Obscure metaphors, Yayhoo's, Gizoogle's anda Michroschoft's...

Pre-script: Sorry this is late...

Ok, so net neutrality is like an itch that you can't scratch. It's what everyone wants, but no one might get. It's soon to be the battle between luxury and right. Anyway, the idea of net neutrality being taken away is not something that the users want, but something that the corporate powers want. Not even so much the corporate powers, but the Internet Service Provider powers. I mean, if I were an ISP I would want more money for nothing. It's understandable. I am in college.

That is not the point! The point is that large corporations (Michroschoft) would be willing to inflate the bank accounts of ISP's in order to get their content to the user first. The end user only viewing Michroschoft's content as opposed to Yayhoo's or Gizoogle's.

You might be thinking, 'What's the big deal with that? I like Michroschoft.'. Well, what if WebCT has an article that I need to read for Communications Technology class and your ISP (CFU) decides to allow Michroschoft to rank higher than WebCT. All of the sudden you are reading the top headlines on MSN.com instead of a certain behavorial targeting article. All because you couldn't access the beloved WebCT.

Yeah, it's pretty jacked and this issue will be here before we know it. So vote YES on Net Neutrality. (Power to the People)

*sung* It's blog, it's blog. it's big, it's heavy, it's wood.

In Blood's article about blogging she speaks of rules that she proposes all bloggers should follow, and even though these are, in general, good rules to go by when writing blogs, I don't think that these should be followed. Even though I don't blog, except for this class, I must say of the blogs i have read recently nobody really wants their blogs to be that professional. Now maybe I am reading the wrong blogs, if there are wrong blogs, but people seem not to care to much about accuracy as long as there ideas get across. Since this is for a class I tend to follow these rules she gives just so I keep myself in check. I wouldn't want to give false facts or incorrect statements in something like this or why would I even bother.
Net neutrality is a word that I had never heard of until last year, and even though I know what I want to happen, there is little to no chance I will ever do anything about it. I believe net neutrality to be a good thing, but when I was reading I couldn't help but think about the communications industry and their attempts to get people to switch networks because theirs is more clear. What I may be failing to see is how this is any different from the situation with the internet. In my mind all phone lines appear to be the same, it's just different companies saying that theirs is more clear than others. I remember an MCI add with pins dropping and the idea being shoved in your face that you could actually hear a pin drop over their phone lines, well aren't all the phone lines the same? Clearly they were up to something... and I think it was Candace Burgeons fault.

Write it down

With blogs so ever popular these days, it serves as an easy way to get your opinion voiced if you're looking to be a professional journalist, ranter, or just enjoy writing to let family and friends know what's up. But if you're looking to be on the professional side, Rebecca Blood makes a couple good points of "journalistic ethics" you should follow while blogging. I also like her point of if people wanted to accurately cite some blogs as credible sources some day in the future, then this type of online conduct should be followed. "1. Be truthful. 2. Link your references. 3. Correct mistakes. 4. Don't rewrite, delete, but add to writings. 5. Disclose conflicts of interest. 6. Note questionable and biased sources. I think following a set of rules like these can be a huge part of the blogging future and whether or not blogs be seen as professional and accurate sources. Danny threw out a couple of good statistics in his presentation today, one with around 10% of internet users are bloggers. We could see that number increase if blogs are used as credible sources someday and people are required to subscribe to blogs that they need for academic articles / professional sources.

A little part of me dies on the inside everytime I admit to seeing this movie.

One of the arguments that Poster made that I was particularly fond of was that sometimes working within constraints (ie. “the system,” and yes I think the scare quotes are warranted in this case) is okay, productive, or even desirable. Poster writes that “the "postmodern" position need not be taken as a metaphysical assertion of a new age; that theorists are trapped within existing frameworks as much as they may be critical of them and wish not to be; that in the absence of a coherent alternative political program the best one can do is to examine phenomena such as the Internet in relation to new forms of the old democracy, while holding open the possibility that what might emerge might be something other than democracy in any shape that we may conceive it given our embeddedness in the present.” Sometimes leftist politics feels like it has become the Liberal Olympics – a test of who can stage the more radical revolution. It’s not that the rev is always bad and all but I think sometimes leftist politics forgets that sometimes you have to do your work while being “trapped within existing frameworks” and even resist and challenge those frameworks at the same time. It seems totally possible to me that a person challenge a system from within the confines of that system so long as they understand that they work within that system. I am much more troubled by the act of living in denial about how one is part of and sustains the systems which they challenge. Which reminds me of a scene in The Devil Wears Prada. I can’t find a clip of it online but I found the lines online here. The premise is that Fancy-pants designer Miranda hires not so fancy-pants Andy to be her assistant. Andy thinks (proudly) she is the antithesis of the fashion world. In this scene Miranda points out that despite her very intentional desire to resist the world of fashion, she is quite involved with it.

