In one of my classes, T317- Children in the Media our teacher decided to give us extra credit if we agreed to participate in our AI’s research study. Desperately needing the extra points I decided to participate along with everyone else in the class. So our AI began his research study by passing out 3 papers that were stapled together. The first couple of questions we could answer on our own which were focused on attractiveness. We were to rate our answers on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being the least attractive and 10 being the most attractive. We were first asked to rate ourselves and then rate how attractive we think society is around us. At this point we were still not told anything about the study, just simply told to answer the first few questions.
Then there were 2 more questions with yes or no answers where the questions centered around video games and computer games. They asked if we were knowledgeable on the subject of Second Life and the game Everquest 2.
After we answered those questions our AI told us that we would be shown some images of avatars and we were to do the same rating as before, 1 for how unattractive they were to 10 being very attractive. He didn’t explain to us what avatars were. If I had not taken C151- Intro to Pop Culture I would have been just as clueless as everyone else in the room. Fortunately I do know a little bit about Second Life and avatars therefore I knew what to expect from the images. As the first image popped up the room filled with laughter. The avatar was a large coyote looking person with large red eyes, wings, and armor protecting his body. No one was expecting this image and no one knew anything about it. The next image was just as unusual, an over sized toad with over sized hands holding weapons. There were 24 images of avatars that either had wings, were holding weapons, or had some type of armor protecting their body. After all 24 avatars had been shown and rated our AI had us turn in our papers and didn’t say anything else concerning the study, that was it.
Being familiar with avatars, Second Life, and knowing a little bit about War of the Worlds I understood what the characters were and why they looked so deformed. I could also tell that no one else in the class understood anything that was going on. I think our AI took the wrong approach by not explaining anything about the game Everquest 2 or even what avatars are. He just seemed to throw this study at us and not explain anything about it. After doing a little research I found out that the virtual game Everquest 2 involves combat fighting, hence the avatars armor. This was never explained to us. People didn’t know that there was a reason that these avatars were dressed a certain way, or why their deformities are a part of the game, they were just suppose to either know it or not question it. People also in the class didn’t know anything about avatars making the study, in my opinion, pretty pointless. Why have people rate of all things attractiveness on characters that they know nothing about? What kind of research is that? I think if he would have explained a little bit more either about the game or the design of avatars his study would have been a little more beneficial and people would have been more educated on the subject. I also think after the research answers were collected he could have explained why he chose to rate these avatars on a scale of attractiveness. I left the study full of questions but in actuality I was probably one of the most knowledgeable students concerning the subject topic.
What’s up with that?
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Invasion of public space?
This week’s readings focused on Friendster, Facebook, and Myspace. “Identity Production in a Networked Culture: Why Youth Heart MySpace” describes reasons why young teenagers are attracted to Facebook, Friendster, Myspace, etc. One reason which I can relate to is because people who do not have cars or the ability to meet up with each other can hang out through the use of these programs. In addition, many teenagers lack uncontrolled space. This is because society today is much worse and it is unsafe to hang out in the woods or at certain locations without adult supervision. Thus, teenagers are expected by their parents to go home after school or to hang out at friend’s houses. In addition, teenagers who are involved in out of school activities, are still in controlled spaces in those activities because adults supervise and run these activities. So teenagers are in controlled, supervised settings all day in school, after school at their structured activities, and when they get home. Due to the majority of their time being spent in controlled settings, they don’t have time to just hang out with friends in unstructured, settings and places. This is why they use virtual, digital technologies to “hang out” in a setting similar to an unstructured private or public place, when they are in their controlled space at home. Teenagers use instant messaging to “hang out with friends” through a form of a private space, and Myspace and Facebook to “hang out with friends” through a form of a public space.
I used to use instant messaging a lot in middle school and in high school. I used to go to school from 8:15 until 2:55, and then would have either tennis, basketball, or softball practice (depending on the season) from 3:15-5:30. After these sport activities, I would go home, and then go back to school many times at night for different club meetings. Whether I was in school, under teacher’s control, at my sport practices, under my coach’s control, at home, under my parents control, or at club meeting, under teacher’s control, I didn’t have the ability to hang out with friends under uncontrolled settings during the weekdays. This is why at night, I would be able to talk to friends through instant message. We were able to talk about absolutely anything under our own privacy. It was as if we were hanging out. In high school I created MySpace and used this as a way to interact with my friends through a public place, posting pictures, comments, bulletins, etc. Later on, I stopped using my MySpace and created a Facebook, which I used for the same purpose.
