It is what it is, just like it was way back when they said that "it is what it is"

The readings here seem to reflect repeatedly that advertising on the internet is much like early advertising, in any form. All advertising and marketing is about deceit in one way or another. You are shown an unbalanced summary of a product by the seller (not manufacturer necessarily) so that you will be interested and buy.

You can spend more money at one store than another store for the exact same product simply based on how much the other store knows people will pay for it. It certainly scares me that I may have paid less on Amazon had I been more informed before I wanted a Frames album delivered to my home, but fool me once shame on me…you see where I’m going with this. Marketing to as many people as you can and making as much money as you can is a simplistic way of explaining large-scale business practices. They are just fooling a lot of intelligent people on the internet currently and it is making a lot of those people feel duped and unintelligent. As far as I can tell people don’t like feeling that way and won’t stay quiet if they find out that they are getting a raw deal.

Creepy Stuff

Sites like ebay and amazon.com are playing off of our desire for speed and our tendency towards impulse. With ads tailored and adjusted towards you they can effectively lure you in by showing you a low price that someone else might not get because of different surfing habits. Of course it does make me uncomfortable to know that these companies know about how much I would pay for a shirt or a new book (which for me is not much).

Imagine this in real life (Tyson). An employee at Best Buy following you around in their blue shirt seeing exactly what you look at, buy and don’t buy based on the price. They would see you go to their competitors and see what you buy for what price and either make their prices lower or higher. That kind of creeps me out. With as much business as online stores such as these get I am surprised that this has not been addressed earlier. It is a shady business practice that should be eliminated.

I personally don’t believe that data mining is an “essential business process”. I really don’t want an internet site to know exactly what I am looking at all the time. Sure it helps with their advertising but I never click on ads that come up anyways for fear of annoying pop ups and spyware.

It says in the Washington Post article that “Advertising.com Inc. and Claria Corp. -- which match ads to Web-surfing histories rather than to search queries…..registered last month to hold initial public offerings.” I find this incredibly wrong. Someone is really making money off of knowing exactly what I look at instead of what I simply search for? In my opinion this is extremely wrong. I care a lot less if someone tries to sell me a CD because I searched a certain band than someone who bases their advertising directly off what I look at online. But at the same time, If I look up a picture of Lindsay Lohan then I don’t necessarily want to buy her stupid CD.

Oh and the creator of my favorite website, TV-Links, was arrested and his site was taken down. Sad Day.

http://www.daily.colex.org/site-owner-tv-links-illegally-arrested-on-whim-of-media-tycoons/

http://www.dailytech.com/Largest+TV+Piracy+Site+Shut+Down+Staff+Arrested/article9338.htm

But thirty more similar sites appear.

http://tvteddy.blogspot.com/2007/10/tv-links-replacements.html

Apathy or Optimism?

It seems there's a lot of crap being sold. There's a lot of mindless drivel on TV, I haven't seen a lot of quality movie previews lately, and don't even get me started on the sad state of radio music. It seems to me that this proliferation of commercial crap is a direct result of marketing practices. There's too many people for a network, an advertiser, a record label, a production house, to really "know" its customer base. Sure it can real off an endless stream of Arbitron statistics (by the way I'm convinced Arbitron is a play on the word Arbitrary)that say the average customer is a middle aged Caucasian male with high school diploma and 2.6 children. (That's two children plus one benign tumor.) But do they really "know" you? I for one am legitimately excited about the possibility of individual based marketing. If I'm willing to pay a certain price for a certain good than that's what I'm willing to pay. It seems people are forgetting the meaning of the word willing. Sure it may seem fair....but when was anything ever fair?

That warm and fuzzy feeling is a false sense of security.

Ramasastry explains that many Americans are convinced that price customization is and should be illegal. They are also outraged to find out that it commonly happens. I think this first reflects the general lack of knowledge most people (I am generally part of this category as well) have about online shopping and the online experience in general. Just as the article points out, no one really reads the terms and conditions anyways. Second I think that the reports about specific companies serve the same function as reports of people getting fired because of facebook - it only makes clear what some people already know but refuse to acknowledge. Car dealers offer different prices all the time but the minute some of us get online there is some warm, fuzzy feeling that takes over and lulls us into a sense of security, assuring use that we are protected from all the things we think should be illegal. And as an aside, I wonder if all the people that think price customization is bad think of it as broadly as other practices such as student and senior discounts.

Self Control?

All this debating over price customization is really unnecessary. For starters, everyone has a choice to purchase an item at the price that is being asked. If they feel the price is too high then they can walk or click away. No one is forced into buying things. It is the demand they have for the particular item they are thinking about buying. How bad do they really want to acquire this object? For some the demand is higher so they will pay the higher price. Are they being ripped off if someone else is offered the same product for a lower price? I would say no. The other person's demand for the product is lower so they might not buy it at a higher price. It is just like the idea of a sale. A lot of people will buy things at regular price because they want them, they think they need them right then. Others may not purchase these items at regular price, but will do so more willingly when an item goes on sale. Getting the product off the shelf is the only desire of the seller, whether or not they have to make some price cuts. It all boils down to intelligent consumers and the amount of demand a consumer has for a certain product. I think the idea of buyer beware would sum it all up.
eBay on the other hand allows the buyers to pick the highest price they would be willing to pay for a certain item. While there are some not so ethical tactics being utilized on eBay I still believe it can provide positive experiences for on-line shoppers. You may be sniped or jack up the price on yourself, but that goes back to the idea of buyer beware. If you don't want to spend the money than just say no. Don't let yourself be dupped by anyone, make an informed decision for yourself and if you cannot don't put the blame elsewhere. eBay is beneficial because it offers a place for people to find rare and obscure items, or things they couldn't find anywhere else. It offers them a place to find things that they are interested in, not just what corporate America tells people to be interested in.

eBay: A New World Marketplace?

After these readings, I realized that sites structured like eBay are a reflection of the society that we now live in. As our society becomes faster, the need for more independence arises. With independence comes the desire to oppose control in any form. This is why people are offended when they find how various online shopping communities (Amazon.com, for example) have been studying shopping behaviors and adjusting prices and ads to reflect said shoppers. People don't want to feel like their patterns can be predicted and advertised things that they may or may not want.

eBay is different from the companies that analyze behaviors. The webmasters of eBay step back and let people do what they want, with the usual common-sense rules to keep the good character of the customers. With the feeling that they can control what they are doing, eBay customers feel that independence that they so rightly crave.

The five values

A big part of being a good seller on Ebay is knowing your demographics and being able to market to that specific sub-culture of whatever you're selling. As you go to point out in your article, people like Pam didn't have expertise in bidding on items and therefore was jacking up the price against herself. Because the items she was bidding on contained a childhood importance, people like Pam engage in "sniping" to get what they want; overpaying on an item when they could probably have it for less. Not all people are like Pam, however. Jarrett goes to show us ebay's declaration of community values. "We believe people are basically good." "We believe everyone has something to contribute." "We believe that an honest, open environment can bring out the best in people." "We recognize and respect everyone as a unique individual." "We encourage you to treat others as you want to be treated." Well, too bad everyone isn't like this. Check out http://www.aboutpaypal.org/home to get a list of "Paypal and Ebay horror stories".

