My Final Project

The podcast I made for my final project. It is 22.5 MB, 24 minutes and 32 seconds.

Comm. Tech. Podcast

My Final Presentation Video

Let's Play: My Final Project

Here is my final project. This is my first Let's Play run of Zombies Ate My Neighbors for Super Nintendo. I also included the short interview I did with my little brother about Let's Plays in general.

My Let's Play:

Interview with my brother:

Wow. I told you it has become completely iconic!

http://www.airbedandbreakfast.com/obamaos

Final Project

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6n_9eDFJBE

Interesting Article!

Let Them Log On
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/let-them-log-on/

Gambling: From Vegas to Online

This is the video i made for my final project. Basically its a brief overview of online sports gambling; how it moved from gambling in casinos to sports betting to the transition it made to online. The film is unbiased in that it doesn't take a viewpoint however it does present alot of information from only one side of the issue (but it definitely isn't trying to persuade).
But its the first time I had done anything of this nature, so I tried a bunch of different things to get a feel for premiere i suppose. Anyway it took me a while to put together so try not to be to critical. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV94HMhnrq8

DRM...the ongoing saga...

"Like a creeping fog, DRM smothers more and more media in its clammy embrace, but the sun still shines down on isolated patches of the landscape."

(Ok--so I have to give credit to my intro to Nate Anderson ...but I thought these words might just entice you to read further).
Hacking Digital Rights Management
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/drmhacks.ars

I am not a music downloader. I listen to all my music on pandora.com and if I like the music I buy the cd. But...my six-cd changer has a habit of breaking and so I like to burn a copy of the real cd in case it gets stuck in my car. Imagine my suprise when I bought a cd recently and tried to burn a copy for my car and couldn't...I just paid $15 for ten songs and now I can't even make myself another copy...in a word...ridiculous.

In a perfect world DRM might work. But I agree with Jeremy Allison in his Tech News article on ZDNet that in our world it just won't work. People are sick of for many years paying for music that was mass-burned onto 50 cent cds and then marked up 25 times and the artist isn't even the one getting the money. So, they turn to file-sharing.

But in a perfect world maybe we wouldn't have to have stores carry cd's and charge overhead and it could be an ITunes model where you just pay for the songs you want and get them on your computer and you can use them how you like. However, there is always going to be illegal downloading of music...period. I agree with Allison in that, "engineers should simply refuse to create DRM for customers." These companies are in denial and it is still going to go on. Invest your dollars in other ventures as DRM isn't able to fully restrict anyway.

Even though artists' profits might be down a bit, exposure to their material is always a good thing. Getting their song out to thousands that would not pay for the music could pay dividends down the road in the form of concert tickets, t-shirts, souvenirs, posters, etc.

I do realize that people in the entertainment industry still need to make a living, but taking the time to establish complicated encryption models hardly seems worth the time, money, and frustration for all parties...but that's just my two cents.

DRM--not just music--now Google and books! http://www.drmwatch.com/legal/article.php/3781701

When I was perusing the web to see what type of commentary there was on DRM I came upon this website that tracks current news on DRM http://www.drmwatch.com/legal/

Also, if you have an opinion and would like to share it this would be a great place. They say that a 16-year old's comment is as good as Microsofts--so give it a shot!

The All Party Parliamentary Internet Group (Apig) is taking a closer look at digital rights management (DRM).
The group, which aims to promote discussion between lawmakers and the new media industries, has launched an inquiry into the issues surrounding DRM, the results of which will form the basis of recommendations it will make to parliament on how to deal with the burgeoning technology.
http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39154238,00.htm

As stated in the Good Copy Bad Copy film, copyright laws have become very powerful, and arguably to the point that they inhibit new creative works. There is really a fine line between sampling and parodies. I find someone like Weird Al Yankovic far less creative than the people who use the sampling method and create something very unique such as Danger Mouse in his Gray Album. In this case he was not making a profit and neither the Beatles nor Jay-Z was losing a profit, so I fail to see much wrong with it.

There is also the issue of each download being a lost sale, and this is clearly not the case for most people. I know very few people who will go out and buy a CD if there is one song on it that they like, they would however download it. At the same time if there is a great album out, most will give the respect to the artist and buy it.

The bottom line to me is that if there is a case where the artist is losing money , or someone else is making money by using the original artists work, this is wrong, but its generally harmless otherwise.

You ARE the Weakest Link, Goodbye...

DRM is, and has been for quite some time, a concern for me. This is especially true for music and other content that I have purchased legally. A few years ago I purchased a Foo Fighters CD and promptly attempted to rip the CD so that I could play it using my iPod. No so much success there. No matter how many times I tried to rip the music I ended up with garbled songs that were utterly unlistenable. Eventually, through the previously discussed miracle known as Google, I discovered that the problem lay within software called SunnComm and First 4 Internet. These programs, installed without my knowledge and with only my kinda-sorta consent, were preventing me from accessing my CD properly. A full discussion of the issue can be found here: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2005-11-13-digital-rights_x.htm

Ridiculous! I bought CD and intended to use it only for my own personal use. I did not intend to distrubute it, remix it, or do anything else illegal with it. But regardless of my intent, Sony was very concerned and decided to block my legal use. This was a big turning point for me. Up until that point I downloaded only very little music and the music that I did download was used for preview purposes, not in place of purchasing legally. However, since that time I have become an avid downloader of all sorts of digital content. If companies are going to put themselves above their consumers, I don't feel too bad for doing the same in reverse. I do NOT actively screw companies by getting things I would buy for free, but I certainly am not worried about using digital content without permission either. In addition, I am legally allowed to make archival copies of legally purchased DVDs and I take great joy in doing so regardless of what copyright protection is contained on the disc. Getting around their copyright protection is half the fun. I haven't met a DVD or software label yet that was uncrackable.

These practices are destined to continue and get worse. As we come into the era of increased amounts of entirely digital content, we are poised on the brink of disasterous levels of DRM and DRM-like protections. Nowadays we are seeing measures being adapted directly into hardware to prevent 'theft' of high definition digital content, even when it's not really theft at all. HDCP is an example of such measures. This protection, more here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP , is now intergrated into most new computer monitors as a measure to reduce copying of high definition content. However, HDCP protocol make no differentiation between legal unencrypted digital content and illegal unencrypted digital content. So there are certainly many instances in which this protocol will prevent or frustrate legal attempts at content distrubution.

In summation: DRM is evil and bad for consumers and merchants alike, including those people and bands that orginally produce the content. In addition, trying to truly prevent copyright violation is like trying to prevent all teenagers from having sex. You can try as hard as you want, but ultimately you're going to fail. Most attempts to prevent copyright violation are hacked or fixed before the technology even goes to market. So, to big business I say: give up and go have a cold one.

File Sharing

File sharing...good or bad? That is the big question posed by the readings and video. In my opinion there isn't really that much wrong with it. I think that by using a file sharing system that I do like Limewire there isn't a great chance to get caught. People that upload thousands upon thousands of songs a month and are all over the place sharing them should get caught. No one should fully depend on a file sharing system to get all of their music. I think that if you really like the artist and you just want to see what is on the CD to see if it is worth buying that it is okay to sample some of the songs. But if you do like the songs you should go out and make the purchase at the store. I also believe that buying the CD isn't really supporting the artist as much as you would think it was. I have heard that only one dollar out of the fourteen or fifteen that you spend on a the CD actually goes to the artist. I would rather support an artist that I like by buying a ticket to see them live in concert. I think that is a much better investment then a CD and a lot more fun then just listening to a CD in your car. Back to file shraing though...I think that it really isn't that big of a deal. I also don't think that when Napster got in big trouble for all the file sharing that that was necessary. I know that artists would like people to buy their CD's but the whole truth behind it is that no one really listens to CD's unless they are in their car usually. I know most people just use the music on their iPod or MP3 player to mainly listen to. This would mean that it is much easier to download a song on the internet and then put it on your iPod instead of going to the store, paying for a CD, uploading it onto your computer, and then finally adding it to your iPod. That takes a lot more work. I think aritists make enough money as it is that they don't need to be worrying about file sharing.

File Sharing

I don't generally buy into the argument that the internet and in particular piracy is killing the industries. To be honest, I think if anything allowing people to download music or movies is helping them. The example of how sales are down is more than ever people are more critical about what they buy because they have the option to "test" it out before they support the artist. So what that means is less money is going to the big names in the industries because they are making poor products and the more artists putting out a product that is worth something are getting the revenue.