My Uncle from California told me how he just reconnected with a distant cousin recently and went out for dinner with him in New York. I had never met his cousin before. However, two weeks ago I got a friend request from this cousin. I wasn’t sure if I should accept or deny the request. I didn’t want to be rude by denying it, or for him to think that I was trying to hide bad things on my Facebook by not accepting his friend request. I felt like my privacy would be invaded if I were to accept him as my friend. I have pictures of myself partying with friends and drinking. My parents know I drink. However, I don’t know this distant cousin and am not comfortable with him seeing pictures of me and my friends partying, seeing my wall posts, my information, or anything about my social life.
Facebook is my own public space for me and my friends to interact. It is not a space to interact with adults. I am in controlled settings in classes and when I am home. I use Facebook to interact freely with my friends, without having to worry about doing something that adults would not approve of. If that were the case, my Facbeook profile would be different. It wouldn’t be a true depiction of my identity or personality. It would be molded to be accepted by my family members, or authority.An article I found on The Boston Globe, describes how now employees, parents, and teachers are creating Facbeook accounts. When students get friend requests from their teachers or parents, or people get friend requests from their employers, they run into uncertainty as to whether they should accept or deny the friend request. Some feel like they have to accept it so they don’t create an awkwardness between the person pending the friend request. This is the same situation I was faced in when my distant cousin requested me as a friend on Facebook. However, I ultimately decided to deny the friend request. I may feel uneasy if I meet this cousin because I am not sure how he reacted to me denying his friend request. Sue Murphy, a manger in a National Human Resource Association trade group has a solution to avoid this problem and uncertainty that people encounter when faced with this situation. This problem is to create two Facebook accounts, one for socializing purposes and one for professional purposes. This is a good idea and is a win-win situation. Through one Facebook account, people can connect and interact with their friends freely, and through the other, they can connect with employers, employees, teachers, authority, etc.
Griefers
In Mutilated Furries, Flying Phalluses: Put the Blame on Griefers, the Sociopaths of the Virtual World, by Julian Dibbell, she discusses the term griefers. These people “take pleasure in shattering the world of play itself.” The weird thing is that griefers do not dislike playing online games, but they like making other players not enjoy playing them. Once they get one of their players to log off pissed off, their work is complete. In the 1990’s the term griefing was used to describe “antisocial behavior” in multiplayer games. Since then, griefing has advanced into an entire culture. Griefing has become an organization within its own structure. Griefers crash a sim with a penis. They target high profile events and utter obscenities. They constantly use bad language and hit people with malicious scripts causing people’s avatars to do things you don’t want it to do. Griefers put more and more objects in rooms so the computer has a harder time working, causing the computer to crash because it is unable to cope with the pressure in the room. This is hard for people to stop, similar to viruses.
I find it ridiculous that people spend their times trying to piss users off enough, until they log off. How can someone get satisfaction out of pissing someone off? Do they honestly have nothing better to do with their lives?
Curious about different griefing incidents, I found a really messed up article. This article described an incident in which griefers attacked a non-profit epilepsy foundation. People who have epilepsy have visual triggers that cause them to have seizures. On the epilepsy foundation website, griefers decided it would be a good idea to put up flashing GIFS and links with flashing patterns and lights. This caused people with epilepsy to have migraines and seizures. How could some people be so heartless and stupid as to do this? Griefers really stooped too low to do this. This is morally wrong and absolutely distgusting. People with epilepsy go on the epilepsy foundation website to meet other people with the same condition and to learn things that they can’t learn from doctors, hear experiences, and get support from others with epilepsy. Why would griefers attack such a serious website, as to make people not want to go on this website again to get help for their SERIOUS condition? That is really drawing the line. The internet is serious for health purposes. Are griefers trying to say that epilepsy is not a serious condition? Is giving people seizures and migraines really fun and games? This article really pissed me off. Attacking online game users is one thing, but attacking people who have epilepsy and nonprofit epilepsy foundations is another. Griefers have really crossed the line and there needs to be justice done.