The subversive database

The big scare used to be tracking cookies - you know, little textpads of information stored on your computer, accessible over dozens of sites that carried the same ad banners (It's a huge market too - DoubleClick and aQuantive were bought out big-time this year). The cool thing about these guys is that even your "block 3rd-party cookies" didn't actually block them, because the cookie was tagged on the image's server, not the webpage. So you surfed around the 'net, feeling anonymous while these crawlers snagged your digital vitals. A lot of information (your IP reveals your location and your referrer reveals the last page you looked at) can be extracted from simple web-browsing, and in the end tracking cookies don't really matter. Why? Because connected websites can track you anyway. They don't need to stash a piece of text on your computer to do it, they just need to communicate with other websites. Kind of like the way creditors share information about your history, sorting you into purchasing profiles and assigning you scores. While this information does sometimes compute to higher prices for certain users, it will likely be circumvented as long as there are buying incentives like bargain websites (and maybe, just renewing your IP address). Are you leaving it up to Amazon to provide a deal that you can't refuse at the highest price you're willing to pay? That's what eBay does with your consent, and Nathan's article argues that well. What he doesn't mention are the costs for the seller - which, between ebay and paypal fees markup to around 15% - which I feel are causing inflation within the market. Granted, it's a larger user-base, but why should a broken LCD screen go for just $100 less than a brand new one, warranty and all? It probably has something to do with the small fortunes that can be gained in the repair/resell of listings (Beanie Babies, anyone?).

The DL on BBV (shh.. they might throttle my JOB)

I was interested to read about online marketing ploys and the terminology used by their corporations . It brought to mind the popular practice of "throttling" by online dvd rental services. Essentially, high-use customers (ones renting multiple movies at a time with unlimited plans) started causing corporations to lose money, because their movie turn-around time requires these corporations to spend more on shipping movies to the customer than they make from the monthly subscription fee. The answer is to delay the shipment (days or weeks after the product's availability) to high-use customers, so that the corporation can spend less on shipping, still making a profit from subscription fees--throttling. Consequently, priority is given to more profitable customers (new customers or those who rent less) to receive titles before the non-profitable high volume customers.

Netfilx has already admitted to this practice as it is ambiguously referenced in their terms of use, but they refer to it as "allocation"stating "We reserve the right to process orders and otherwise allocate and ship DVDs among our subscribers in any manner that we, in our sole and absolute discretion, determine." The other leading company (which I will refer to as BBV on the off chance that some corporate online investigator finds one of their employee's name on a blog referencing this shady practice) has never admitted to throttling. But it is very clear from high volume customer observation and complaint that they are not the priority on the shipping list. This same company having lost billions of dollars in the past several years, in both their retail stores and online, have recently upped the price on all online subscription packets and have limited the free rentals received in-store (a bonus of the online subscription.)

I guess my question to these companies, and those discussed in the readings, would be "should you really depreciate customer service so much by adopting shady practices and betraying loyal customers in order to gain a buck?" ...Their marketing research says yes.

bogus!

I understand that online business is becoming one of the biggest industries out there. I also understand the purpose of tailoring to peoples wants. It makes sense. In on of the blogs previous to this the writer talks about the ethics involved in it. That was my first concern, and not so much the ethics, but the legality. I'm not sure I want companies knows how much I'm willing to pay for a plane ticket or a pair of shoes. I know that this goes along with a lot of things we have already talked about this semester, what with surveillance, and people being able to see lots of stuff about you via. social networks, but is it ok for businesses? If you walk into a store, the employees don't follow you around to other stores you go into. They don't sell you a shirt for 5 dollars more than somebody else. If the internet is going to be continue to be a major business ground, this needs to stop. I say this because i believe as people realize what is happening, and it does begin to happen more, online businesses will lose credibility. Now maybe I'm completely wrong and the American consumer is too lazy to care or do anything. I wouldn't put it past a lot of people. But it seems to me any average person with average intelligence would say... hey - this isn't right. I can also see something happening where you are a thriftier person, and business won't offer you anything because you won't pay enough. The whole idea is just not good.

A Vikings Dammit Doll...Just What I've Always Wanted!

Whether a person stumbles across a product on a site like eBay or if the product is directly targeted towards them through an online add, what will influence a person to actually buy that particular product? Is it a violation for cookies to track your every click without your permission...

Danna and Gandy wrote that data mining is "being seen as an essential business process." I don't think this it is necessarily ethically wrong for a company to use data mining, however, when I think about being tracked every time I look at a product, it kinda creeps me out.

It is true that online advertising can target a mass audience for a fraction of the cost of a television advertisement, but just as this blog points out, the supply of online advertising is so great, while the demand is relatively small. So, it makes sense that companies would try to target the people they believe to be the most interesting in their product.

Although I just said that it makes since, I might be contradicting myself when I say, I think in many cases, behavioral targeting can be more of an annoyance than anything else. Just because I was trying to find a text book for my China class on Amazon.com does not mean the I am interested in every book ever written on China. Yes, it is better to see ads for items that a person may have more interest in, but just because I bought a Vikings Jersey for my Boyfriend online does not mean that I want to see an add for countess Vikings memorabilia.

Ethics and Awareness

I understand why businesses online track the purchase history of their customers, and I understand why they want to collect demographic information about their customers: to save money. But this leads me to two things: ethics and awareness.

Businesses need to be open about how they track consumers, what information they are collecting, and what they intend to do with it. Even if it appears in the Terms and Conditions no one has time to read. I don’t even read them, but I know that they are there and that they should be. They are there to cover the company’s assets and to protect me. I will take the time to read them if I feel that a company is treating me or my privacy with anything less than respect.

Thus, my second point: awareness. No longer is the customer known for being passive or compared to sheep. Companies are aware that we are bombarded by copious amounts of advertising and marketing messages. We need to do our homework and cross-reference what we don’t believe. Consumers who voluntarily offer information without knowing what is being done with it or how to fix it if they get taken need to find someone who is tech-savvy who can help them.

It's Still Shopping....Right?

The article on the web that CNN posted really made me think about the whole concept of "dynamic pricing". Their point was that when you shop offline, people know the differences of prices because there are coupons, sales, flea markets, bargain stores, name brands, etc. Now people are moving to online shopping because of convenience....but for a price. CNN says that these new online consumers are whining because of "dynamic pricing". I think it makes sense for companies to tailor to an individuals buying habits because of their frequent purchasing habits. Nathan, you used the example in class one day about how you bought a baby garment and now you're receiving pop ups for baby clothing. I think it makes sense to tailor to purchasing habits not recent purchases. I don't buy into this business that online companies are stealing money from people because they don't know they can find better prices elsewhere or that they don't know they're being "cheated" out of a reasonable price. The notion of "shopping" still exists online as it does in College Square mall: different places, different prices, different sales. Just because I like Levi's jeans doesn't mean I have to buy them from the world's most expensive online clothing store. Shopping means you can look elsewhere to buy the same goods for a different price. The bottom line is, I believe online shopping can be a good thing because it makes sense for businesses to track personal buying habits to cater to an individual's needs and/or wants without all the hassle. The whole notion of people getting cheated online is a little overdone by CNN in this instance, because as well as we know to shop around in the mall, we know enough to shop around on the web.

Your Trying 2 Hard

As I read the information about viral marketing “spreading from person to person” by way of mouth, I couldn’t help but ask what was so new and exciting about this idea. Google never bought a billboard or commercial time, we all heard about it from people that used it and liked its services. The original Matrix did pretty badly on its opening weekend because they didn’t advertise very much, but word of mouth made each following weekend more profitable. In fact every cult classic movie has gained popularity through word of mouth marketing. This brings me to “Snakes on a Plane” and a dozen of other movies lately that are trying to intentionally become cult classics. You can’t synthesize viral marketing, or anything similar to it. The Numa Numa guy was a one time occurrence, yet many have tried to copy him, he even tried to copy himself, and while these help spread the original nobody can intentionally make a meme with any certainty it will spread.

I do what teh interwbs tell me 2 do.