What I think will be big for artists is now it is possible to release material on the internet that before they could only get released through record labels or film companies. There have been a couple of major label bands (Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails) that released their albums online without the record companies distribution. I know Radiohead offered a online download of their record "In Rainbows" on their website to fans who could donate money if they wanted where they could pick what they thought the album was worth. I could see this becoming a trend where artist will upload their album in low quality mp3s for fans to preview like they would on amazon samples to try it out and if they think it is worth it, they might actually pay for it. Who knows... the internet could benefit both artists and fans in getting the best product and cutting out the record labels greedy pricing.

What is Theft?

When dealing with file sharing and sampling there is a lot of skewed perceptions…much like we realized when we discussed it the other day in class. If you really take a look at forms of mediums one has to realize that you can listen to song or watch a movie and say hey that sounds like this older song or that shot was taken from this movie…people are always going to live in the past and references to Citizen Kane will NEVER go away. So if one ads an extra ting like Vanilla Ice did is it a different song….the lyrics are and the pace of the song is different. Another thing to look at is how powerful/impactive the band/artist you’re stealing from is…The Beatles would be a bad choice…Marky Mark do it up! Songs today are varied by very little, from just a slight chord change or extra beat and some people agree with it but usually the original artists like The Beatles or Tom Petty they’ll take you to court.

As for the DJs who take songs and mix them together and give props to the artists…I see no problem with that. Think about all the clubs in the world and all the DJ who are constantly ramping songs into each other and mixing beats night after night…that’s illegal? Plus how do they get the rights to spin the artists beats? Cause our DJ at where I work rips/burns his songs on his laptop…so someday we’re going to have a geek squad type police unit that rolls up in clubs and are like yank…no music for you…

SAW THIS COMMERCIAL THE OTHER DAY AND TOYS ARE GETTING CREEPIER!

Digital Rights Management

Digital rights management is something that we are going to be hearing a lot more about in the upcoming years. The current system is a complex network that still leaves the door open to who owns what material, and who is allowed to use it. “Good Copy Bad Copy” was a very interesting documentary in which the director examined piracy and digital rights management. What intrigued me the most was how record conglomerates would raise hell anytime a work they copyrighted was being reproduced even if it was non-profit. It seems frivolous to me that a company would pursue individuals who using copyrighted material simply to produce creative works. DJ Magicmouse for instance, who would have thought to use music from the Beatles and mix it with lyrics from Jay Z. Obviously artists are influenced by other artist, and I don’t see any reason why artists can’t use expired works to create new music. I guess this is just another example of money hungry fat cat executives trying to squeeze out every penny possible. With the accessibility of the internet to almost everyone, more and more I believe will see artists borrowing music from other artist. The cycle will never end, and record companies will probably end up spending more money on starting the cases then they ever will receive in a settlement. In the end I think there should be a element of respect for other artists work, but it should be between artists not record companies. If the music industry became regulated by artists and not multi-billion dollars corps, I think the piracy/digital rights management debate would have never existed. If they want to keep spending money trying to protect these works all your going to see is more of this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289546,00.html

DRMish

Uh oh it's happening to Macs too:

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/11/apple-adds-copy.html

Obama was a package that was bought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfpQfOENzjs

"organized civil disobedience"

My favorite part was when the Swedish boy called pirating a form of "organized civil disobedience" because part of me wants to say 'yea! screw the billion dollar music corporations.' As a broke student I want free movies and music and I want to be able to use those things in my own creative projects. It would be amazing to be able to use Food Network clips in my food show without worrying about if its legal, or to be able to pick some popular amazing music to jazz up the audio. This would be a dream come true. Then there is that pesky other side of my brain. The part that says what about when I am a famous filmmaker and some punk ass kids start downloading my movies and using them in their own works. Will that be ok? Will I be losing money or creative licence? Or does it even matter because will I be able to stop them? I like to think I would be happy to see people reuse my work in their own creative ways but I also like to think I will have some money some day so I don't know. Maybe I'll move to Sweden.

Is technology spawning new dating disasters?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27294186/wid/11915829/

When you don't want to be Facebook friends...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27775484/wid/11915829?GT1=43001&print=1&displaymode=1098

Nintendo Wii Going Second Life

"The Youtube Presidency"

I thought this was pretty relevant to what we were discussing in class on Thursday:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/14/the_youtube_presidency.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/14/second.life.divorce/index.html

Politics on the Internet

Since when did the internet become such a great place for future presidents and congressmen to place their ads and run their campaign? I am not sure on the answer to that but I do know that the last election was all over the internet. It was especially previlant on Facebook. Facebook being a very popular and commonly used social netowrking site allowed Obama and McCain to put their faces on peoples' profiles. The readings for this week are a little out of date so I thought I would talk more about the internets effect on the election that was held a week ago. The election that made history. Probably a year ago you were able to put who you were supporting on your Facebook page. I never did this but I do know many people that did. This was just one way of supporting your candidate far before you could even vote for them. Then came the day of the election...a week ago. When I got on Facebook the first thing it asked me was if I voted. Since I had I clicked yes and it added a little tag to my profile. It had a count of how many people had told Facebook that they had voted so far and that number was around 4 million when I was on there. Then there were the gifts that you could send people. These were little "buttons" that said Obama or McCain. You could also get a general "button" that said something about voting in general. I didn't have Facebook during the 2004 election and I don't think I really used the internet that much at all besides to talk to my friends so I really don't know if the virtual politics craze was as popular then as it is now. I know now that many people learned all of their facts about what each candidate thought through the internet.
On to some reading...net neutrality is going to stay. I think that phone companies and and cable companies make enough money as it is that they don't need anymore. I also think that we need net neutrality to keep the internet unbiased. And although I know the internet isn't completly unbiased I hope to keep it like it is. So hoopefully since Obama is president he won't go and try to change anything!

To voice...or not to voice?

As I was reading the first article, I came across a sentence that spurred some thought to help support the topic of net neutrality. It stated, "The Internet is being understood as an extension of or substitution for existing institutions." This was probably referring to institutions such as those established before the birth of the internet who are now ready to jump beyond curiosity and indifference and dive into the vast ocean of internet domain. Yet, when I read that word extension it made me think how the internet is a place that people can extend their ideas, concerns, and concepts into material, and become voice to their positions that can be instantly accessible to others. Since "television, popular newspapers, magazines, and photography" are the public sphere of information and current issues, are these forms of info-sharing representing EVERYONE or just a small community?
The internet is a place that the people left out of the public sphere who dwell in places such as farm-towns in Iowa or U.S. burrows, who can voice their opinions in a way that U.S. citizens can access and hear through VLOGS, YouTube, internet forwards, and MySpace Music. When web opinions reach the ears of DC, you know that the Internet is effective and can then effect the policies of legislation. After viewing Justin's YouTube post of Obama's stance on net neutrality and how "voices get squeezed out" without that neutrality, his views are reassuring to my argument that people should be allowed to voice their opinions.

Net Neutrality

Is it just me or are AT&T and Vonage trying to become the new ExxonMobil. People already have to pay to get on the internet, and by making sites pay so they can be faster will most likely make them charge for people to use their sites, or further clutter the pages with more advertisements, or even both. On top of that it could basically allow them to monopolize the internet by choosing which sites are fast and which are not, and having all kinds of influence on what information get put out there the most, and more importantly viewed the most. In the long run this would have a negative impact on the internet for everyone except of course the Vonage’s and AT&T’s of the world.

The internet works good now, and by making it harder and costly to the sites such as YouTube, and eBay and others who are the base of the internet and have had a lot to do with the popularity of the internet, we would just be hurting everyone. With these sites there is more than just an entertainment value in them and these avenues are really beginning to be explored and taken advantage of, especially YouTube. For example it is great for the advertising industry, look how much interest in generated in Al Gore’s movie. Now think what it could do for a small business to make a cheap YouTube clip and allow them to expand stimulating out currently booming economy. Or better yet, we saw how it could call people to action with Net Neutrality, why won’t this work for calling attention to other important things like a cure for cancer (not to sound like Miss America or anything) My point is right now everyone has a voice, and if we change that and allow it to be taken over by big companies, bad things will happen.