Jake Baker Case
After we read “A Rape in Cyberspace” by Julian Dibbell, "Multi-User Dungeons and Alternate Identities," by Howard Rheingold, and “Tinysex and Gender Trouble," by Sheryl Turkle, I instantly thought of a court case that I heard about on the news years ago. This court case was about Jake Baker, a student from the University of Michigan who wrote a detailed fictional story about him raping, torturing, and killing one of his classmates. Someone got alarmed when they read this story and notified officials. Public officials then searched Baker’s dorm room and read his e-mails and files on the computer. In one email, Baker talked to another man about a plan to kidnap, rape, mutilate, humiliate, torture, and kill a female. The type of crime that was committed in this case was the communication involving any threat to injure or kidnap another person. If convicted, this person can be fined, and or imprisoned for up to 5 years. Baker was charged with violating this law. However, there were many debates as to whether the Government violated Baker’s right to the first amendment, freedom of speech, or not. Some argued that it was Baker’s right to the first amendment to write these stories, and they could not be considered a crime. Others believed that Baker intended to execute the actions in these stories. Baker’s defense was that he was just role playing and using these stories as a form of therapy instead of actually acting them out.
This court case reminded me of these readings because the student who Baker wrote about in his story was psychologically affected from this incident. The student who Baker wrote about in his story was psychologically affected from it. She needed to seek counseling after the case. Even though she wasn’t actually raped in real life, there was a description of her being raped on the internet. This is similar to “A Rape in Cyberspace” because even though Legba was not raped in real life, she read the description of her virtual character being raped. This made her really upset. Whether being raped in real life, or seeing the scenario on the computer about being raped, you still have thoughts in your mind telling you that it is real. The text on the computer tells your mind that it is real.
This court case also reminded me of "Multi-User Dungeons and Alternate Identities," and “Tinysex and Gender Trouble," because these articles describe how people create alternate identities to explore things that they cannot explore in real life. This was Jake Baker’s defense. He said that he was just role playing by writing this story and using it as a form of therapy to act out his anger through these stories and through role playing instead of in real life.
For more information about the court case, go to this link.
“The Cult of the Amateur”--Andrew Keen
In “The Cult of the Amateur,” Andrew Keen discusses how the noble amateur is causing a cultural revolution of the Web 2.0 and “threatens to turn our intellectual traditions and institutions upside down,” (Keen 36). According to Keen, an amateur is “a hobbyist, knowledgeable or otherwise, someone who does not make a living from his or her field of interest, a layperson, lacking credentials, a dabbler,” (Keen 36). Today, on the internet, amateurs instead of experts or professionals are creating information on the internet. Trusted and reliable references run by professionals are being replaced by references run by amateurs. Websites such as Wikipedia are being “run on democratic principles,” (Keen 36). Through this, everyone has a say and voice. This includes all amateurs who may have no idea what they are talking about.
On Wikipedia, anyone can edit or add any information they want. The problem with this is people use Wikipedia as a credible source for their information. If the information on Wikipedia is written by amateurs, it may be wrong because according to Keen, “The voice of a high school kid has equal value to that of an Ivy League scholar or a trained professional,” (42). This poses the question of how can a garbage man be considered credible in an argument with a trained chemist on a chemistry topic? The Web 2.0 aids in promoting these questions. By allowing amateurs to post what they want on the internet, we are challenging professionals who post truthful credible information. By challenging the professionals, the information posted by the amateurs threatens our professional institutions. According to Keen, the readers and internet users pay for this, they get “’ a state of intellectual enervation and depletion hardly to be distinguished from massive ignorance,’” (45). It makes it difficult for internet users to understand what is credible and reliable, and what is not. Many internet users assume that the information on the internet can be trusted, but it can not. With an increasing amount of information created by amateurs, “we will have no choice but to read everything with a skeptical eye,” (Keen 46).