I think the idea of viral marketing is fantastic. Think about it: people get very bored very easily. There are a number of boredom relieving websites out there. Viral marketing and memes can easily consume time while entertaining people. I sat through about 5 of the 23 minute-long "Mario Hell" video just to see if the person made it... They didn't! If I sat through 5 minutes of it, think of how many people actually watch it in it's entirety.

Not only do these sites relieve you from the stresses of everyday life, but they can also advertise and facilitate social interaction. Take the Supershadow site for example. This "All knowing one" claims to be the ultimate SW fan. He created a website. People started listening to him. People started hating him. Some of those people went to create fan sites against Supershadow. It seems almost as if it were like a... hmmm, virus?

I also watched the video of JerryC playing Canon Rock. This is his original version of the song. I had heard of this video before and looked up the tab. Because of this video, Canon Rock is ranked in the top 10 on Ultimate-Guitar.com. This is just an example of how a meme can influence other aspects of web which influence aspects of everyday life.

Never Say Impossible

Done the Impossible raised many questions in my mind. It was very interesting to me to see how the fans
or "Browncoats" acted together to resurrect something they believed in, not only that but how the people
behind the show appreciated this as well. Culture and the idea of the meme tie into most of this week’s readings,
Browncoats and Firefly both symbolize a sense of culture as well as community, believing that the impossible can
be done. Within Doctorow's article as well as SuperShadow, we see cultures gone bad and how people become
selfish as other people work to fix them. Viral marketing is a way for people to get other people to spread
information voluntarily. It seems as if viral marketing can be both good and bad. I think the use of viral marketing
in trying to stop Mickey Suttle. Doctorow’s article on the other hand, described harmful information that was
passed along that disrupted culture. With the growth and advent of new communication technologies, obstacles
such as viral marketing will always be an issue and there is no single way to protect community and culture.
However, examples such as Firefly, prove that you can overcome and achieve the impossible. 

And now you know why Supershadow is good.

Oh boy, what a bunch of nincompoops. People take everything so seriously. I'm thinking specifically of the Supershadow site and other websites that have risen against it. Both are hilarious. None of the arguments against Supershadow are supported with any evidence other than quotes from Supershadow's site. You can't refute the truth of his statements with his own statements. It doesn't' work like that. I don't understand why people care to refute him so much. Supershadow is probably George Lucas anyway.... Actually.... come to think of it.... I've changed my mind. We need to get that petition to stop Supershadow to Congress as fast as possible. Maybe our government can do something about this injustice since no one else will. Supershadow must be stopped from having a forum with other Star Wars fans who might be allowed to spread their nincompoopiness through Indirect NetContact (INC), a very serious new form of virus transmission. INCs, according to some studies, are becoming the fastest form of transmission of one's idiocy and is linked to cancer. One Alabaman doctor was quoted, "INCs didn't take my wife from me... aliens did that. But INCs did give me syphilis."

And now you know why Supershadow is bad.

Chris Crocker? Why a little bit of Nun Ranch will cure what ails you!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

irrationally optimistic and motivated response blog

With all the anger I have I could topple a corporation on my own. With our power, we could make it so that no one on this Earth ever buys a certain product, watches a certain movie, listens to a certain song, or follows a certain way of life ever again. The power of persuasion is far too often something used against large amounts of people by smaller groups of people. It should be used to end ignorance. It should be used to move everything in the right direction. For now, one person raising awareness of Nike’s inhumane practices to millions of people is excellent, but more should know. The plea to people with power is one option, but the formation of power to cause something to happen is something else entirely. Marketing is not solely for selling products, motivation is the key to really making a difference. Believing in something is hard because trolls come and kick sand in your eyes for representing an idea, but we all need to know that what is worthwhile is not easy. Impractical will always be the skeptical disregard for claims like these, but impossible has been and will be too and look how many times those claims have been wrong.

Viva la Brown coats

Viral marketing can be a dangerous thing or a blessing. Bombard people with it too much and they will be turned away, or don’t get their attention at all. I thought that the campaign initiated by the fans of the show was brilliant. The video showed a great example of the passion that these ultimate fans have. Instead of simply typing something up and sending it to their virtual friends, they actually spend their own money to purchase the DVD sets and simply loan them out to people who haven’t seen the show. Forget the Star Wars fans who hoard their sacred trilogy box sets, let’s see them give them out to people to watch (knowing they will probably never give them back).

The browncoats are not just a group of “superfans” who participate in all sorts of fandom, they are a community. They hang out with each other, support each other, and come together for the common good of their cause. These people actually consider their fellow fans family and actively participate in different festivals related to their cause. They were so dedicated to their cause that they helped get the idea for a Firefly movie in motion by buying so many DVD's and writing countless letters. I have never seen a group of this sort so supportive of their creator. And it was amazing to see that they were so enthusiastic about supporting Joss Wheadon’s love for charity.

Do these people have too much time on their hands? HELL NO! They support each other and support something that they love. I personally felt a little lazy after watching that video. I think it is time I bought a brown coat.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!

The main article that gained my interest was Doctorow's about internet trolls. I think that this can relate to almost every article we have read so far. Trolls not only live on "t3h interwebs" but can be found in every area of life. This idea of getting into a "flame war" is not a new phenomonon but it is one that must be stopped. However, trolls cannot live if we do not feed them.

The other aspects of the reading cover other aspects of the internet. Viral memes are generally unique and obscure pieces of media that follow a different guideline than previous advertising forms. I feel that is an effective form for advertisement because it plants a sort of "what the hell was that?" feeling in the viewer. For example, I Love Bees was a successful form of viral marketing for the game Halo 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_love_bees

Power in Numbers

The most interesting thing about this weeks readings had to do with the article on the Nike e-mails. Peretti says he sent the emails out to a dozen friends, but by publication of his writing it had reached millions of people across the world. He wasn't even trying to distribute this over the internet, but it happened anyway. Think of how many people someone could reach if they were actually trying to get their information read. This type of power could be both beneficial and detrimental all at the same time. Detrimental in that a lot of individuals may be disturbed or disgusted by watching or reading something that was sent to them. Or it may be just a huge waste of time. In Peretti's article he wrote about the benefit the web could hold for activists. This is an easy and efficient way for people to connect with one another. I am sure there are countless individuals out there who feel very strongly about a certain issue but feel they have no way to participate in their cause. It may be from location isolation, monetary problems, lack of time, lack of support in their communities, anything. But hop on the internet and you could probably find thousands of people who share the same ideas as you. Join everybody with those ideas together and they may actually accomplish something. Isn't the old saying power in numbers? It gives a little hope to everyone who actually cares about something out there. Not only could it help social activists who want to band together to fight a certain cause, but it can also be useful in exposing negative attributes about people or corporations that run the mass media. Lowly peons like us do not have the money to buy commercial time on television and radio, or buy ad space within print media; they do. They are using these mediums to control the way we think about and utilize their products or services. The world wide web gives us an outlet against this mind control. It gives us a chance to come together and fight "the man" even when that man is supposedly unstoppable.

Chuck Norris drives an ice cream truck covered in human skulls.

Viral marketing is like a girl; it relies too much on gossip. The upside though is you don't have to pay crap to spread the word about something. (Unless you're truly that desperate.) Correlating with viral marketing are the internet memes, which truly were hilarious after reading a couple from the huge list on wikipedia. Specifically, the "Chuck Norris Facts" that proclaim his toughness. Viral marketing and internet memes like the Chuck Norris ordeal goes to show how popular something can get without paid advertising. But just when you think it's funny and start talking about it online with your friends, the "troll" comes in to ruin your fun and tell you how much of a dumbass you are for thinking the Chuck Norris facts are funny. Well, at least the viral marketing / meme worked to catch his attention.