The dangerous Internet

I just finish this paper for my consumer behavior class, where one of the topics was subliminal advertising. It is basically the idea about placing messages in commercials that are too weak for the conscious mind to react on. This technique has been used for years and there are no real evidence that it actually works, but people still belive that it works and can make you do things you don't really want like buying stuff you don't need or turn you into a communist.. Obviously people have been scared of this as long as it have been used and that is why I started to think about it in this context because of what Nancy Snow said in the "Al Gore"-text: "Internet videos could prove particularly potent, because they may influence watchers in ways they don't realize." I'm not really sure what she means when she say "in ways they don't realize" but in my mind it sounds like when people say that kids become violent because of playing videogames. I actually thinks that when I watch an youtube video I am more aware and more skeptical than if I watched it on the TV because I know how much you can do today on computers, but it might just be me..

Boo Gatekeepers

Save the Internet. Net Neutrality is an essential key element to the internet, with out it, there are going to be a lot of pissed off people. The big companies such as AT&T and Verizon want to charge us for the use for "surfing" the internet. The internet is what helped modify for the first amendment. Now these multimillion dollar companies are pushing to take away our chances at free speech. Now a days, many people spend a lot of time on Youtube. A lot of these pioneers who have work being displayed on Youtube, are armatures. These armatures are typically poor college students like myself who give life to a lot of the blogs and youtube videos. Now, AT&T and Verizon want to charge the armatures, (the poor college kids who can barely afford macn cheese) to utilize the internet and make popular websites such as Youtube and a lot of today's blogs?? The companies want to set up fast lanes for their partners in the business to use, making those companies not involved have slower connections... I guess its a smart move by the Big Cheeses, but sucks for us little people.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is something that I think we could all agree needs to be put into place so that the big telecom companies don’t get the opportunity to basically choose what the consumer sees on the internet by making some sites load slower than others. There are all kinds of videos and information out there for the uninformed person to learn more about net neutrality, but one of the things that was interesting to me in the readings was toward the end Reilly article. Ben Scott, advocate for the net neutrality movement, says that he has a simple message, which is that everything that people love about the web is “threatened”. This statement kind of goes along with what Nancy Snow says about the penguin video in the Al Gore video article. It sounds like it is a part of “Propaganda 101”, containing no factual information or anything like that. It is just a statement made to scare consumers into joining the side of net neutrality. The advocates of net neutrality need to stay away from the propaganda like that penguin video and make sure that factual, useful information is used to bring users over to their side.

The thing I don’t understand about the telecom companies is why they think that they should get to charge for faster access to different sites. Most companies, like Verizon and AT&T, make money from other resources besides internet, such as mobile phone service, television, etc. Maybe once they get our internet connection speeds caught up to all the other countries that offer faster access at cheaper prices, then they can think about charging for ridiculous things such as selected sites that load faster than others.

SAW AN AD FOR THIS NEW PHONE APPLICATION TODAY

The new application, Song IDentity 2.0, will enable customers with select Get It Now®-enabled handsets to use their mobile phones to identify songs playing from any music source and purchase and download the corresponding true-tone ring tone from the Verizon Wireless VZW Tones Deluxe application.

Here's the website

http://news.vzw.com/news/2006/04/pr2006-04-04a.html

You Gotta Fight For Your Right...to Click?

The first reading posses the question of, “Is there new politics on the internet?” I’m not going to agree or disagree with the question because I believe the internet isn’t technically “a new” form of politics, but more along the lines of a different form. They refer to the olden days of the town hall and people publically speaking, as well bring up the lack of participants during these times do to gender. The internet allows for people from all walks of life who don’t have to be judged on gender or race, but rather on how well informed they are and intelligence. Politics on the web can be discussed anytime, anywhere. This type of political communication being down on the web allows for every and anybody who wants to state their opinions or learn more about something do so. No one wants to travel across states to sit in a huge hall and have everyone look at them when you stand up to speak…people have become more private these days and the internet is playing a big role into making people who never had an opinion before start too.

Second reading discussed companies posting amatuer-looking videos on Web sites to spark word-of-mouth and a buzz…anything new? You have the I’m a PC” commercials allowing for internet users to post there own part that could be aired in the commercial, you have Taco Bell spinning a commercial from the McDonald’s rap video, and Quizno’s Subs using the goofy looking rats who ate the moon. Companies know that internet video are successful and they know people want to be able to interact so they have contests. All in all these ads are cheaper for the companies to create and that’s more profit for them…much like reality shows compared sitcoms.

Net Neutrality...let me see here have the same speed internet be equally distribute to everyone or have cable/phone companies make you buy their faster connection…I like the way the internet works now, and seeing that Barack is the president elect we don’t have to worry about it. I make hardly any money working two jobs, but yet manager to live happily, so why do cable/phone companies who make so much profit as it is want to charge an additional fee to earn them more money? When is enough, enough? Either way I feel there’s enough people against this thought that use that internet that can keep net neutrality possible.

The Power of the "Real"

As stated in the readings, organizations have been discovering the power of the "real" in the form of amateur videos posted on sites like YouTube. Whether it is the DCI Group posting a spoof of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" or SavetheInternet.com creating low-budget videos addressing the dangers of an internet without net neutrality, groups have learned that disguising videos as amateur or "real" ones made by genuinely concerned Joe Schmos can make powerful statements. This is, however, if the videos become contagious media.

It seems the formula for promoting a product via contagious, amateur media (like Foster's Beer plans to do) is humor, preferably the "laugh out loud" humor that is usually sparked by what many call "stupid humor" or "randomness." It is a tactic used in many television commercials like one of Honda's newest commercials, which features a group of people cornered by a wild buffalo who are then picked up by a guy driving by in a spacious Honda Pilot. If political organizations are able to create a video with that caliber of randomness while still portraying a subtle undertone for their agendas, then they will have reached the pinnacle of propaganda on the internet.

Users also enjoy the "rawness" of amateur YouTube videos because they can relate more to the person who created it. They feel this connection because they see an everyday person like themselves on the other side instead of a corporation or political organization. Therefore, when corporations and political organizations can effectively portray their videos as amateur, their message has more potential to cut to the core of the viewers.

Although this is bound to have negative effects as it is essentially using propaganda tactics, I do see it as having many positive effects as well. The SavetheInternet.com campaign is one success story.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is something that I personally believe is essential to keeping the internet an unbiased source of information. Now saying the internet is unbiased is a complete fallacy, but I believe keeping the government and similar lobbyists from utilizing it under false pretenses should be a major concern to internet users. Videos such as that of the Al Gore spoof, shouldn’t be taken to literally, especially since the content presented contains no factual information. As communications professor Nancy Snow put it, “It’s Propaganda 101." The video contains no factual information, but presents a highly negative image of the former vice president, she says. The purpose of such images is to harden the views of those who already view Mr. Gore negatively, Dr. Snow says. In today’s age where political forums such town meetings and political figures on soap boxes are obsolete, keeping the internet “ours” should be a primary concern to all citizens. Especially when our government entities are trying to protect us from terrorists, but all the while are using our favorite technologies to try to manipulate our view points. In addition to my arguments Mark Poster adds an even more interesting twist to my standpoint, In the case of encryption, the United States government seeks to secure its borders from "terrorists" who might use the Internet and thereby threaten it. But the dangers to the population are and have always been far greater from this state apparatus itself than from so called terrorists. More citizens have been improperly abused, had their civil rights violated, and much worse by the government than by terrorists. In fact terrorism is in good part an effect of government propaganda; it serves to deflect attention from governmental abuse toward a mostly imagined, highly dangerous outside enemy.” Although there are many avid internet users making videos on Youtube trying to keep the internet a free forum for ideas, we must realize that while thousands of us are trying to fight off these giants, at the same time you have to wonder how many more thousands of people the government and media moguls employ that are using the same principles we pioneered on the internet against us.

Virtual communities changing politics?

The primary focus here for me is each article's take on what the internet is doing to politics and in particular, the "public sphere". This sphere was essential for philosophers (Greeks, Habermas, etc.) for people to engage in politics. Overtime the philosophical view of private and public spheres has changed such as Hannah Arendt's notion of a "social" sphere that arises out of the public and private. This is where the markets come into the picture, but this has less to do with what the topic is. The point is that the way in which citizen engage in politics is changing. It is easier to stay informed about what is going on with 24/7 news on the internet, critical writings about politics, and easy access to resources to be more educated about politics. As Poster's article says, "The age of the public sphere as face-to-face talk is clearly over: the question of democracy must henceforth take into account new forms of electronically mediated discourse." Is it possible for discussion of politics to be transferred over cyberspace instead of meatspace completely? I don't believe that the notion of a public sphere will be completely moved to internet discussion. There will still be activities and interaction that the internet might not be able to provide in the realm of politics.

