercial platform may not have become the success that it is today. I would therefore agree in Lessig’s argument that copyright law needs to shift focus from the act of copying alone, and rather, towards the intended and inevitable uses of the copy. This will help to distinguish the defining differences between a copy and a remix, and provide the resources to demystify the methods by which these ‘remixes’ are made legitimate or legally acceptable. He likens the entire situation to the prohibition era, where we have essentially made criminals of our entire civilization by imposing rules which simply cannot and will not be adhered to by a generation of individuals living in the digital age. With this in mind, how might we consider our own roles in balancing the focus of copyright laws between protecting existing creators and encouraging new creators? How should we suppress or embrace activities that are the direct a result of immersion in a digital realm?

Relevant links:

https://soundcloud.com/hoodinternet - The HoodInternet is a Musical duo which “mashes” popular songs together. Is this an example of a remix, transformation, or just the equivalence of copying?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58249-2004Apr7.html - Lessig digresses on the more intricate complexities of the relationship between creators and consumers, and how to balance both of their needs and desires within the digital realm.

In Response to: "How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law" by Lawrence Lessig

A nice summary of the ideas in article in speech form by the author itself here.

In this article, Lessig explores the relationship between copyright laws & creativity and urges for copyright reform. Lessig compares remixing to writing in his argument, stating that the protocol for legally “remixing” in writing - citing other sources - is not replicated for legally remixing digital media. I believe that his argument is sound. With new developments in technology, remixing is getting easier and easier. Just as a person with pen and paper can write, a person with access to the Internet can remix. Consider the song “The Fox” by Ylvis released two weeks ago. The search query “what does the fox say” on Youtube returns over three million results - many of which are remixes of the original song and music video in some form. However, the current state of copyright laws makes it so that a person can not produce content using existing content as easily as he or she can write something that incorporates other written works.

We can not expect laws that were written in the absence of the technologies that dominate our lives today to swiftly transfer over. Copyright laws provide producers legal security in the ownership of their intellectual property. They fit seamlessly into a read-only culture, in which there is a fine division between content consumers and producers. However, the Internet is blurring this line and slowly rediscovering a read-write culture, one in which individuals are not only consumers but also producers. Changes in copyright laws have to be made in order to accommodate for our new culture, but the how isn’t so obvious. In order to begin thinking about the how, we should consider a few questions: Are remixed works considered original? Are remixers considered producers?

The discrepancy between remix culture and copyright laws is analogous to developments in technology. Consider the new iOS7 software upgrade. If an app developer decides to not upgrade his or her application so that it is compatible with the new operating system, that application will lose its following. Users could still use this application if they chose to stick with an older operating system. However, many users will choose to upgrade if they find it to be more exciting and beneficial than the usage of that single, stubborn application. I feel that, currently, copyright law is the stubborn single application and remix culture its fun, exciting counterpart. This extinction timeline infographic predicts that copyright will become extinct in 2020. Lessig raises this concern in his article, suggesting that, without change, copyright law will create a culture of criminals. Such a culture could be detrimental to our law-governing society; if breaking laws becomes commonplace, how can we be sure that people won’t break laws more severe than copyright laws?

The remix culture of our present is not a creature that can be tamed by the copyright laws of the past. 

Power of Fan Made Media

Fan, a word that stems from fanatic. When we think of the word fan, most peoples’ minds go to a person sitting in a basement reenacting Star Wars scenes with his custom made light saber. While some fan maybe doing this, this is a far cry from what is actually going on in the fandom. Fans are what keep a franchise going. Not by just buying tickets, but by talking about it, writing about it and creating media around it. Fan made media is something that has existed for a very long time and it stems from many different things. A franchise is only capable of producing so much media. While fan produced media is endless. These fans create a continuation of the story that they love so much, or for some they create a different path for the characters that they have grown attached to. When, I was a little girl I read the American Girl books.  One of the books ended in a way that I didn’t like. I was distraught.  My mother, to ease my pain, told me to write my own ending. This idea had never occurred to me before. I never thought I could control the characters that I loved so much. By writing my own ending , I was able to still enjoy a book series that I was more than willing to forget purely because I didn’t like the ending. Because I had the power to rewrite the story I was still able to love this series even more. So why is Hollywood so afraid of fan made media. They bury it down or take it down as if it is something to fear. I understand they made a universe and the creators of that universe made it that way for a reason, but art has always been expanded on and explored. Fan made media can give stagnant franchise or series new life. The creators of these fictional universes have fantastic imaginations that allowed them to create an infinite world, and their fans should be able to explore it as much as possible.