Faults

It may be wrong to say so but people really should read more than they do. I understand the idea of micromedia to a greater extent than some because I have seen the effects that the people can have on issues and how it is greatly affected by the archives of the internet and it's knowledge as while as the access to global talk through emails and personalized marketing. I can completely see the Nike story as one that helped the people understand and, most importantly, feel unified against a common evil. This unity is one of the main strengths of the internet and, for all the talk we do on the evils of technology, it is an undisputed fact that through our ability to access more information rapidly our intellect has grown past what we are 'suppose to know' and into 'what they know' in reference to so-called elitist or experts. The Nike article is one that helps identify this fully but it also fails to see the problem with micromedia which is it's lack of complete understanding of an issue. It does not present both sides of the story (i.e. Nike has in fact released accounts on their use in sweatshops as seen here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10122164 or stats on the fact that over 75% of it's companies are found in developed countries) and they tend to go for over dramatic and non personal attributions of events and people (in the Nike article all it said was the use of Nike sweatshops in South Asia but it did not provide additional information.) The problem then is it being completely one sided. I am appalled by sweatshops as well as major cooperations as most people know and in no way am I defending Nike or it's work. However in micromedia we need to ensure that we are attempting to be just as well as fair since that it what we are fighting for. Rather, we need to be careful that the thing that we are fighting against is not the thing that we are becoming.

Check out this new meme... it will blow your mime.

Virus: an organic body not considered a living organism, but displaying many of same traits: self-replication, propagation, adaptation, and death. Enter the analogy of the computer virus, where systems are compromised purely by their ability to execute anything executable - often with incredible, damaging speed. The irony is that of all the fantastically awful things a virus could do to your computer (such as corrupting the CMOS so that your computer can no longer boot, not simply stopping at erasing your hard drive), most viruses merely act as gateways to infect you with data-mining and advert-pumping malware. With the discussion of mimetics, the analogy is applied to the transmission of thoughts. Though it may apply to the rapidly spreading, compromising nature of dangerous thoughts, memes are not necessarily 'programmed' to 'hack' the mind. We are all aware of indoctrination and brainwashing, but are any of these forced methods of brain breaking as fluid and voluntary as media consumption? Hypodermic needle theories aside, viral media is much less about involuntary action and more about playing the 'mime' - though the lowest rung of the theatrical discipline and relatively forgettable, each mime does imitate in its own way, implying some fragment of originality. The point here is that, like virii, ideas can be dangerous if not handled properly. Choose your memes wisely.

freedom!!

I thought the Nike article was particularly interesting. I have never seen this e-mail circulated, but I would certainly like to. I'm also glad I read about it on the page, because you never know who's making stuff up. The fact that Nike is promoting so much freedom just seems to be ridiculous. From a business and marketing standpoint, it makes sense. But the fact that they won't put sweatshop on the shoe just tells everything. Its not like this person wanted to put a curse word on the shoe. Although its kind of a curse word against big companies. I guess Nike is saying, yeah, feel free to do whatever you want with your shoe as long as it doesn't make our company look bad, or talks bad against it. Seems a little hypocritical. That's really not freedom at all, its more like feel free to choose between choice A and B, just as long as you choose choice A.

You have all forgotten the true meaning of fandom!!!

What intrigued me most about the readings was the impossibility at how gullible many people are on the Internet. When one person is addressed as "O great one" and "all knowing" by geeks who wish to know "facts" to whatever it is they are geeks over, then you know that these people have been duped. But another problem remains with this debate about sites or people like Supershadow: the credibility of those who attack such things can be questioned as well. The critics have the same anonymity as those they are attacking on the Internet, so everyone must keep some sort of suspicion to anything when dealing with arguments such as the Supershadow argument. The critics could be other critics (probably even geekier than Supershadow) who engage in the same practices of false statements. I think of this battle of the geeks as a comparison to an episode of Robot Chicken where geeks discredit each other at a sci-fi convention, which leads to a brawl.

"These shoes cost $300 @#$%ing Dollars... Let's get 'em!"

My favorite meme of all time has to be Liam Kyle Sullivan's gateway to fame "Shoes." This ridiculous techno "music video" caught like wild-fire on, you guessed it, Youtube sometime back and earned the actor enough fame that he now stars in VH1's new sitcom "I Hate My 30s," which I still have yet to see.
While I think it is pretty ridiculous that all these web-celebs have been and continue to sprout randomly in the "real" biz, it is also an interesting concept to think that any average Joe or Jane can produce something that catches within a niche and then spreads to the mainstream. In my opinion, it is sad when things like "A Shot at Love" or the popularity of the Smosh brothers happen (the talentless flourishing) but there are gems buried in the mud out there. Take for instance Saturday Night Live's Andy Samburg . This once small time writer/comedian has turned SNL's drypatch around with his "digital shorts", which gained huge popularity on the internet. He even won a Primetime Emmy for a mock R&B song called "Dick in a Box" that he made with Justin Timberlake.

"I'm your # 1 fan and I make sure all the other fans know it!"

Fan culture is the perfect arena for viral marketing and the concept of memes. Within a fan culture there are many different people with many different levels of knowledge regarding the celebrity, movie, show, game at hand. There is definitely a hierarchy of knowledge. Memes as a “building block of cultural evolution” become part of that hierarchy because of the way knowledge gets passed from the people closest to the powers that be for the celeb, show, movie, game to the rest of the fandom then how that knowledge morphs during transmission. The Internet enhances this exchange due to the ability of creating the perfect copy, but then one needs to be more aware of who the source is and be mindful of their level of credibility. Supershadow was a great example of how memes are viral and can branch off or be “detrimental to their host” from other fans who may doubt the originator’s authority.

Family Via Internet

The video on Firefly and its cancellation intrigued me because of its discussion of "Browncoats". It was very interesting to me that an entire community of people banded together and found a common interest around a TV show. It's like one of the commentators said, "It's not just a TV show, it's about people." We've talked about it before with Star Wars, how a group of people with a common interest, fueled by message boards, fanatic emails, and petitions to television companies, have created "religions" from these shows and movies. Brandon was talking about how people with the same ideas use the viral media for good, and I cannot disagree with that. These people say they have found hobbies, friends, and even husbands and wives because they joined the Browncoats and started "living" for Firefly. Why should they stop? Everyone is having a good time with it and no one is abusing anything or anyone, so why not just let people join the bandwagon? They say that when you meet a Browncoat, you immediately find another family member! It is unbelievable to see how this media outlet spreads like wildfire to people and for the first time, I can see how the viral element of media can actually contribute positively to social networks online, rather than your typical troll or pesky virus.

Another double edged sword

I think most people are aware of some of the smaller facets of viral marketing. Is there anyone with an e-mail account who hasn't received one of those messages that contains 3-4 pages of forwarding addresses? It wasn't until I started reading about Firefly and The Browncoats that I was exposed to the ideas behind viral marketing. To be honest the concept excites me. If so many people can get organized with a message surrounding a tv show, just imagine what social changes people could bring about using this technique. I think it goes far beyond the Nike cultural jamming spawned by Peretti. It seems possible to me that viral marketing could be used as an effective lobbying tool to bring about massive social change. I know that I'm speaking in very vague terms. But it seems to me that the potentials for viral marketing are vague in an d of themselves. I'd like to see where this can go.

goddamn sith

Make your own Star Wars Remix, but I will own your soul!

Lawrence Lessig writes in the Washington Post:

"A dark force, however, has influenced Lucasfilm's adoption of Eyespot's technology. A careful reading of Lucasfilm's terms of use show that in exchange for the right to remix Lucasfilm's creativity, the remixer has to give up all rights to what he produces. In particular, the remixer grants to Lucasfilm the "exclusive right" to the remix -- including any commercial rights -- for free. To any content the remixer uploads to the site, he grants to Lucasfilm a perpetual non-exclusive right, again including commercial rights and again for free.