Like I said before, the internet does provide supplementary content for political citizens that may not have been accessed before. This year's election is definitely an example of this change in doing politics. The election of '08 had a larger voter turnout than the previous election and I think this could be due to the role of the internet. Sure, the internet was apart of the last election, but this time there was more interaction of users on the internet, some of the debates featured citizens posting questions via Youtube for candidates to respond to. Citizens made political videos like the last post mentioned that raised awareness of not only the candidates, but the political process in general. I don't want to fall into some kind of deterministic ideology about the internet, but it seems like it within virtual communities, user created political content, activism, etc. could benefit in more awareness of politics.

Virtually Politics

Because I am simultaneously enrolled in Political Communication--I have actually discussed this in length before...is the public sphere being ruined by politics? As for what Habermas originally intended, it has come a long way, but we need to look at the positives for how the Internet has molded and shaped the public sphere.

Within the Cyberdemocracy text it says, "We are advised then to abandon Habermas' concept of the public sphere in assessing the Internet as a political domain." But the purpose of the public sphere is for people to dialogue about important political concepts and I would assert that the Internet is giving a lot of people voices that wouldn't have otherwise contributed to the public sphere as we've known it. 

Perhaps a better way to look at it is to delve into the article in the Critical studies in Media Communication, From public sphere to public screen:democracy, activism, and the "violence" of Seattle. Within the article, DeLuca and Peeples introduce the "public screen" as a way to understand today's political situation..."we argue that the public screen accounts for technological and cultural changes while enabling a charting of the new conditions for rhetoric, politics, and activism."

A key word there is activism. If we look at the public sphere as a place for discourse of politics and a conversation that ultimately leads to action-then the Internet has certainly complemented that. I would argue that more people today are more active in voice in sharing their thoughts on the "public screen" for all the world to see.

(This is an excerpt from my research on Political Communication and YouTube)

            YouTube created a Video Your Vote channel encouraging voters to take their video camera with them to the polls to document their vote. They were then encouraged to submit the videos and keep an eye on PBS’s coverage of the election where they broadcasted the best ones on television.

            The amount of videos for the Video Your Vote project paled in comparison to their previous community projects. According to a YouTube spokesperson, “The CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate was open for submissions for two months and we received 3,000 questions. The CNN/YouTube Republican Debate was open for five months and we received 5,000 questions. Video Your Vote was open for submissions for a week and we received, in a period of one day, around 1,200 submissions.”(LA Times—Nov. 5, 2008)

This "public screen" motivated a lot more people to put their voice in the mix of politics. Many might have submitted questions in private, but many, many more were motivated to video their thoughts and their experiences and put them out there for comment and discourse.

Another important assumption under this public screen replacing the public sphere as the main forum of political discussion is the ability to hold corporations accountable--or the political figures themselves. If they are being videotaped when on and off camera they are more likely to "behave" themselves. 

Example:

Clinton and Edwards caught conspiringhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwgLlDbwNwU

The public sphere is not the same as it used to be. The majority of people aren't siting around debating politics in coffee shops and saloons. They are sitting in front of their computer and uploading their thoughts to the "public screen" via YouTube, writing a blog entry, or Twittering....or maybe even sending a Obama or McCain virtual pin to their friends...whatever the case...it is virtually politics in 2008!

Sign me up!

http://www.pomegranatephone.com/

Mentioned in class

www.retailmenot.com (or just search for "promotional codes" on Google)

http://email.bugmenot.com/ (throw-away e-mail accounts!)

CNN Goes Star Wars

Ronnie talked about CNN doing this and yeah...technology gone wrong or bad...you be the judge...

Intent...

Using kids, a top forty song, and u get 1,437,260 people to watch and maybe vote...

power to the eBay people

As a frequent eBay seller and buyer, I can attest to the fact that this "straight-auction format" site, as Epley alludes to in his article, is very efficient because of its fair value mystique.  Consumers who cannot confer to retail price have access to a place such as eBay that feeds their demand, both in availability-of-product and budget.  People have an outlet to not only buy current retail items at a lower price, but also have passage to discontinued items that have not seen retail shelves for many years.  Another way that makes eBay dynamic is that it allows artists and entrepreneurs to sell their product and helping them establish a name.  Ebay is not only then fair market, in terms of candid price and availability, it is also artisan. 

What becomes apparent in critiquing a dynamic inception such as eBay is its power and authority.  Epley mentioned in his article that "Ebay, then, enjoys increasing authority as an arbiter of price." (I refer to Epley's article more for the fact that he looks more in depth at the cultural aspect of eBay and how it has become a cultural and user-generated phenomenon.) The term arbiter is indicating that eBay users can mediate the price and be the judge of its description, its duration, and its geographic availability. Ben Parker said it best..."With great power, comes great responsibility," as stated in the Spiderman movies.  

eBay

eBay is talked about like it makes the economy “perfect” and goods are sold at the price where demand and supply meet, and whatever. But I find its economy far from perfect. Its one thing when a valuable collectors item is sold, and knowledgably buyers bid the amount the item is worth, but there are so many times this is not the case. A Cheeto being bout for like $1000 or whatever it was, an apple core thrown away by Tiger Woods for $36,000, or a champagne soaked shirt worn by the Boston Celtics coach Doc Rivers the night they won the NBA finals sold for $55,000, and many other things of the sort is just messed up. I guess you really can get anything on eBay, just ask Weird Al Yankovic….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYokLWfqbaU

The eBay economy is also cheated a little by “sniping.” I have been on both ends of this and it just seems like a very effective way to get what you want cheaper than if you bid “the right way.” In any case I think that eBay is far from the perfect economy, but I guess if you can get people to buy it for the price, it must be worth it, right. I guess that is why it is such a popular “career” for so many people…

eBay virgin

Well as the headline says I'm an "eBay virgin".. I have never brought anything from eBay so I can't say that I have any personal experience with it. It seems like people in the class have different levels of eBay experiences some people like Travis uses it a lot and other have only used it a few times and doesn't really like it. I don't really know what to think about it. In the Lillie article it sounds like the perfect example of web 2.0 based on values like "We believe people are basically good" and "We believe everyone has something to contribute". Especially the last one really shows the spirit of web 2.0, but unfortunaly that's not how the reality is. According to Travis there is a hierarchy on the site although it sounds like it is mainly based on who earns most I think it was also interesting that comment that I think Tim wrote about how people with computer skills always is higher in the hierarchy, because if you have some Photoshop/Illustrator ect skills it is possible so make your pictures look better. I'm not sure if people have profiles in there, but if they have then it would also be possible to make those stand out.. Which means that nobody is really equal in there anyway..
Another topic that was mentioned in the other posts was if eBay was a social networking site. Again I can only compare it to sites that I know like amazone ect and I couldn't image people using these site for anything else than just finding the things that they need, buying them and then never talking to the seller again. Or that's how I use sites like eBay and I sounds like most people have the same experience.

Find the World's Largest Cheeto on Ebay

Ebay offers dedicated citizens opportunities to purchase the worlds largest cheeto, such as the citizens of Algona, Iowa. Without Ebay we wouldnt have the chance to show off our greatest accomplishment! Ok, not our "greatest" accomplishment, but hey, it gives us a chance to get on the map. I think that people, such as citizens of Algona, Iowa, my home town, can get a little carried away with the bids they offer, but in a way, it brought us together for that period of time, and to be honest, some people are quite proud of the worlds largest cheeto being located in the family owned resturanut in down town Algona. What I like about this story is that Ebay took something that other people found worth publicizing and found others with the same interest. I feel thats what Ebay's purpose is. It has created a social network amongst people with crazy obsessions about specific items. People search for original work, because they want to have the most interesting, or bizaare artifact, (or cheeto), and the great thing is, you can log in, search, and bam, some bids later, its arriving at your door and can be displayed on a velvet pillow, under a bullet proof case, for the extremists.
I like the comparrison of ebay and a giant garage sale. I find this to be perfect. Its all about taking someone's junk and turning it into another's treasure. i feel that too, its about the satisfaction of winning the auction. Being the one to win the bid is gratifying in itself. I dont know if it was the actual cheeto that created such an uproar, or if it was the winning of the auction for the cheeto, but whatever the satisfaction is linked to, it is keeping ebay in full swing.