Miranda Priestly: This... 'stuff'? Oh... ok. I see, you think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select out, oh I don't know, that lumpy blue sweater, for instance, because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise, it's not lapis, it's actually cerulean. You're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar De La Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves St Laurent, wasn't it, who showed cerulean military jackets? And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of 8 different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic casual corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of stuff.

Say you’ll fix it, and get my vote

The thing about net neutrality is that now is our only chance. There is no chance in a grass roots movement creating legislation on "cable neutrality" where HBO and Showtime have the same cost per channel as Comedy Central and that crazy foreign channel nobody watches. The reason for this is our nation is one that focuses on profit for entrepreneurs more than it is the mystical noble entity so many flag toting red necks would like it to be Enough legal loopholes are in place to grantee that Mediacom and CFU will continue profiting on what was once thought to be "public air space"

Unfortunately, I can’t think of a single piece of legislation that has ever gained enough support to become a law before there was really a need for the law. To my knowledge, no ISP has started, or made plans to start charging for certain web sites. There are problems that ARE pressing at the moment, and are still not receiving enough attention for changes to happen—Global Climate Change, AIDS and poverty in Africa, K-Fed being the most fit to raise children. Lets use another future problem as an example, Social Security is arguably a bigger issue than Net Neutrality, but still politicians are constantly saying they will do something about it; then ignoring it completely.

The Berlinternet Wall

“Technologically determined effects derive from a broad set of assumptions in which what is technological is a configuration of materials that effect other materials and the relation between the technology and human beings is external, that is, where human beings are understood to manipulate the materials for ends that they impose upon the technology from a reconstituted position of subjectivity.”

I read this line a few times and it dawned on me that I am of not only of sub-theorist intelligence, I am probably working on primate level. As I eat a bowl of applesauce that is resting on the article that I read this from I think about my complete and utter inability to care about that which does not directly affect me. Net neutrality of course does. I worry about this at times. Global climate change? Yes, for sure. What have I myself done to improve the weight of my opinion on either? Next to or right on top of nothing. These ideas are pushed most effectively in my direction by content I have found or been introduced to while interneting. Like Germany the internet is something to alter the way people think as well as drive metal spikes into pieces of wood. Like college as well it has given me much to think about and much to hope for in my future. I’m not a revolutionary, there as well is no real need for a revolution. Practical and even thinking can keep a tool/sphere what it is, without tyrants being able destroy it’s “driving” ability to both keep things simple and push complex thoughts into simple minds.

Reality will be sweet!

First off, I would like to apologize in advance for what I think is going to be a non-sequitur of massive proportion. I just couldn't help myself. After doing all the readings I've got two different visions of the future in mind. One is more likely than the other. But the idea that one might be "ridiculous" isn't going to stop me from telling you about it.

The article about the Al Gore Video "Al Gore's Penguin Army" shows that lobbyists from cooperations and the government can pose as amateurs in order to use our own viral media against us. I thought this was interesting considering the emphasis on "reality" in today's pop culture landscape. So follow me on this one.... What if in several years governments and businesses become so incorporated into our "real media" that the reality as we know it becomes scripted and predictable? Suddenly reality isn't real anymore and all the plot points become easily recognizable to the point we always know what's going to happen. The entertainment consumers will probably get really mad and start looking for ways to counter it. From then on everyday we'll have to wake up and foil some sort of terrorist plot. I'll have to engage in a slow motion battle with ninjas every time leave the room. Whenever I drive somewhere I'll have to evade the police in a back alley somewhere. After a while even that will get boring and TV will have to compensate by thinking outside the box and implementing reality TV 2.0. We'll see shows where real people do real things....like foil terrorist plots, run from the police and fight ninjas in slow motion. This new reality will be our new outlet and our lives will return to the same mundane stuff they used to be.


OR......

The Government will continue to use our fear against us so we consent to more and more surveillance, and more and more regulation and violation of our civil liberties....seriously don't be afraid and you will take their power away.