Curious about the unreliable information found on the internet, I came across someone’s blog. This blog discusses many websites that have information that are unreliable. The question with this, however, is if this blog is reliable or not? How do readers know if this blog writer/amateur is writing credible information or not? The answer is, we do not know. This is the problem that the Web 2.0 is creating, which Andrew Keen discusses in “The Cult of the Amateur.” http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2004/10/quacksites-most-unreliable-health.html
"Reach out and Elect Someone"
Neil Postman’s “Reach Out and Elect Someone” discusses how commercials use emotional appeals and “not tests of truth.” Commercials deal with what is wrong about the buyer, not about what is right about a product. Commercials make it seem like all problems can be solved instantly. They sell solutions instead of presenting questions or problems. Political campaign commercials do the same thing. They deal with what is wrong with the nation, this ties into how the potential president could fix these problems.
This is shown through the “First Obama Presidential Ad.” In this commercial, is starts off by asking if we participate in politics of cynicism or politics of hope. It then says to replace fear with hope. This shows what is wrong with people in our nation-that they are fearful. It then presents a solution- replacing the fear with hope. It then deals with Obama’s ways to replace fear with hope, through giving everyone the opportunity to get jobs that pay living wages, that no one should be bankrupt when they get sick, that everyone should have access to decent healthcare, that every school should be adequately funded, and that every child should have the opportunity to learn ad go to college, even if they don’t have a lot of money. Obama then puts his arm around a smiling little girl and bends down so he is on her eye level. Obama positions himself on her eye level to show that he is not talking down to her and that he respects her. This scene lasts a few seconds on the screen to emphasize the emotional appeal to make the image stick in the audiences’ heads. The commercial then says how he believes every citizen should retire with dignity and respect. As this is being said, he is hugging a smiling senior citizen. This image is shown very slowly so it stays on the screen for a while. This shows the emotional appeal that sticks in the viewers’ heads. The commercial ends with the line, “We can make the right choices with challenges that face us.” “Believe Again” then flashes across the screen as Obama shakes hands with someone smiling. This shows the solution to challenges that people face. The solution is to make the right choice by electing Obama as President.
Clearly Obama cannot give everyone the opportunity to get jobs that pay living wages, or to give everyone the access to decent healthcare, or give everyone the opportunity to go to college, etc. He is just stating things that appeal to viewers. These are things that people would like, whether they are all realistic or not. If Obama became President, would everyones’ fear really be replaced with hope? Obviously not. He is just trying to appeal emotionally to the viewers, so these images stick in their heads when they are voting for President.
The link to this commercial is here:http://http://youtube.com/watch?v=UPy7RnHwvmA&feature=related
Virtual Sex
LINK IT: HERE
Sheryl Turkle introduced us to the concept of Virtual Sex in MUDs in the reading we had due for class on Monday. This whole concept is very interesting and intriguing in my mind. We have spent the past few classes discussing MUDs and the concept in general and some of the pros and cons of using them. We have just recently gotten into some very interesting questions regarding what actually goes on in these MUDs and in particular the concept of Virtual Sex. Turkle elaborates on this concept and defines it as, “consists of two or more players typing descriptions of physical actions, verbal statements, and emotional reactions for their characters.” What we discussed in class to a certain extent is how people that are playing as different genders engage in these activities with genders that in real life would be considered homosexual relationships. I mean you have women playing men, men playing women, people playing animals, and people playing as transsexuals.
All of these people are having sex with one another and most of the time is basing their entire online experiences around these sexual relationships. Turkle gives us an example of Tim and Janet, where Tim was having online sex with a virtual partner without his wife, Janet, knowing about it. Once Janet found out about this, Tim swore he would stop, but Janet is still wondering if his activities have ceased. This leads to the question that we have posted on the forums, discussed in class, and find here in the readings, “Are these sexual experiences in these virtual communities hurting marriages and real life relationships.”