Can't find it? I'm sure eBay has one!

I certainly have had plenty of experiences with eBay, especially over the last two years. I regularly buy and sell using the service and have only had one transaction that didn't work just as they are supposed to. The fact that it was my very first transaction was unfortunate, but that's the way it goes. However, I certainly do not agree that no traditional hierarchies still exist. Sure they do! There are varying levels of success on eBay, and that rate of success is based on basically the same things that dictate success in the real business world. The person who starts with the most assets has an advantage. They can afford better presentation (meaning photographs, featured ads, bolding and other attention drawing services) as well as better communication and marketing. Money begets money, in the real world and the virtual one.

Additionally, eBay is becoming less and less friendly to those who are just beginning, making the traditional hierarchies of establishment equally applicable to eBay. Today, sellers are no longer able to give negative feedback on buyers. This has a two pronged affect. First, sellers are less likely to get positive feedback from buyers because sellers now have nothing to hold over the head of buyers. If a buyer doesn’t give feedback there is less ability for newbies on eBay to boost their seller rating. The second part then, is that potential buyers are less likely to buy a product from a seller with little to no feedback than they are from an established eBayer. That is similar to real life.

I don’t think that eBay is nearly as much of a community as the article portrays. I am an active eBay user but never have used it as anything more than a bazaar. I think that trying to tie in social community to eBay is a bit of a stretch; almost as though the author just needed a little bit more material for a book…

EBAY...Meg Whitman is my homegirl!!

The quote,  "community" is a key term in the eBay universe" is a somewhat foreign concept to me. I shop enough in the meat-face world that I know enough about myself not to start shopping in the virtual world, so I can't assert that I am by any means well-versed in the world of eBay. Community makes sense to me on Facebook and MySpace and YouTube, but in an online market-place? Where money is exchanging back and forth? I wonder if most of the friendships are between say, My Little Pony fellow collectors that are competing for bids--or are between buyers and sellers that have established relationships through the transactions of goods?

In the Jarrett article, there is discussion of a concept that we have dialogued frequently about--surveillance. We all have differing viewpoints on whether we feel surveillance is inevitable and does that just mean we should be ok with it. An interesting talking point with eBay is how they have given the power to users. Jarrett says, "Surveillance is represented as good, even desirable, for the community and the individual..." Brilliant. They have made it such a necessary part of making money that they have crossed the line of people having to be ok with it to making it desirable! 

Do you think it would ever come to the day where desirable surveillance would be a part of Facebook and MySpace?(It already exists on YouTube--users flagging videos). Such as if someone is randomly trying to friend people you could click on their profile and flag them and so when they were searched it would say "this person is a perpetual "friender"--you're right--you probably don't know them! Just wondering, because I feel that I have been friended by creepy guys that just see your picture and don't know you--but then I second-guess myself and think that maybe I met them at a coference or something and forgot them...

I also wonder about the eBay as "the great leveler" quote from the Epley article as quoted by Cohen. "all sellers are created equal, all buyers have equal chances to bid, and, most important, old offline hierarchies no longer apply." I do agree to some extent, but I also think the a lot of offline hierarchies still do apply. 

Access to computer, being able to be by the Internet(such as having it on your Iphone) to monitor bids at all times is a luxury that some people just don't have. Access to cameras and video-cameras to upload high-quality presentations of your product, as well as the caliber of products sold all are indicators of hierarchy. Just like the argument that the Internet is available to most individuals, but there is still a link to affluence and access to the Internet. 

Some more interesting eBay info!!

The Future of ebay

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/05/the_future_of_e.html

The Future Of eBay - Bright Or Cloudy?

http://theauctionrebel.com/419/the-future-of-ebay-bright-or-cloudy/

EBay's Meg Whitman Out; John Donahoe Named CEO & Prez

http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/01/ebays-meg-whitm.html

eBay Baby!

After reading up on e-commerce I suddenly think about all the times I’ve been called/approached by different people about joining a “group” that in a nut shell you set up a web account and it allows you to search for items in a variety of stores and by only buying on the web you cut out the middle man (distributors) and get a share of the money saved…of course you have to hustle other people into doing it and the more you have buying under you the more of a share you get…anyone else get approached about it?

The eBay reading states, “A crucial component of eBay’s success, both economic and cultural, is its organization of the site as a series of stages allowing sellers to design, perform, and sell memorable experiences, thematically linked to goods, for which purchasers are willing to pay a premium.” Everyone would love to walk into Wal-Mart or a thrift store and be like, “I’m probably one of the four people that would ever buy this so would you mind bargaining the price down?” It’s genius. eBay is ran by the people who set up an account in five minutes and now have stay at home jobs and make a decent profit. My neighbor back in the day took pictures of items all day and posted them on the web for a store much like the 40 Year Old Virgin’s gf’s place of work We Sell Your Stuff on eBay and loved it cause it’s easy ladies and gents.

I’ve only bought one thing off eBay because psychologically I don’t completely trust it. The lack of communication from the seller and buyer and going off a customer feedback doesn’t really sell me because I like to see what I’m buying and waiting for mail is boring. Also there's ways of improving your customer feedback without actually selling items (so I read once in a book.) To me eBay has this you’re either in or out concept and I feel I’m not up to date to buy or sell things on it anymore. It’s a community of individuals who range from being completely legit business owners to scam artists who are all about the Benjamins and I my friends am nether.

EBay users, “communicate their self-identity by announcing their fandom and fan authority through engaging in rituals of possession and divestment.” I’ve noticed eBay now a days is all about showing off and how big of a fan you are to something. I can think of a lot of other ways to show my appreciation for something and I do. I say if you have the time do it, if you don’t you’re life will still go on.

eBay and autonomy

There really isn't anything wrong with the way eBay works and I often see it as a positive tool for rare items or bottom dollar deals. What is definitely interesting is how people are able to take items that before needed to be taken to specific markets (conventions, trade shows, etc.) could be collected onto one market. Sites have definitely turned toward this way of facilitating user auctions where Amazon could be an example. The format of which you purchase items is pretty basic as Epley's article traces it back to English auctions, but what is new to this is eBay's use of liberal structure for creating a market community. The way they are doing this is through feedback options that act as a form of surveillance for all users.

What I see working within eBay is a form of control against bad consumer behavior. They use the feedback system to try and discourage people from cheating others and to provide a place where people can feel confident in buying and selling. It then becomes a matter of "personal responsibility" of each user to dictate their buying or selling actions. eBay works as a mediator for buyers and sellers which gives the idea of a community rather than an online store you'd purchase items from. I tend to question if buyer and seller's actions on eBay are fully autonomous, that they are without constraint or guidelines. I think people may act solely out of a fear for negative feedback. I remember someone I was speaking to told me that they were given feedback that was negative for giving a seller negative feedback for not packaging the item correctly. He did everything right in terms of exchange, but the seller gave him negative feedback only because he was upset with his purchase. I think that the idea of this being a fully independent market is effective for the majority of the users, but I think it may be impossible for all users to consent to these community values no matter how fair they seem.

Why eBay Does Not Portray Perfect Price

As I read through "Of PEZ and Perfect Price," written by the great Nathan Scott Epley, I was provoked to think that eBay does not portray the "Perfect Market" or the "Perfect Price." Many factors that go into the culture of eBay hinder this state from emerging although many aspects of eBay are accommodating to it as well. Nevertheless, like the text suggests, I believe that the actions of its users prevents eBay from achieving a perfect market or perfect price. I have encountered a number of these user habits in my own eBay experiences. For example, there is the fact that users often do not merely submit their maximum bid like suggested by eBay. Instead, they engage in a competitive, more live-auction-resembling 'race' for the item up for bid. EBay has realized this too as it has been portrayed in some of its latest television advertisements (comparing auctions to football and racing). Many practice the art of "sniping," or bidding at the last second to "steal" an item. These widely-utilized strategies undermine eBay's original purpose of selling items at the price which correlates with demand. Users swoop in and buy items at the lowest price possible instead of bidding at a price that they see as fair or fitting. This also points to a theme of this class that those who are the most knowledgeable of computers and software are gaining power rapidly in this society, but that is another topic for another day. Another thing to consider in the scope of perfect price is the fact that eBay's auctions are limited to its users. In order to really get an accurate representation of what the "perfect price" would be for an item, one would have to include a majority of those interested in purchasing it. Although its popularity has boomed, I think it would be safe to say that a fairly small percent of the population uses it on a regular basis. As a result, I believe that the prices one finds on sites such as eBay are actually lower than the "perfect price" for an item.