It's true because i read it on (insert obscure blog)

I am a big fan of web blogs. They are a source for "uncensored, unmediated, (and) uncontrolled (information)." I can get a no holds barred approach to news. Sure you get some biased articles and rants but that is part of what to expect from an amateur writer. The trick is to weed out the bullshit from the substance.

Web blogs are often targeted towards a specific demographic; tech blogs towards young adults and teens, gossip sites towards younger girls, and video game blogs towards gamers specifically.
Many times they tell the reader exactly what they want to hear.

Rumors are all over blogs and that is partially what drives the. Big media won't print stories based entirely on rumor and that is where blogs gain a lot of appeal. It gives readers something to talk about and to speculate over.

Bloggers should be help accountable for bad information. Rarely do you see a posted correction regarding bad information online. Mostly it seems, that many of bloggers depend on their readers and response forums to sort out truth false information.

Many times at Best Buy people come in after reading online that a CD has been released only to find that we don't have it yet. Online sources for such information are incredibly unreliable. Buy people are often angry when we tell them that we don't have the product in question. They view their online source as literal fact and believe that we are wrong. This shows the level that some people trust online sources and blogs for information.

The problems that derive from trying to classify the internet and it's culture are not new nor are they exclusive to this one form of technology. What makes the internet so different? The government sees it's power and claims to use it carefully to prevent predators and the wonderful catch-all phrase of the word 'terrorism.' But in the age of Net neutrality, we have to ask what the government is really studying the internet for. Surveillance is not a new idea (as we discussed in class) and the idea of surveying it as a culture is quite limited. But, instead the issue is, using the internet as a way to elaborate that 4th branch of government that once was run only by journalists and now is able to extend to bloggers as a way to exemplify the original idea of the public sphere as a place to talk about events. However, as Nancy Fraser so well put, the original Habermas public sphere was a way for a select few people to discuss public events. The internet provides much more as a way for even counterpublics to divide into a greater mass of thought in articulating differing interests, values, and beliefs as well as providing a safe place for the members to gather. The government has long seen this action in reality but the use of the internet as a tool that can be used either way (http://www.bcpl.net/~rfrankli/hatedir.htm to see the more lesser side of the internet as a way to join and discuss issues.) Officials know this well.

The New and Improved Public Sphere

After fumbling through Poster's CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere, it all sort of came together. Poster says the age of public sphere as face to face talking is over. On this I would have to agree. Although there are still campaign rallies and debates the public sphere is now expanding to include other forms of communication amongst people. With the now wide-spread use of the Internet as a communication tool more and more people can express their opinions on-line. People that may have not had a voice that was heard before have a better chance to get their message out there. Post writes, "One may characterize postmodern or post Marxist democracy in Laclau's terms as one that opens new positions of speech, empowering previously excluded groups and enabling new aspects of social life to become part of the political process." These previously excluded groups include people of ethnicity, disabled persons, women in a patriarchal society, and etc. Now members of these groups can utilize these new methods of communications without being subject to discrimination. In the original public sphere communication was face to face and a speaker could be judged by their appearance or gender. This changes when you allow the public sphere to include the Internet. Now the main area of focus is on what is being discussed and typed on the screen. While the Internet does not completely eliminate discrimination of gender and race it allows it to become less focused on. I would agree with his idea that lack of representation may be a problem, being that the majority of Internet users and bloggers are Caucasian males. This idea could also tie in with the idea of aura that he mentions. I like that idea that aura is much harder to acquire in communities on the Internet. It seems like the little people can have as much say as anyone else. Things are not dominated by some lobbyist or person with lots of political power.
Net neutrality seems like something that every one of us should be fighting for. With the use of blogs, Internet communities, and viral media the fight can be broadened and reach more people who may not understand or know about it. The phone and cable companies are making enough profit from us already, and there is a chance that net neutrality can prevail. Internet users need to join together in the public sphere of the Internet and fight for net neutrality.

The Road Warriors of the internet

I do agree with the pro-net neutrality group, but on the issue of bloggers, I must say this: most of the bloggers aren't out to promote net neutrality. A lot of the bloggers don't think about ethics. They just post what they think, whatever the cost, in order to just be heard. Hasn't anyone thought about the bloggers that deliberately post false information on the blogs? And with a lot of internet users believing most of what they say as truth, then these type of bloggers have succeeded.

My analysis of the psyche of the blogger I can relate to the character Mad Max. He doesn't care about anything else other than the bettering of his current situation. I believe that most bloggers wouldn't care about higher pricing for the internet, they'll still pay to get that same feeling of importance. If most bloggers are everyday joes, then they wouldn't want any part in most debates, whether it affects them or not.