Another example that Turkle gives is with Rudy and his girlfriend. While dating he found out that she was regularly having sex on the internet and it was usually with women. He broke off the relationship after this information was uncovered. A great quote that I think sums up this whole topic we are discussing is from Rudy, “We are not ready for the psychological confusion this technology can bring.” I believe this sums up the idea of virtual sex has done for relationships, marriages, etc. It seems to bring about a sense of confusion to all parties involved
The article that I have chosen to back up this point is from the website WebMD. The article is, Virtual Sex: Threat to Real Intimacy? The article discusses how the Internet is here to stay and how online sex is something that we will have to deal with. The first part of the article discusses where cheating on the internet is the same as cheating in real life. A quote from the article sums this up well, "It's hard to give a blanket definition of cheating, because it's based on the morals and beliefs of the marriage. But what matters is: does your spouse consider it cheating?" Many people have different ways at viewing this, but many believe that if you engage in virtual sex, it is just as unforgivable as the real thing. The go on to state the virtual sex is only going to continue to evolve and be something that is here to stay. The line to draw between virtual and real world is something that should be kept very separate. If this is the case then we will continue to evolve in terms of opportunities for virtual sex, but at the same time keep some of the moral backgrounds we have based many of our relationships and marriages on.
Virtual Communities
Howard Rheingold introduces the concept of computer-mediated communications (CMC) in Virtual Communities: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. CRM is basically all of the computers and the switched telecommunication networks that carry the information back and forth between people. The Net as we know and Rheingold tells us, is an informal term for the loosely interconnected computer networks that use CMC technology to link people around the world into public discussions. It is these discussions that are shaping the way in which our World functions on all levels. These discussions are carried on through the Net through a number of people and after enough time begin these people, using human feelings, form personal relationships in cyberspace.
Rheingold then goes in to discussion how important it is for these communities and discussion to continue into the future. He states that because of the potential influence on so many people’s beliefs and perceptions, the future of the Net is connected to the future of community, democracy, education, science, and intellectual life. This means that in order for the people’s voice to be heard we need to continue to foster these relationships and discussions online. The future of the Internet has become way too important for us to let specialists and special interest groups to influence how it is used in our daily lives. Rheingold then discusses that as the Internet becomes more and more popular and influential, the people need to be having a say in how funds are being applied to the further development of the Internet. With this in mind the people can change their communities, democracy, education, sciences and intellectual life all with the power of the Net. The voice of the people needs to be heard though. Rheingold then goes into stating that if we do not develop a vision and let our voice be heard, the future will be shaped for us by large commercial and political power holders.
I don’t think one specific example can make the point that Rheingold was trying to make. The peoples voices are all around us in different situations that we have all heard of in the past. I mean we are using YouTube to help influence political campaigns and debates. We are using blogs to discuss political activities that the major news networks pick up on. These blogs are also discussing issues that have to do with the internet. We have formed communities to foster our beliefs through Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and a variety of other sources. We find one another through these websites, form friendships, marriages, and form together to have a common voice on certain issues. We as ordinary citizens are shaping the way in which we use the internet and letting ourselves be heard as to how we want to continue to have the internet be used to let our voices be heard. If we were not to have had all of these different websites to facilitate this, the internet could very well be shaped by these large commercial companies into the future.
Rheingold then goes in to discussion how important it is for these communities and discussion to continue into the future. He states that because of the potential influence on so many people’s beliefs and perceptions, the future of the Net is connected to the future of community, democracy, education, science, and intellectual life. This means that in order for the people’s voice to be heard we need to continue to foster these relationships and discussions online. The future of the Internet has become way too important for us to let specialists and special interest groups to influence how it is used in our daily lives. Rheingold then discusses that as the Internet becomes more and more popular and influential, the people need to be having a say in how funds are being applied to the further development of the Internet. With this in mind the people can change their communities, democracy, education, sciences and intellectual life all with the power of the Net. The voice of the people needs to be heard though. Rheingold then goes into stating that if we do not develop a vision and let our voice be heard, the future will be shaped for us by large commercial and political power holders.
I don’t think one specific example can make the point that Rheingold was trying to make. The peoples voices are all around us in different situations that we have all heard of in the past. I mean we are using YouTube to help influence political campaigns and debates. We are using blogs to discuss political activities that the major news networks pick up on. These blogs are also discussing issues that have to do with the internet. We have formed communities to foster our beliefs through Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and a variety of other sources. We find one another through these websites, form friendships, marriages, and form together to have a common voice on certain issues. We as ordinary citizens are shaping the way in which we use the internet and letting ourselves be heard as to how we want to continue to have the internet be used to let our voices be heard. If we were not to have had all of these different websites to facilitate this, the internet could very well be shaped by these large commercial companies into the future.