Lillie

After the emergence of e-Bay, I think many believed it was safe to finally coin the term; e-commerce. The idea that users generate the content was not revolutionary, but the fact that users were buying and selling items with almost no interaction other than from other users wasn’t easy for many people to understand. Omiydar made ingenious advances with his site, setting up forums so users could comment on one and another performances and also created a feedback system to further remove the company from regulating the site. In Lillie’s article I think that most other of the complaints from user’s came from the premium they were forced to pay in order to buy and sell. One of the most interesting things I read in the article was how people were amazed at the e-commerce business model Omiydar had created. Removing his company from regulating the site allowed for fewer employees, maximum revenue, and more time to develop auctioning software. The only criticism I have is when bricks and mortar stores are selling the low quality goods at discount prices and eBay is selling equivalent goods at the higher prices, something has got to give. For instance If Omiydar was to give his top 100 grossing users a discount on the premium fees in exchange for regulating prices and quality of goods, I think the “community” would greatly benefit.

Ebay

Ebay is simply amazing. What can't you buy on this site? It is like the comparison of a garage sale and Ebay because it is a great comparison. Every year Cedar Falls holds the "World's Largest Garage Sale." Compare it to Ebay and it certainly isn't the largest, but it is quite similar in the way that you can find the weirdest and also greatest things at both of them. I am not a regular shopper on Ebay but I do sometimes visit the site to find things that I know I won't be able to get anywhere else. Like collectable band posters that I have purchased for my boyfriend. The concept of buying something off of Ebay seemed to be pretty safe and smart, but I was a little hesitant. The competitiveness of bidding on something was a little intense at first. Everytime I tried to bid higher the people bidding against me like magic made there bid higher then mine. I finally figured out how to do that myself. But I didn't feel like my time on Ebay was with a community. Facebook and MySpace are communities. People communicate back and forth and are friends. On Ebay people buy and sell, but I think that communication greatly lacks between a buyer and a seller. The first thing that I bought on Ebay made me scared to death because I was supposed to get the shipping information from the seller and he wouldn't email me back. I thought I had just got scamed. The package came eventually, but the whole lack of communication definetly didn't make me feel like I was within a community.
One great thing about Ebay is the way that they do try to prevent scaming of the buyers. The ratings system is a good way to know if you are purchasing from someone who actually is going to ship you your goods or not. Whether the ratings system is accurate...that's up to you to decide I suppose.
Another thingt that I do agree with is that Ebay is a way for fans to show off how much they like something. The first thing that I bought off of Ebay was a Dave Matthews Band poster and the people bidding were crazy. Luckily I was just looking for a poster that wasn't the most popular, because some of the posters were going on there for $200+ which is just nuts to me because you can buy one if you go to the concert for $30. Another thing about this is the "perfect price." I don't know what the "perfect price" to many things would be since not everything has as much popularity as others. I am sure if you were looking for something on a random Tuesday night and the bidding was close to being over with you could get a heck of a deal on an item that isn't really wanted. This brings me to my last thought which is that I don't think Ebay is the place for anything and everything, at least not if the seller actually wants to make money. For now I am going to just stick to real stores...they might not have better deals then Ebay, but they sure don't leave you wondering if/when you are going to get what you bought.

Gillespie

Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology just gets in the way. It forces the consumer who, probably more often than not, doesn’t know what they’re getting themselves into, into using a specific piece of software or hardware to use the content that they purchased and should have the right to use however they would like. As Gillespie points out, one of the biggest reasons that companies use DRM is to tie a consumer to a certain service, like iTunes and how it ties the consumer to using both iTunes to play the music or video that they buy as well as buying only Apple produced personal media players. What’s even worse is that these songs or videos that are purchased that contain DRM are often low quality files as well. The same aspects of DRM that limit the consumer to doing what they would like with the items that they spend their money on can also be applied to regional coding on DVDs. It’s just an attempt to make the consumer purchase specific products and prevent them from using the products however they desire, which the consumer should have the right to do. The price discrimination that goes along with DRM and region coding should be done away with because then competition would be encouraged, which is never a bad thing. If there are online web sites that would be able to sell the consumer a product at a low price, then the other companies should have to work hard to gain the consumer’s attention and money, just like it is with every other product on the market today.

Ebay

Ebay does exactly what the internet is supposed to do. It brings together subcultures. Most people use the internet to connect with people involved in their own subcultures. Part of participating in a subculture is owning. Buying the junk that will make you cool. It is a way to show people that you are so into your subculture that you will bid millions of dollars on a beanie baby or a Star Wars action figure. The show of buying something off Ebay is part of the subculture, proving that you will go to all of the work to snipe and bid and search and figure out the hidden science of the paypal. It’s all a big process to prove just how dedicated you are to your trade. It is also a way to find people that like what you like. You can search by item and location. Two clicks will tell you that someone lives close to you and likes to work on the same kind of puzzles you do. It is its own social network.

Ebay

Ebay does exactly what the internet is supposed to do. It brings together subcultures. Most people use the internet to connect with people involved in their own subcultures. Part of participating in a subculture is owning. Buying the junk that will make you cool. It is a way to show people that you are so into your subculture that you will bid millions of dollars on a beanie baby or a Star Wars action figure. The show of buying something off Ebay is part of the subculture, proving that you will go to all of the work to snipe and bid and search and figure out the hidden science of the paypal. It’s all a big process to prove just how dedicated you are to your trade. It is also a way to find people that like what you like. You can search by item and location. Two clicks will tell you that someone lives close to you and likes to work on the same kind of puzzles you do. It is its own social network.

It's the Same Thing!

They are saying the SAME THINGS over and over and over... literally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfd5g8Y_Jqo

You Can Vote However You Like...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKQE4vtVrJI

But seriously people, think BEFORE you vote.

JIBJAB.COM GOOD FUN...

http://sendables.jibjab.com/

here's a website were u can create videos just by cutting out the heads of friends from pictures and jibjab does the rest to create videos...here's a presidential video...

memetrollsandgrievers

Last class the question was asked, What makes an successful Web 2.0 website? During the readings, I asked myself what makes a good meme? Why do some things like Charlie goes to Candy mountain or Second Life become such hits and other things just don’t. Is there a magic formula, or just the luck of the draw? I am certainly no expert, and initially thought it was just luck, however I am starting to think there is really something to it. Weather its YouTube or another video site, or Facebook vs. MySpace, there is usually a reason that one is preferred to another, and for me at least it seems to be more about the format than the content.

Also the Nike ordeal was eye-opening and sad at the same time. I like how someone really confronted Nike about their practices, but at the same time most of us are guilty of supporting it. Just about everyone has a pair of Nike shoes, or shorts or something, including the guy who bought a pair even after all the melee.

The whole trolling article was just sad? How are people so heartless as to do that to someone whose kid just committed suicide? They are going through quite enough without people calling them up and harassing them. Would people do that if they actually had to do it face to face, I would like to think not. To go along with this is the grievers who just go around and generally make things miserable for everyone else. What is their motivation for this? People reactions. They are just like the school bully, who one people stop reacting to, has much less fun and eventually moves on to someone who will react. What a sad world this is.