Speaking of nuetrality...

Mark Poster's CyberDemocracy makes mention of existing political theories including LacoueLabarthe's insight on the "limitations of a "left/right" spectrum of ideologies" as well as Laclau's view of a democracy "that opens new positions of speech, empowering previously excluded groups and enabling new aspects of social life to become part of the political process."
I believe that most bloggers, including advocates of Net Neutrality, seem to adopt the romanticized view of Laclau's democracy in which, through the internet, an individual's form of expression or standpoint can be heard loud and clear, even if it apposes those who wish to keep certain groups or ideals subjugated.

I guess my problem would be seeing a middle ground represented in the "left/right" spectrum previously mentioned. We are often taught to think of things in terms of black and white, this or that, and this is nothing new to the advent of the internet. But people seem to think that a wider range of "gray" tones are represented in user created media. I have found the opposite, in that bloggers and those alike, choose a particular polar standpoint on a situation. You either love Firefly or you are a troll who hates it. You viewed "An Inconvenient Truth" and support Gore's efforts, or you think he's a blabbering idiot trying to hypnotize followers. You want the net to be "free" of corporate control or you are a million-dollar mogul looking to capitalize. You are a Democrat or a Republican. I'm guessing that those "12 million American adults" who keep a blog generally represent some polar opposite, and if they don't, their arguments are not viewed as often. I'd like to see a broader representation of the material out there in cyberspace. Maybe something in a RGB, or better yet a CMYK scale.

Read Me Too

The guy who wrote the article on CyberDemocracy (who shall remain nameless on this blog, except in citing his quote) needs to rewrite it so it doesn't suck and resubmit it for my approval. I haven't seen shitty writing like that since... well... since my last post. But there was a question he asked in the section about Cyborg Politics that made me chuckle, considering he wrote it in 1995:

"Assuming the U.S. government and the corporations do not shape the Internet entirely in their own image and that places of cyberdemocracy remain and spread to larger and larger segments of the population, what will emerge as a postmodern politics?" -Mark Poster from CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere

Funny how that is just what has been on the cusp of happening. Nameless Dude made the assumption of Net Neutrality, probably thinking it preposterous that anything else would transpire, but here we are with the possibility that cyberdemocracy may not be so democratic anymore. Lenhart and Fox's introduction to their research brought up the contention that "blogging promises a democratization of voices that can now bypass the institutional gatekeepers of mainstream media." Hehehe..... not without Net Neutrality.

Perhaps Net Neutrality rests in the hands of viral memes aimed at promoting it to the masses and more narrowly to the decision making parties. It seems to me a very democratic process at work in the online public sphere.

Extending your reach with cyborg politics

In Poster's discussion of public sphere politics and the internet, he comments on the evaporation of face-to-face contact in exchange for the electronic faux-meetings of videoconferencing and bulletin board posts. Within these arenas are brought the inherent politics of the program as well - as an analogy of the controlled inhibitions of a face-to-face meeting, there is a referent to the social pressures of writing wildly on a medium "the whole world can see" (enter obscenity masking and other forms of moderator automation - Judith Perolle's notion of machine control). While somewhat valuable to point out the Internet as a "postmodern technology" (a conglomeration of related and unrelated materials unified by protocol and hierarchical structure), the concept of cyborg politics is even more pertinent. It implies not only an extension of the individual's abilities to interact, influence, and ultimately manipulate others through technological venues, but also the simplification and reduction of task sets, the skilled operation of these functions, and a holistic reliance on their existence. Without the cybernetic appendages of the individual, the politics would be useless. That can be said for both the politician and the "voter", meaning that both the promoter of ideas and the viewer of the concepts must be present on either end in order to experience the products, possibly being 'infected' by one another. Cyborg politics is largely about the maximization of node participation, with effective participation becoming transparent to the user - simply one more message within their daily umweldt; these connections feeling as natural as a handshake. With extension becomes unification by extension - webloggers included. By design, it is easy to escape the association of a blog ( make your site look professional, don't be personal, and don't use Blogger), as well as the freely associating your amateur journalism as a blog (send your ethically-viable posts everywhere you can, even when you are walled by a spam detector). There is a tricky balance in play that sacrifices credibility for increased viewership; appearances are [almost] everything.