Upload a remix and George Lucas, and only Lucas, is free to include it on his Web site or in his next movie, with no compensation to the creator. You are not even permitted to post it on YouTube. Upload a particularly good image as part of your remix, and Lucas is free to use it commercially with no compensation to the creator. The remixer is allowed to work, but the product of his work is not his. Put in terms appropriately (for Hollywood) over the top: The remixer becomes the sharecropper of the digital age."

Great quote… but you spelled encyclopedia wrong

There the BBC goes again butchering yet another fine word by adding an extra “a” in it… So what’s the big deal with Wikipedia anyway? Maybe I want to live in their wikiality and maybe I don’t, so is that any reason for us to take it for 100 percent accurate? I once read somewhere that Wikipedia is something like, 97% truthful to that of Encyclopedia Britannica, which to me is quite an amazing fact… except when you realize in the grand scheme of things that that means 3% is absolute garbage, and that turns out to be an incredible HUGE number of articles or facts wrong. Take the universe for instance, if 3% of the trillions and trillions of stars don’t actually exist… that’s still like… trillions of stars. I remember a time when Wikipedia wasn’t allowed on any sort of research paper or essay, but nowadays it is sometimes the only place you can get certain bits of material. Plus the fact that it is updated so quickly, on more current articles like the V Tech shootings it was the most reliable and quickly updated source of information.

Reading about the dates of Star Wars reminds me of the time I looked up the dates of Back to the Future. It amuses me extremely to see how much time and effort is placed into something that has little to no actually purpose, but at the same time it surprises me how much time I actually spent looking at the article.

"I'm an encyclopedia person who happened to use a wiki."

-Jimbo Wales, the face of Wikipedia. So I had no idea what a wiki meant, but I knew what wikipedia was. I can't recall how many times I used it for my Middle East class to help get some background on Iraq, and numerous Middle East conflicts. My google search of "wiki" brought me to Wikipedia where it was further explained. So then if anyone can edit and post information, how much of it is true? Swartz cleared that up for me quickly, after his Alan Alda example, he goes on to say how, "When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it." So the insiders are the ones who care, making sure of correct information. The information is also endless, which is a huge advantage overhaving a collection of Encyclopedias on your bookshelf. The majority of stuff i'm stumped on usually ends up in a wikipedia search, because I know there will be a topic "posted". So how does Web 2.0 fit in? Well again, just by searching wikipedia you can find all the contents of Web 2.0 . Yep just like last weeks Social Networking, a collaberative way to share information via users and outsiders. But Michael Gorman makes a good point when he says, "Human beings learn, essentially, in only two ways. They learn from experience—the oldest and earliest type of learning—and they learn from people who know more than they do. The second kind of learning comes from either personal contact with living people—teachers, gurus, etc.—or through interaction with the human record, that vast assemblage of texts, images, and symbolic representations that have come to us from the past and is being added to in the present. It is this latter way of learning that is under threat in the realm of digital resources." Verifiable credentials are put into question, and are we relying too much on the these "wikis" and "web 2.0" to learn?

Wiki is my friend

I know that one should not try to win an argument with, "but it says so on Wikipedia!" but it seems to happen a lot these days. Of course any website with user-related content will not be 100% reliable, or even in some cases, close to fact at all. I have to give credit to the design and user interface of the site. Just imagine reading out of a huge encyclopedia, and when you come across a word you do not know, you have to get out the heavy dictionary to look that word up, maybe even having to look up a word in that entry. It has been done. Isn't technology supposed to simplify our lives? Quit complaining! Wikipedia cuts out the middleman, and just about every word in an entry has a link to another entry, and so on and so on. It's very helpful and possibly addictive, spending hours starting at point A and ending up somewhere completely unrelated to B and/or C. I believe the design of Wiki has made it such an online juggernaut, but I say kudos, because I don't even own a dictionary (Wiktionary is great as well.)

Wikipedia...nothing like false truth..

Oh Wikipedia... I am coming to the realization that I am fed up with Wikipedia. It seems as though we are relying too much on the idea that there is this sort of public forum that anyone can produce the reality that they want. Also, the idea of a public forum scares the shit out of me. If anyone can go on and create a wiki entry for me and say that I worked as a transvestite hooker for the last five years...how would that make me look? I do feel that we need to be able to have this sort of freedom of speech - however - I do not believe that this is the ideal way to achieve this goal. Wikipedia, in my eyes, is no different than the 400 pound man being a 12 year old school boy online. Sure, that is an extreme example, but in theory, I can put whatever I want on Wikipedia, and as long as one person sees it....I essentially screw up someones life.

Everything I need to know I learned from wikipedia

As students, I'm sure everyone is familiar with the unclear words of so called scholarly text. However, most of us know that just because big words are used doesn't make it a sucess. The same can be said for the situation with wikipedia. As when blogs first arr ivied, wikipedia has stirred controversy due to it's distinct lack of traditional methods. With blogs, journalists found that they no longer get to decide what news the world hears and, esp., the extent of what it is broadcast. This power now resided, once again, in the people who were able to not only post their opinion but argue with those views that they do not believe. Well this is a wonderful gift to society, the suggestion of blogs as journalism has many traditional scholars indigent (http://www.jdlasica.com/articles/nieman.html). This can be seen with Wikipedia as well. The encyclopedia is primarily the point of all that is elitist. It is enlisted by high class scholars and as McHenry stated in the readings (proudly), it is a thing that (supposedly) most people don't understand. But wikipedia changed all that. Not only can anyone contribute, it is also free (a primary cornerstone in the selling of encyclopedias). No longer do the elitists have the power to decide the info. we receive. As with blogs, we now get different perspectives and sources that the original Britannica never offered. Is this a symbol of another lash against elitist tyranny? Knowledge is power and these scholars feel they are losing that hold. Wikipedia, reliable or not, is a sign of a new people centered world that fails to cover up events. That's what it is really about.

Truth or Fiction, Does it Really Matter?

I think all the arguing on whether or not Wikipedia is a good source of information or a tainted one is really unnecessary. No matter if what someone is reading on Wikipedia is true or not, it is still being read, and lots of people are using this source to get lots of information. I believe people just need to keep in mind that what they are reading may be fabricated, false, or just made up. While this is true, I still believe that the information provided through Wikipedia is reliable. While there are some people out there who may find it fun and entertaining to be destructive to this site and others like them, there are even more people who find it fun and entertaining to prove someone wrong or fix these problems. I like this idea of collective intelligence. Everyone can be involved in some way, whether they are the experts on a subject or just interested in the subject. Wikipedia can provide someone instant access to a lot of information on many different subjects all at the touch of a button. This is very powerful. Before, to gather information was a tedious process of looking things up and finding them in the written word. People didn't really like to do it, but now that they can just surf around and find this information I believe many more people will be involved in acquiring said information. People educating themselves can't be such a bad thing. As long as they keep in mind it may not be entirely true. If someone is interested enough in a certain topic and they question the validity of what they are reading most likely they will search out other sources to prove or disprove their findings.

If its on wikipedia it must be true....right?

For me, Wikipedia has always been a great tool for looking up useless information about my favorite band or dissolving an argument about something that happened in the Star Wars universe (thank you for that link. It made my day.) And that I think is where its practical usefulness ends. As Colbert showed in one of his clips, it is very easy to make something up and have people confirm it. It doesn’t necessarily matter if it is true or not, it just matters if enough people agree on it or that nobody cares enough to challenge its validity or truthfullness.