Meme, Internet Meme

Meme in the virutal world to me is the advertising on facebook or your emails. Its a way of getting the message to the mass audience. Its the youtube videos that Justin Biggs tells us all to watch, because he says "Hey, you'll like this". Thus affecting the "audience of Com Tech". The very small gesture turned could easily turn into mass media. We watch the youtube video recommened in class, we than tell all our friends to watch it on their computers. These recommended gestures are what helps make a certain medium the dominant ideology. I would consider TV to be the dominant ideology because tons and tons of ideas,theories, gestures, etc... are passed all around the world popping up in the living rooms of any viewer. This is a great way that memes are expressed.
I am guilty of BWN. At times I feel useless at my job because it is so INCREDIBLY boring, that I dink around on the internet to pass time. This is when I find myself watching the recommened youtube videos; I am then contributing to "contagious media". I feel that if youre not participating in the harmless form of contagious media, you are then greifing. This is the first time Ive heard of griefing. I feel its a waste of time, but is BWN a waste of time too? Am I falling victin to griefing because I am dinking around on the interent at work, not doing producting things, making myself feel useless?

memes, trolls

The readings on these two internet phenomena really interested me in different ways. I found the thought of memes to be really fascinating, and it caused me to think back over the countless bits of internet crap that have been spread across the web in the last decade. From the hamster dance to the dancing baby to the fat guy dancing in front of the webcam to the star wars kid. While most of it is a waste of time and pretty disposable, it is interesting to think how certain viral videos become memes even when they weren't intended to be highly visible on the web. I think that this is where memes and trolling meet. Maybe that pathetic and awkward star wars kid initially posted his sad-ass video on his own personal blog, and the least moral of his circle of readers found it incredibly hilarious and perpetuated its viewing among the entire population of the internet. This to me is a form of trolling in itself. Not that I know the kid, but I doubt he wanted millions of people to watch his video and laugh at him, and if not, the repetitious views of this video were made possible by people laughing at him and wanting others to laugh at him as well. While it's relatively impossible to prosecute trolls for any real crime, I found the rift in their community interesting. One of less eccentric trolls (although he did post on myspace saying that a 13 year old suicide victim had it coming) said that trolls won't go anywhere until people stopped being offended and hurt by the written word. On the other hand, you have trollers on a website saying that being a good person involves a level of empathy. This contradiction leads me to believe that hardcore trolls aren't just "normal people doing insane things on the internet", but unstable people causing instability on the internet.  

Memes and Trolls

Memes and trolls. At first I wasn't really sure exactly what a meme was. The readings explained it to me and now I think I understand it, and it really isn't as complex as I thought. The meme reading from wikipedia explained a meme as an idea or behavior that is passed on from one person to another. A meme in real life is just like the popular kid at school that tries to make a new word cool...like on the movie Mean Girls and the one girl tries to get everyone to use the word fetch instead of cool. Internet memes on the other hand don't seem to be as harmless. The reading about the thirteen year old girl that killed herself because an old friends mom acted like a young boy online and then rejected her, now that is just sick and wrong. I know that some trolling can be harmless like when Justin makes fun of people on the WWE forum. I think those people are pretty thick skinned and can probably handle someone making fun of a wrestler. But a thirteen year old that already has enough drama in her life because she is thirteen and I think everyone that is thirteen has their ups and downs, she probably doesn't have nearly as thick of skin.
I agree with one of the readings that says that the goal is for everyone to have fun. I think that it is totally possible to have fun trolling the internet. But some people just have to know when they have gone to far. Also who gets to make the decision of what makes a good meme and what falls short? I know that youtube is a big place to share and get a meme started but really what makes people find that one amazing video and email it to all of their friends? I guess those people who have lots of time on their hands and enjoy spending it on youtube are the main meme starters...

Trolls and Viral Phenomena

To me the most important aspect of these Internet memes, customs, trolls, viral marketing, etc. is the role that social interaction plays. It is what each of these concepts relies on and is the reason they are spread across the Internet. I think this arises explicitly out of the troll and grieving articles. People are using social, interactive mediums (games, forums, etc.) to manipulate others experiences on whatever media they are using to accomplish a sense of power. It’s pretty similar to bullying in meatspace where bullies torment other people to get a rise out of them and to feel something different about their own nature.

What I keep struggling with is why they actually do this… what do they really get out of it? I think the Schwartz and Gregson articles both question trolls and griefers on why they do what they do. The answer seems to be for many different reasons. These could include boredom, attention and most interestingly, a heightened sense of the media. What I mean by the last point could mean that they are aware that what they are using is a tool… whether it is a game, a forum, or a Youtube comment. They are just having fun and pointing out the absurdities of the medium. I think a lot of trolls are doing it because they feel better than the people they are messing with.

In the Schwartz article one of the trolls explains, “Trolling will end as soon as we all get over it.” If people can just ignore what these people are doing maybe they will subside, but as long as there are people getting defensive about a trolls reaction to them, there will be trolls there to counteract. I think anonymity has a big part of trolling as well. Tina’s post responded to trolling and cyber bullying to the extreme, but I think there could be something else to that. Is there a way to regulate what is being said if it goes beyond certain lines. Would trolls say the same things to a person’s face that they would post online? The Schwartz article touches on free speech on the web… Is it possible for there to be enforcement on the internet to limit what people can say to others to reduce the risk of things like someone killing themselves over a troll? How would you feasibly have the resources to do that over something as expansive as the Internet? I don’t know.

I find Internet memes incredibly interesting in how they become too popular. The main reason contagious media is so viral is because of the social aspect, as the Peretti article says, contagious media, “is the kind of media you immediately want to share with all your friends.” Along the same lines, people tend to remember things that are social rather than informative. I feel like this is the reason many companies are driving toward viral marketing because it is more often remembered than traditional advertisements. It seems to be hard to predict what forms of contagious media will be successful or be forgotten.

I cannot imagine anyone, including the creator of peanut butter jelly time, would think that it would become such a widespread Internet meme. So who decides what will be successful and what won’t? It comes back to the social aspect of memes and viral marketing… the power is no longer in the hands of the advertisers, it is up to the people on social networks, interactive mediums, forward e-mailers, and even basic internet users of what will be spread around the community. The emphasis of media on the Internet is going toward user created and manipulated content. Audiences have been a large part of what we see in media, but more than ever we are deciding what to do with the media and how it should be presented.

Don't Feed the Trolls!!

Internet trolling - what makes it work

http://hari.literaryforums.org/2007/06/07/internet-trolling-what-makes-it-work

Meme

I was trying to decide what makes a meme. How is a good one started? What the common link is? All I can come up with is that I don’t ever remember seeing an ad for any of my favorite web sites. How did I know I would love youtube or facebook or google? Probably because someone told me “hey you will really like this” so I checked it out. I think that marketing has a lot to do with it. The fact that I never saw a tv ad for Facebook makes it less like “the man”. It makes me think it’s made by people like me which increases its appeal. Now those websites are getting more commercial, which is ok because I guess it has sort of grass roots. I also really liked the Weezer video. Weezer is just like us. Wasting their time on the internet, Youtubing. It says something about the future of media as well. Intertextuality to the extreme. On Youtube you can watch a Weezer video full or youtube videos. These internet memes are invading the rest of our everyday lives which is probably a good thing. Not just for pop culture but also for politics and things like the Nike e-mail. It is possible for these things to have lasting effects on the rest of the world, maybe make a difference.

Contagious Media

Personally I like the concept of contagious media. Not necessarily the jokes and mindless forwards that are exchanged between co-workers and friends, but the fact that their still is a means to express beliefs and ideas and have a vehicle to share these with people that express similar points of view. I found it particularly interesting in Peretti’s reading he couldn’t even fathom the people his conversation with Nike reached via the internet. Our government and corporations know all to well how to use mass media in order to sway our beliefs and conceptions of reality, but the fact that we as a mass can still communicate and express our own versions of reality without interjected corporate bias; is somewhat of a small comfort to myself. I was however baffled about the parameters Jonah used to decide what exactly was encompassed in contagious media, and if there were specific restrictions in labeling the content. Let me elaborate briefly, in item number one, he speaks of BWN’s and how they begin the process of spreading contagious media. Then he follows with number 4 saying, “humorous emails, jokes, games, video clips, and political calls to action or forms of this viral propagation.” I don’t agree that political calls to actions and Halo 3 can be lumped together in the same classification simply because as he states in number 5 that the content is unimportant as long as it is pushed through a human powered network. I think that it way to broad of a scope, and restrictions should be not on how many times its sent, but on what the actual content represents; such as personal, intended humor, or just plain “garbage” content.

First of All i'm No Griever...

First things first, when I’m convicted of trolling in class on my WWE Universe account, I do it all out of good fun and go along the guidelines of every WWE fan where you have your favorite and least favorite wrestlers and you state why you feel that way. The WWE was built off conflicts and that’s why it will be celebrating its 800th episode (the most episodes of any show) in a few weeks. I’m not the only one who watches it…

The Wikipedia reading about internet memes allowed for me to put a name with a face. All the videos I send friends and family that I find are funny are considered internet memes. Any parody videos posted on Youtube that gets a “cult” following or reference back to a form of popular culture are consider memes. Something intriguing about this reading had to be the use of the words vanity sites. These are your Myspace, Facebook pages that include personal information and are mainly used for entertainment and communication. Like I said before the reading basically broadened my vocabulary skills for whenever I run into a web critic down the line.