The Power of Video

The article that stood out the most to me in this weeks readings was the article from the Wall Street Journal on video spoofing. The use the example of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." The article discusses Youtube and other internet video sites, but what interested me is the way they described how internet videos influence the watchers but in ways that they don't even realize. Sites like Youtube have millions of viewers each day and with spoofs like this one, people are watching videos that contain false information and this information influences the way in which people view certain matters, especially in politics and public policy. It is hard to say who creates these videos, but as the article goes on to explain, they are created to harden the views of those who already view certain issues negatively. I think there is something to be said for advertisements that pop up on search engines when people type in words related to a particular video. There is an art to micro-targeting your audience and making them pay attention to your message. Along with the other readings, internet videos are just one way to get a message out to a mass audience. Public spheres communicate information and points of view to many people and are quite affective. In Poster's article, videos were used to convince the Congress of health-care reform by purchasing ads. Not all of the information in public spheres is completely accurate, just as any opinion, but that voice without limitations can be just as much of a weakness as it is a strength.

Here's the link to the video if you haven't watched it: "Al Gore's Penguin Army"

“Damn The Man – Save the Internet!”

It’s quite obvious that the Internet has enhanced how we maintain communication while defying geographical barriers. And now The Man is attempting to either censor our communication or capitalize on it. This is not a new idea, and this appears to be a common theme/statement made in class. None of the ways that corporations or the government have been trying to manipulate this new medium is any different than how they reacted to any other new media in the recent past. Therefore, I’m going to make my post short and sweet:

Net neutrality is a necessity to refrain from instilling a chilling effect against the expression of and access for people across all classes, genders, and races.

The Internet has the potential to change politics and how people interact within the political realm: much like the telegraph/phone, radio, and television did. Moreover, the Internet is enhancing the globalization of the world taking communication beyond the aforementioned.

Blogging is on the same level as local access television or radio: the little guy being creative within the new medium. The chilling effect I mentioned could force people to stop using the Internet in this creative way.

Drop a tip in the jar on your way out of the store… Let’s keep the Internet out of corporate’s hands.

Bloggers and Ethical Fun

Rebecca Blood's ideas on Weblogs are quite interesting. We have talked a great deal about blogs bring about an immediate source of information, but contain a great deal of "junk" as well. This junk can be misinformation, trolls, and people just not taking ideas seriously on the Web. Blood points out how "the weblog's greatest strength — its uncensored, unmediated, uncontrolled voice — is also its greatest weakness." I really like this idea simply because I think that the more people are attracted and absorbed into Web Blogs, the less grip of reality they lose because information becomes jumbled around and the truth can be lost. I think this is what Blood is also referring to with this statement. Bloggers have no attachment or dependency to outside factors like the newspaper or television industries do. Advertisements and endorsements are not necessary for bloggers to maintain control over their respective web pages, so the material within those pages can pretty much be whatever they want it to be, regardless of Web ethics. It's like Blood says, "rumors spread because they are fun; corrections rarely gain much traction because they aren't as fun." This is the case with online bloggers who use their blogs as legitimate information sources; lies and misinformation can both be interpreted as facts, and no one may take the time to undo the errors that are causing a great deal of damage online.

internet politics for the rest of the world

We are focusing fairly specifically on experiences of North Americans in this course, but we should understand also how much more pressing good old fashioned government censorship remains for much of the world. Read the short piece from ArsTechnica here and also "Everyone's Guide to By-Passing Internet Censorship for Citizens Worldwide." We should be worried about net neutrality in the US--the likely results of losing it are frightening--but I would maintain that government censorship is significantly more dangerous than capitalist enterprises trying to maximize profits.

Post attempt #2

Throughout our lives, we have all been faced with the inevitable rise of prices. As college students, it would seem strange if tuition actually didn't continue to elevate even though, I thought, you could not put a price on education but whatever. The point is that we, as Americans and as consumers, should be well-versed in the swindling of money as well as the want for the maker to continue to trick us. Advertisements are large and flashy. This has been the ploy of a salesman for decades. Why on earth would it change now? We see the internet as an unbiased tool. As an instrument built exclusively with our needs in mind. This does not change the fact, however, that the internet is product for consumers. It is a place where one can purchase anything their hearts desire. How, then, can a person justify ignorance in not knowing that the prices change and that the accounts double? I am not saying that people are stupid but if they are not aware of the fact that plane prices get pushed up through online tracking or if they think too highly of the internet without doing research for the best deal then they are responsible for their own education. Sales have not changed. The only shift has been in the medium. If anything, people need to be more aware of this then in the past since the purchase of an online product is just a few simple numbers. Do the background work. Don't be lazy. And above all, don't assume that technology is the answer to everything. It remains the same.