Wikipedia was not intendedto be used as it is by some people. As an actual source for scholarly work. I believe it was more intended as something fun and to get some partially useful and useless information out of.

I decided to see how easy it is to make a wikipedia page so I went to the website, created an account in about 30 seconds, and made a page about myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_maxwell . Feel free to edit it as you wish. I will not fault you for building me up or breaking me down.

The Mental Degeneration of the Masses

I am not going to delve into the Gorman/Boyd debate, but I will provide this idea: what if the actual use of these new services on the Internet will dumb down those who use them extensively?

My theory comes from one of the last few sentences of Carr's post, which asked the question of our minds becoming smarter after using such things as Wikipedia. What worries me is the idea of Wikipedia: anyone from the respectable scholar to idiot with a keyboard and monitor can post information to the public, and make it look like an actual reference. In time, it is my theory that people will start to believe more of the idiot's information over the scholar's. We could come to a point of people refuting the base principles and ideas brought forth by education.

In time, this process could be repeated over and over again, leading to more people disbelieving everything we have worked to prove.

Altered State of Wikiality

When Cobert's Word prompts users to "vandalize" wikipedia pages, he not only engage in as a practice of broad and intermingling of media consumption, but a directly commentary on the state of the consumption. We are not only on computers and watch TV, we surf TV on our computers and watch the Internet on TV. The Swartz article had some of the coolest examples of this, where he describes how Wikipedia insiders ("librarians") are making the majority of edits to outsider comments. He is a bit harsh on these formatters though, stating they are simply 'aiding' the contributors. While this might be partially true, they are indeed a major component of the encyclopedia, as they create coherent standards for readers and, possibly, artificial interpreters. He points, by way of few lines of code, that Wikipedia wasn't written primarily by the 500-or-so wiki-literati (wikirati?), a concept Jimbo Wales seems oblivious to. He urges more users to contribute "just a little bit" - but how many times have you come across an article that you knew more about than wikipedia? If you have, I hope you enlightened us all. If not, someone else probably did.

Swartz is keen to point out these political tendencies inherent to the program; as no programmer or application can be completely neutral. Like a government, the first step is to get things to work, and the next step is to revise those procedures in order to maintain closer control over them. As the Wikipedia criticism page advises, people had to have bad ideas before Wikipedia could even start to prevent them.

The wired.com article on Wikiscanner is also awesome, pointing out some of the anonymous changes made from IP's within the organizations editing to save face. Ironically, the users that posted without registering actually became less anonymous by way of traceable internet addresses. Along with these "minor public relations disasters", it is a testament to the value of a CVS tree, where every change is saved within the structure of the database. The relationship between the users and the code is what I believe best represents Web 2.0's ideals. Not necessarily that the user is a programmer or even cognizant of the web app's internal structure or functions (which is indeed possible through reading the open source), but more generally that the WWW is a giant network of apps created largely by enthusiasts, and that a growing number of websites not only rely on server-side code, but that the server-side code itself was built from an open-source, user created movement. Under arguments that code is law, programs govern how "web 2.0" values are manifested - much less the protocol, but more how the protocol is manipulated. After all, the web runs on copper and light: a revisable infrastructure (and superstructure) not so far off from Carr's notion of reprogrammable brains and Colbert's reality by consent.

Here's how it is....

No matter where you get your information you have to understand that it may not be entirely true. I've had professors lecturing about material they are supposed to know and they end up misquoting the book or switching definitions from the text, assuming they know it from memory. It happens to at least one of my professors every semester. Wikipedia is the same. Wikipedia entries may not always be entirely true, but if you really care enough then how about you do a little research of your own. Find some more sources. Do a little digging for yourself. You've got the World Wide Web at your fingertips (unless you don't have fingers) with more true and false information than Wikipedia could ever dream of containing. Let's stop talking about whether Wikipedia is good or bad. No one really cares except for the people who think they know why it is good or bad. And what makes them any more right than you or me? Don't answer that question... it is rhetorical.

Love,
Dexter

P.S. I hate school.... a lot.

Web 10.0: Coming to an Internet Near You!

Web 2.0 seems to be convergence of text and semantic data and as Boyd said in Knowledge Access as a Public Good, “The Internet and Wikipedia change the rules for distribution and production.” Enhancing the web will give many more opportunities to share information between users, and as long as people are using the internet there will only be improvement after improvement. Here's my argument: Are improvements always a good thing? I say yes and no, but who is to say what an improvement really is. The Wikipedia articles focused on what was good and what was bad about making improvements. I think when sharing false information on the web influences how people think, there's a problem.

If you ask the students on campus what website they use to look up information on a particular topic, the majority of students will reply with Wikipedia. Since I can remember, teachers have told us not to use Wikipedia as a resource and not to trust the information. I agree with many, Wikipedia is a site unlike many others and I think it gives a person a chance to dig a little deeper with the links and maybe introduce new information that otherwise would not have been presented. Sure, a site that anyone is able to edit may get a person into a little trouble, but as with many things, there will be pros and cons. After reading this article, which focuses on the cons of Wikipedia, made me think a little more about using a more reliable site such as MSN Encarta. What is the point of using shared information if there's no way to know if it's accurate?

Hindsight is 2020.

This class in general, and this week's readings in particular have really changed the way I think about Wikipedia. I was one of the teachers that some of the readings allude to that told students never to orally cite wikipedia in a speech. However, what I have started to realize is that first I needed to think about all the possible uses for Wikipedia and help students figure out what Wikipedia is and is not. I didn't realize it in class until someone mentioned it one day how much time can be spent just linking between articles simply as recreation; it isn't always about doing research. Also, I think the article on what Wikipedia is not makes clear that it was never intended to be what some of my students use it for. The emphasis on providing citations really makes clear that you should be able to go back and cite a source other than wikipedia. I used to think that Wikipedia was generally useless but I have definately changed my mind now that I can think about different uses for and ways to use wikipedia.

"The problem with wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work."

You get a lot of flack if you talk down about the majority of people in this world...Michael Gorman. Most of us don't like hearing that what we participate in is something that will not only make us less intelligent, but will cause us to produce children that are more or less doomed to be as moronic as we are becoming. The interactivity of what could be classified as web 2.0 leads to alot of inaccuracies, misinformation, and potentially harmful claims. The web is designed and programmed by human beings. Websites have been up and running with either all facts, mostly facts, or complete lies ever since the world wide web was available. The new TREND (subtle emphasis), that is not necessarily going to go away, is for there to be websites that include their viewers, i.e. wikipedia, as much as possible. Yes there is information that starts out incorrect, yes this will mislead many people, yes this is a problem that would more or less never happen if there was no wikipedia or internet for that matter, but no this should not be a reason to

a) believe that there will be a race of ape-people punching computers that make their heads hurt in the next few generations or

b) that wikipedia should be stopped and we should all be confined to classrooms, lecture halls, and libraries for all of our lives if we wish to learn something in them.

We are people. We are imperfect. We should be interacting with as many other people as we can so that great good can come of it. However, I understand there will always be evil, but libraries, mentors, gurus, and all the wonderful intentions in the world cannot stop it from hurting the many victims that evil will find.