The other reading that hit home was the one about griefing. As a multiplayer gamer at one point in my life, I’ve experienced griefers who either lag (slow) up a game, kill their own teammates, and break any other rules in the game. People’s moods change so quickly these days and some find it acceptable/therapeutic to go online and lash out. There are options in every game where players can boot an individual or report them so their griefing rein will end, but people can always make new accounts. People have to realize that not everyone is happy in the world and even though Second life or WWE Universe may be your home away from home get away place, it’s a playground for someone else who’s going to test your limits. If a person goes to far you can get jail time I guess after reading this article of a couple divorcing in Second life and one hacked the other’s account and may serve 5 years in prison…

http://www.itexaminer.com/divorced-woman-kills-husbands-avatar.aspx

The best part of the reading is where it states, “The key point here is that everyone has the same goal – have fun. Unfortunately, for one group – the griefers – achieving their goal precludes other users from reaching theirs.” Everyone has different ways of having fun and in my mind if you can’t take the heat get out the kitchen. You read about people killing themselves because someone bullied them online and all this stuff; there is a point were enough is enough and people have to realize there is a log off/off switch option available if someone is really bothering you that bad…be the bigger person.

From my online gaming experiences I’ve learned that if you don’t like someone who’s online gaming with you and they’re giving you a hard time, go head to head (1v1) against them and if you win talk trash, if you lose log off the game so you don’t have to hear them talk trash…easy concept I know, but you wouldn’t believe how many people take it to the next level.

PS when you end Facebook official status be prepared for the consequences…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7676285.stm

Lulz....trolls...and hackers...oh my!

The Schwartz article 'The Trolls Among Us' should be re-named 'The Sad, Sad Souls Among Us.' Every time that my confidence in the human population has been restored somewhat I read an article like this. Seriously. Perhaps what is mystifying to me can be summed up in this quote from the reading, "But while technology reduces the social barriers that keep us from bedeviling strangers, it does not explain the initial trolling impulse." This is a mystery to me. Maybe we need psychiatrists for these people to realize the root problem. But that's another story, so I'll head into more discussion worthy points.

 I have to say, we had it coming to us. Just because we have created this new virtual space that is the Internet, we are going to have the same problems we have in the meat space. People that have no regard for other humans and and have WAY too much time on their hands can now wreak havoc in on the Internet. 

Trolling Exists Everywhere, Not Just on the Internet

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/03/trolling-exists-everywhere-not-just-on-the-internet/4583

What is extremely problematic is the lack of consequences.

Of the multiple scenario's written about by Schwartz, most include the end result of death threats and physical harm foreshadowed in the meat space. That we as a society have let the trolls and hackers get this far in the virtual world and then let them come back over into the meat space with no punishment is appalling. I actually took a break from my mountains of work and watched 'Enemy of the State' last night. For those of you that haven't seen it, it stars Will Smith as a lawyer that gets himself caught in a web of survellience, hackers, and the government. His privacy is invaded and they can tell where he is at all times, shut off his bank accounts--basically ruin his life. And, I was watching it on VHS which means that we've certainly come even farther since then. You mean to tell me that we have that capability as a government, yet we can't get ahold of these Trollers that have the potential to ruin people's lives? Watch this movie and then think about how pathetic it is that we can't catch and prosecute these people. The government could if they really wanted to.

But that poses another question...is it really worth the government's time to do so? Even those these sad souls are threatening people in real life they don't really amount to much physical harm. The government is spending their time tracking down people that really might do something....a word that starts with a t and ends in a t...if I write it they might just start surveying our blog! But you know who I mean. I actually would prefer that they spend their time tracking those people that are more of a threat to the population at large...but I wonder if someday there will be a division of security like the 'Troll Patrol' or something clever like that that is devoted to tracking these guys down.

Also, if more people would intake everything on the Internet the way that they should intake the media(double-check the facts, don't believe everything they read at face-value, etc.) then perhaps we wouldn't have such a problem. I love what the guy from the Center for Citizen media said about anonymous comments especially, "They shouldn't start off with a credibility rating of, say, 0. It should be more like -30." 

Really, how are forums and blogs where anyone can say anything any different from the National Enquirer? So, don't read them the same.

This is just a small excerpt that I found on-line about the different methods of trolling so we can all be "in the know."

Trolling Methods:

The Repulsive Troll - this troll will use words or images to attempt to shock and anger users; if  shock or anger is expressed then he wins.

The Argumentive Troll - this troll is looking for an argument, and can usually win it. Any disagreement can turn into a major victory for this troll, the only way you can win is to agree with him.

The Personal Attack Troll - This troll has the mind of an elephant and never forgets; he or she files away any info you have posted about yourself to possibly use against you later often with embarrassing results. The more personal information you reveal about yourself the worse this troll will abuse you with it later.

The Disinformation Troll - This troll loves to disinform people; he might go edit wikipedia or post fake articles on message boards sites to see how many people take the bait.

The Joke Troll - If you bite into this trolls bait the joke is probably going to be on you.

The Character Troll - Plays upon stereotypes etc. such as pretending to be a member of the opposite race, or the opposite sex to make their point.

The Long Troll - This is a longer drawn out troll over an extended period of time; long trolls can range from a few days to months. Most long trolls require gaining the trust of other members before baiting them. Our forum member Oldlurp recently faked his death resulting in a couple of users calling an ambulance for him. It took about a week for Oldlurp to be reborn and come back to the boards.   
Here’s a couple great examples of funny trolling supplied by a couple members of our board…

And, I would like to add that when we talk about trolling all I can think about is those little plastic dolls from my youth with the stringy, magenta hair on my computer screen in place of the pointer...just fyi!!!

memeology

I felt the example of the request for Nike shoes customized with the word 'sweatshop' was a good illustration of the topic of memes and contagious media. The idea of memeology is to create an idea that is simple and can all be explained in one sentence, that is easily accessible by everyone. As we see in the effects of Jonah's simple idea, the growth of it merely depends on the audience. In Media Literacy a few semesters back, we discussed how artists can lie about their intentions of their creation. Therefore, the contagious artist does not define the artwork, but its definition, again, succeeds at the expense of audience participation.
To help support the idea of contagious media and contagious ideas, its as if you start out with an idea that "inspires conversation, provokes debate, or moves us to tell a friend" as the seed that is planted underground. When you begin to water that seed with social investment through the use of communication technologies and multiple recipient consumption, the idea seems to "spread on its own, like a self-replicating virus." With the example of the 'sweatshop' shoes, the artist wanted to construct an idea that would speak to Nike on how he felt about sweatshop labor. He even used the company's own resources to simply relay his views, which is really genious. When Nike refused his request for the 'sweatshop' shoes, it then turned into the seed of the contagious creation that it became through blogs, message boards, and email forwarding.

Memes, Trolls, Etc.

The article that I found most interesting this week was Kimberly Gregson’s about griefing, more specifically griefing in different online games. While reading the last part that listed ways to combat griefers, I just kept thinking that while these may work some times, nothing is ever going to stop griefing or trolling completely. The griefers will always find a way to annoy people or have their own kind of fun in games, and they will never go away, just like computer hackers or things like that. I think that griefers are just something that people are going to have to accept and learn to deal with rather than constantly try to think of ways to stop them completely.
The Jonah Peretti article about Nike was interesting mostly because it was ridiculous how the George Walden guy freaked out over what had happened to Peretti. The guy seems like he just assumes that Peretti had some big agenda to attack the Nike Corporation and bring them all this negative media attention, but it was just something interesting that Peretti passed along to a couple friends, who then passed it on to their friends, and so on. I suppose, though, that anything that gets as big as that did is bound to have people criticize it, no matter what it is, though.
The second Peretti article about contagious or viral media made me think about all the different ways that companies use contagious media to promote their products, like how they create websites to promote their latest video game. It starts with a few people discovering it, then it spreads, and eventually you have people dedicated days and weeks to figuring out what exactly is being promoted or anything else like that, going through the site or whatever information they are given over and over for the smallest details. It seems like that is always an almost sure-fire way to gain interest for your product, and I’m surprised that it isn’t employed more than it actually is.