Clicking on Capitalism

It's pretty common to see custom-tailored advertising on the web. As a web developer, I have known about this technology for a while, but never really paid attention to it. I first 'noticed' it, probably last year when I was checking my g-mail account and realized that the ads in the sidebar were almost verbatim to the e-mail that I received. It's not really that big of a deal to me. I just don't look at ads online; let alone click on them. I think that if advertisers want to create custom advertising, that's great. They can reach far more of a demographic then if they used generic advertising.

As far as 'Dynamic pricing'' goes, I don't really have much of a problem with it. Even if the price change is in your favor, it probably wont be that much of a change to make it worth writing home about. Also, if you are at a site and if you know that they use dynamic pricing, then you shouldn't buy from that site if you don't agree with it. On the other hand, if you are at a site that uses dynamic pricing, and don't know it, then that's ignorance. Ignorance is bliss. All you need to do is shop around and compare prices from different sites. If one site is cheaper than another, buy from them instead. So don't knock dynamic pricing. It's capitalism, and if the companies can bank off it, that's fantastic.

Whoa...eBay has everything...

One main article that really caught my attention this week was about Behavioral Targeting and price changes based on sales. This is in no way a new idea and has no relation to the Internet in general. Is this fair to the buyer? No. However, this does get the seller the highest selling price possible. In a way, I would compare this to eBay. If I go onto Amazon and start to sell a CD that I recorded for 5 dollars and it begins to take off would I raise the price?... Of course! But, if I add this CD to eBay and the demand rises the buyer sets their own purchase price for this item. This is the main difference between Amazon and other seller driven markets versus eBay and other comparative resources.

Another complaint against eBay is the idea of sniping. I can sympathize with those who have lost an auction in light of a successful "snipe". But, I have also been able to get that last "bullet" off with a clear "headshot". This clearly angered the losing bidder but I really needed that item. I suppose the connective point I am trying to make is that although there are some major criticisms against eBay, I believe it is successful when used in a correct and ethical manor. In a typically seller driven market, eBay gives the buyer a choice as to what price they wish to purchase that particular item. Yes, it may be relative to the other buyer's offer however that choice is still evident.

coolblue22 has been sniping me for years...

I found it very interesting in the reading how sites such as amazon.com track your buying tendencies and base your price on that information and it makes me wonder, do people set up certain computers and buy cheap shit on them so amazon thinks that this person isn't as well off so they get the better price? I know this may sound ridiculous but I'm quite positive that my grandmother would use this technique just to save a penny. I know this because on a daily basis while growing up we would hit at least 3 grocery stores a day in order to find "the deals"... and then go play bingo.
eBay has always been some what of a mystery to me... i try and sell good stuff and it never sells... then i try and sell crappy stuff for ultra cheap and it went for $150 (USD) who are these people paying that much for crap? However in the reading I did learn one hell of a lot about eBay and how it works. (i'm sure there is already) but there should be a manual very similar to that "Pez" paper that everyone should read before they go on eBay all willy nilly, if I knew then what I know now I probably would still be selling stuff on eBay. And interestingly enough when those women were talking about trolling and searching for misspelings in auction items to try and get them for cheap a very similar thing like that happened to me only i didn't get dicked over by troll(er)s and the item never sold.

Read Me

"So I'm sitting here eating Reduced Fat Nilla® Wafers (they contain four less grams of fat than the normal ones) and drinking AE® 2% Chocolate Milk from a half-gallon carton. I'm looking at my unruled Oxford® index card with notes from the readings, but all I'm thinking about is how these Nilla® Wafers are delicious. My card says something about data mining, price customization, behavioral targeting, and customer relationship management. I'm thinking it has something to do with online advertising... just a hunch. I'm wondering if that has anything to do with all the advertisements I've been getting for Bacon Strips Adhesive Bandages...."

I do believe data mining and the like are the future of online advertising, but it raises the question of privacy. It's interesting how on eBay® the knowledge of your activities can be a good thing, yet elsewhere on the web, companies data mining can be seen by customers as creepy. I certainly see it that way. Following my every move on the web for price customization gives me the heebie jeebies. But I suppose if it weren't for dynamic pricing, I'd have paid twice as much for my Second Life® boob job.


Love,
Dexter

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.