Wikepedia and Democracy

I always found the discussion of Wikipedia very interesting. There are many different opinions regarding the reliability of the site because as long as there are a lot of people that agree with a certain topic, it is considered truth on Wikipedia. In Comedy Central's short video, Colbert talked about how Wikipedia is largely determined by the idea of democracy. Although Colbert is often sarcastic, he makes an interesting point when he talked about democracy controlling Wikipedia. He used the example of how he personally convinced Americans to believe the African elephant population was increasing because he "had heard that somewhere". Now, there is an actual post on the site that says that very same thing. Colbert's point is that as long as there are many people believing something that could in fact be false, it can still be published as truth on Wikipedia. The site is understood to be reliable and factual by some, in fact, I have many professors at UNI that use it on a regular basis. The other side of the story is some of my professors have forbidden it because it is a load of bull crap. How can we determine if Wikipedia is reliable as a whole? In my opinion, we can't. Honestly, I believe Wikipedia is a good source for information even though there could be some erroneous information posted on it. The truth of the matter is that it will not sway me to stop using the site.

Wiki-Egotrip.org

Some of the debates over the articles nominated for deletion were interesting, I noticed the name NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} appearing in many articles. While his opinions were usually valid, it was odd how frequent these opinions surfaced. I noticed his vote to delete an article 15 different times, and a very reluctant vote to keep only once. I guess this guy is one of the .7 users responsible for 50% of the edits on Wikipedia (depending on how you look at the numbers). I don’t know if its ego, or simply boredom, but his amount of time spent on wikipedia implies that he holds his opinion on matters very highly. This calls to mind his qualifications (be they nuclear physicist or fruitcake in nature.) I tend to think that a strong percentage of wiki-editors know what they are talking about, and that a majority of articles would simply never come to mind when wiki-vandals are wiki-vandalizing.

Knowledge (and technology) is not static

Since the printing press was created, dissemination of information has never been the same and has been in a constant state of change. There has been nothing to stop that change, that craving for newer, better, faster ways to get information from experts, peers, or even some stranger who claims to have " a Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies, a Master of Arts in Religion, and a Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology."

New technologies will always have kinks and people who feel the need to abuse it. Does that mean it is worth less than the standard, unimaginative, non-expanding, out-dated current technology? No, because even the current technology had to start out as a new technology.

I think it all comes back to fear. Academics seem to fear losing their elitism and prestige to free accessibility. Instead of embracing what will bring them into a new technology era, they fight it to remain somehow above it? To what end? Looking crotchety and stubborn?! That isn't helping anyone. I took a literature course that discussed the Southern Gothic genre and along with it stagnation. In an "Old South", stagnation would lead to deterioration and a breakdown of what once was bright and vibrant. It's a movement to go forward that brings life back to an "Old South."

We all need to be open-minded to the new technologies that will come. They may last forever and make a great and successful change, but there is also the chance someone will completely miss the boat. Either way we learn something new and refuse to fall victim to stagnant knowledge and the elitist academics (I don't believe all academics are elitist, just sayin'...).

The Slope.....It is ever so slippery.

They must find it difficult....Those who have taken authority as truth rather than truth as the authority.
- Gerald Massey, 19th Century English Poet


I believe it was the Oracle in The Matrix that echoed the popular sentiment that all men with power desire more power. At the very least, they desire to keep the power they do have. Call me cynical but as I read critiques of Wikipedia (which still isn't recognized by spell check dammit) and the supposed "Cult of the Amateur" I couldn't help but think we're all being bombarded with some sort of polemic scare tactic that most authoritarian institutions use when they feel they are in danger.

It's hard to argue with the fact that expertise is valuable. I would rather get a medical checkup from my doctor than from some blogging Grey's Anatomy fan. (Won't make that mistake again :(


It seems as though these "legitimizing institutions" (yes that means you Brittanica) want us to stop thinking when they talk about a decline in their authority. I have yet to see anything that convinces me that a site like Wikipedia, or the blogosphere in general is going to somehow water down the intelligence of the people. I suppose if you're more inclined to trust a random post on the internet over your own concrete research it would be your own fault.

It all boils down to thinking for yourself. If you have a question find an answer. It make take some work, but it's out there. Don't let foolish scare tactics endanger a beneficial element of freedom: informational democracy.

UPGRADE NOW to SYLLABUS 2.0! NEW FEATURES! MORE READING!

Next week's reading is now available here!

Celebrate realityness!

That is all.

Enter the Faceboob-tube

I have been back and forth on the issue of social networking lately. I understand both sides of the issue. I guess the problem is to figure out the pros and cons and go from there. Some people, like me, use these social networking sites for the sole purpose of staying in contact with friends (and occasionally to play some Facebook Pirates). There are others who pretty much live and thrive on these sites. Survey after pointless survey, more and more blogs about how they got dumped last night, and not to mention any and all quasi-nude photos. I don't want to know what your first thought when you woke up (nor do I care). Depending on how much time is spent, some of these people probably have some type of an addiction to it. Then there is whole corporate aspect to this. Microsoft is now in talks with Facebook, trying to buy 5% of the company. This will make Facebook a multi-billion dollar company. Not that there is anything wrong with that. The only issue is that it could lead to Microsoft collecting personal data, and marketing directly to users with personalized advertising. I really don't care for (online) ads, but thats just me. Pretty soon they will be beaming those ads directly into our brains. :o












Fake Friends
Real Friends

Image (c) CollegeHumor.com

If mommy only knew...

After reading the George writing it does kind of shock me when I think about how much stuff I divulge on the internet via Facebook and how much I still keep from my own mother. I spent most of my childhood hiding things from my mother and if she was in any way tech savvy she could easily find out all about my goings on. She goes on to talk about how some people have multiple personalities online. Now I would consider my own self to have a separate personality online and if I do I am rather unaware, but I would have to say that I know I used to have another to some of my friends.

St. John made me think about how I would never tell most of the things on my profile in person to some person, but for whatever reason it is much easier to type or write it to someone like I am doing now. He also goes on to say how people would hate it when Facebook would change so it gets even more personal and so people know every little thing you do if you don’t change the settings. I must admit at first I was a little skeptical when Facebook first changed, but like most things in life I have, a long with most everybody else, has just grown to accept it as normal.

I have never actually joined myspace or felt the urge to join in on that little gang… but I wouldn’t be surprised if someday you could find me as NUNRANCH1, then maybe people would actually understand the real me.

Unsocial netowrks??

Yes, there is such a thing… but really, not knowing who you are with is just the same as a social network with false identities, what I'm trying to say is that there's no way around it, if you're interacting with someone online, you're being social. It seems to me that throughout this week’s readings, many people have begun to question the validity of social networking. In every group or organization I am a part of, I have had multiple lectures regarding the information I post on social networks such as facebook and myspace. Talk about slippery slope… these lectures tell me that depending on the information I put online, someone will eventually not hire me, fire me or abduct me.

The reading that stuck out the most to me was Amanda Gefter’s. The reason this article interested me is that it seems perfectly harmless, simply stating what blogs and social networks are, but to an older generation, this information could be very scary. This article reminded me of my dad, he hates the internet and is scared to death about the possibilities it could bring. Just like she said, “The boundaries between private and public and between offline and online are blurring… there’s a widening generation gap between adolescents growing up with social technology and adults who find it foreign and unsettling.” It is hard to see the point of view of old people, but as many people have already stated, knowing how to protect yourself is key. I think Gefter's concept of collectivism is very important and has an effect on many spheres of life.

Facebook...a Dateline special waiting to happen.

The only reading that really stood out as original to me was the one that compared the differences between online communities to classic "hang out" areas. Slowly, our public areas are becoming more and more unsafe for children to interact with others in. (My home town doesn't have trick-or-treating...but instead trunk-or-treating. Set on main street, versus walking from house to house.) In my eyes, the internet is a modern version of trunk-or-treating. The safety of our children can be protected more through the use of a computer than if they were to actually go to a mall...hang out...and potentially be captured by The Predator... I guess the point I am actually trying to make here is that yes..the Internet is unsafe..yes you can find information on there about anyone else...but you have control over the information that you share. YOU decide what you want people to know. YOU can eliminate the risk of them finding your home address... When you enter the world of "reality" that wall of protection is destroyed and you are being thrown out there to the world. A "predator" can rape..mame..mug..kill...do whatever they want to a person without that persons discretion. Whereas to do this over the interwebs, you must allow that connection and let them into your life...

Something to Prove?

Throughout all the blog entries I have read it seems like the question we are trying to answer is whether or not these social networking sites are good or bad. Well, just about everything in the world has a good side and a bad side. While I am not involved in any of these social sites I can see and understand why people are so into them. It does give people a way to express themselves freely and interact with people who have the same types of interests as them. It also is a good way for people to stay in touch with friends very inexpensively. While all of this sounds nice and good I also have my complaints about these sights. It just seems like a big competition to show yourself off. To prove to anyone looking at your profile that you have a great, exciting, fun-filled life. To say to the world that my life is so much more exciting and involved and fulfilling than anyone else's. Wow, look at me, I have 250 friends on-line, I must be awesome. Look at my pictures, I am soooo good-looking and so are my friends. Aren't we amazing? To me I think it is a lot of, pardon my French, bullshit. If your life is so great and exciting, why do you find it necessary to broadcast everything about it on-line? Shouldn't you be spending your time enjoying it with people whose company is welcomed? This leads into the question of what is bad about social networking. In my opinion the biggest problem with social networking sites is the amount of time people spend creating them, and or "hanging out" on them. Couldn't this time be spent in a more constructive way, such as something that is tangible. Hands on skills will eventually start suffering from lack of use. People could eventually become disinterested in their hobbies and interests for lack of time. Instead their interests will rely on improving their on-line interests and profiles to make themselves appear cooler, when in actuality they are losing what made them cool in the first place. To sum up my point of view I don't feel that sitting in front of a computer for hours a day trying to shape my identity into how I want to be viewed is very productive, I would much rather indulge in doing the things that I find enjoyable and that I think will help expand my understanding and acceptance of the world around me.

Wow you have 3000 friends on facebook

Are social networking websites good or bad? This is the question that I had in my head as I was reading the text. It wasn’t a question that arose from the reading but one that I wanted answered while reading it. It all depends on how you use them. I personally use mine to keep up with friends and make fun of them. I know other people who use facebook in particular to check out girls before they meet them. I find this slightly creepy. But even some others us it as an escape from themselves or to build themselves up as a better person than they are in real life.

I have gotten a lot of friend requests from people I don’t know. I accepted these at first then realized that they were just adding as many people as possible. For some this is a joke, but for others they see it as an online status symbol for their popularity. One guy in particular that tried to add me has over 3000 friends. Who the hell really knows 3000 people? Upon further inspection of his profile I discovered that he called himself the “king of the book” and bragged about it for about three paragraphs on his profile. He even created a group for himself proclaiming himself as this king of the virtual domain. It really means you are cool when someone clicks a button to say they are your virtual friend. Cool man.

Growing up

Just a scroll through Facebook shows images that will bring about unemployment for awhile. We ask ourselves why anyone would put those up. The answer is obvious: Because it's cool. Facebook is fine for keeping in touch with friends or aiding in projects. It's even fun. However college students need to grow up. This kind of social networking is a sign of the age. It's a place for kids to go to prove who they are, away from parents. Above all it's a place to express yourself and prove your worth through pic. or the amount of friends. In a high school world drinking is on the edge of cool. We carry that with us to college. MySpace and Facebook are not a great concern of mine. It seemed logical that eventually they would go widely public and privacy issues would set in. This happens with any new system (Second Life). Anytime a person puts anything on the web, privacy is a concern. The user simply has to be smart about the system. To know that it doesn't matter if it's fair that an employer will look at that page. It is simply what happens. Deal with it. Social networking is something that seemed logical along a time span. It use to be drugstores then telephones now computers. So it's not really a question of why the youth heart Myspace. It's a common trend and a new take on an old way of communicating. In a report by Rebecca Loebe (filed here http://www.financialaidpodcast.com/2007/09/18/fap628-facebook-owns-your-life-private-student-loans-rebecca-loebe/ ) she states that it is a shame that college students have to be so conscious of privacy at a time where they just want to enjoy life. So cry me a river. We are in college and therefore should be able to handle responsibility. The idea of privacy is old (don't talk to strangers) but now we become more aware of it. Perhaps that not a bad thing. To become more aware of it makes us guarded and better prepared in a world where concerns about privacy is increasing. So accept the fact that employers look at it. Be wary of predators. Above all get over your high school self and don't put stupid stuff on facebook. All the privacy settings in the world are not ironclad and it was like that even before facebook blew up into the monstrosity that it is today. I understand the idea of high schoolers and their expression through myspace. It is truly a "look at me" place. You have a whole profile dedicated to your simplest likes and wants. It feels good to believe that it's important. I get it. But I'm not in high school anymore.

*Real* Identities

A lot of discussions about online identities seem to make distinctions between real identities (generally meaning those offline or in rl) and those that are created online. What we should take away from discussions about the fuilidty of identity and postmodern identities is that there is no fixed or essential identity. This fixation on authenticity doesn't feel particularly useful once we recognize that all identities are socially constructed. I think that intersex(http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex) provides a really good explanation of how identity is socially constructed. The reality is that there are more than two sexes but due to a fetish for nice little binaries, it can be seen as socially acceptable to simply assign sex to a baby so that it fits. Judith Butler (http://rhetoric.berkeley.edu/faculty_bios/judith_butler.html) is often quoted as saying that gender is not something you are but something you do; this is true of all identity. There isn't some identity that is inherent to each of us rather we each do identity. We often assume that online identities are more felxible but this is probably only because we have more control over the markers of identity. All of the identity categories are artificial - talking about one ingredient of identity ignores intersectionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality). The category of woman is wholy incomplete because women intersects with race, class, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. etc.

And Now...Deep Communication Thoughts by Tyson Hitchings (Sorry, Jack Handey)

I'm not going to argue if socialization sites are good or evil. What I do think about sites such as MySpace and Facebook is that these are certain signs of the changing times. I think that my summary reflects Danah Boyd's (Epley's crush) paragraph in her "Heart MySpace" article. These websites are youth's use of new technologies as a way to lose themselves with their friends. Ever since the advances of technology beginning in the 19th Century, have youth finding new ways of leaving their overbearing parents behind for a time in order to "chill out." The mid-1800s had advances in literature and gathering places, such as the soda fountain, the 1950s had hot rods and the drive-in diners, and we now have technology that now help people vent to their friends even if those friends aren't physically there. Simply put, these web sites are signs of new branches of interpersonal communication and leisure.

Your place or Myspace?

I wish that line actually worked on girls. But I have seen it used online, particularly to attract people to their myspace profile pages. We are in an age of online social networking and identity. According to Boyd, Myspace heavily dominates the competition, receiving more hits daily than MSN AND Google. One of the problems that arises is, how are we using the internet and world wide web for social networking? Do the disadvantages of false identity, sexual solicitation, poor use of grammar outweigh the advantages of making new contacts, chatting, and keeping in touch with old friends or family? It's easy to agree with the disadvantages because of shows like "To Catch a Predator" on MSNBC. Again Boyd talks about "Moral Panic" where young teenagers are exposed to "bullying and potential predators." Personally, I love the advantages of social networking where I can keep in touch with old friends from High School, and instant messaging so I can instantly talk shit to my brother when I just beat him in fantasy football.

What a SecondLife Protest March looks like

Workers protest IBM from within SecondLife.
(from boing boing.)

Just How Dangerous is Facebook?

The National School Board Association says not so bad, maybe.

The Attorney General of New York is not so sure.