Fake Wikipedia
In class on Monday we were presented with the reading by Andrew Keen from his book, The Cult of the Amateur. One concept in particular that was talked about in class and in this book was that of a noble amateur and a concept of something known as the Web 2.0. Keen believes that these noble amateurs and the use of the Web 2.0 “threaten to turn our intellectual traditions and institutions upside down.”
He defines and amateur as a hobbyists, knowledgeable or otherwise, someone who does not make a living from his or her field of interest, a layperson, lacking credentials, a dabbler. He states that these amateurs on the internet are being praised for being amateurs and not because of their expertise. The Web 2.0 is also a concept that was discussed heavily in class. The Web 2.0 is web based meaning that it runs completely on the web. Such as Outlook mail, facebook, java applets or Half Life. IT is also built completely on social networking and collaborative content creation. Overall it can be said that the Web 2.0 is one of the biggest marketing gimmicks out there. Keen argues that this is what is ruining America are these amateurs out there that are acting like professionals and taking away from what the true essence of a professional is. This can be seen in the example with Wikipedia and the user “Essjay.” He claimed to be a tenured professor of theology with four academic degrees, but in reality was a 24 year old high school graduate with no academic background. There has been a lot of skepticism by the public and Keen makes this known that posts on Wikipedia cannot be relied upon because of these amateurs that are able to post anything they want.
An example of this can be seen with the news article I have selected where someone out there pulled a similar stunt compared to Essjay and Wikipedia. While Essjay was posting frequently on Wikipedia a similar incident happened in 2005. A man made a fake post linking John Seigenthaler, a journalist, to the assassination of JFK. The post was made by Brian Chase as joke with a fellow co-worker. After Seigenthaler caught word of this outlandish post of the internet he went looking for the man who did it. Brian eventually confessed to the incident and actually resigned from his job that he was currently at. Brian claimed that he did not realize that Wikipedia was used as a serious resource and for Seigenthaler a close friend of the Kennedy family, this was something all too serious. Thus, pulling into question the same points that Keen was making regards to these amateurs being able to post anything on the website. Seigenthaler actually blasted Wikipedia and its credibility in an article in the USA Today. He does not plan on taking criminal actions against Brian, and is not supporting more regulations on the internet, but he said, “Wikipedia is inviting it by its allowing irresponsible vandals to write anything they want about anybody." This is exactly the kind of situations that Keen is talking about and this example goes right along with the act of amateurs being able to edit Wikipedia at their own will.
Comic Book Guy - Jenkins
In Henry Jenkins article, “Get a Life!”: Fans, Poachers, Nomads, he refers to the concept of what a fan is. He first starts in by discussing what a fan started out as and a definition as literally, “Of or belonging to the temple, a temple servant, a devotee.” He comments that these fans are usually and frequently characterized as de-gendered, asexual or impotent. Jenkins also states that a fan will always remain a “fanatic” or false worshiper, whose interest are fundamentally alien to the realm of “normal” cultural experience and whose mentality is dangerously out of touch with reality. Basically his article is talking about how there are fans of say baseball and sports and then you have “fanatics” for such things as Star Trek, Star Wars or even following actors and actresses. These fans go above and beyond just watching the movies and shows, they try to become a character or live their lives entirely based upon these shows they are “fans” of. This even goes as far as Jenkins notes on page 13 of his article, “news reports frequently characterize fans as psychopaths whose frustrated fantasies of intimate relationships with starts or unsatisfied desires to achieve their own stardom take violent and antisocial forms.” This further reiterates the point that some of these “fans” go above and beyond, simply viewing or watching. These fans are not in touch with reality and as stated are often portrayed as being outcasts and not part of normal society.
The way of these people being portrayed as outcasts and cut off from society as social misfits can be seen on a very well known animated series; The Simpsons. This show, as many of you probably watch, features a character by the name of Comic Book Guy. Jenkins talks about how we classify these fans and this is no exception. Comic Book Guy is a stereotypical comic store owner and fanatic of comics. He is a bigger guy, hair in a pony-tail, a slob, no friends, and above all else a true comic fan. They regularly show him attending conventions where he is asking questions about an episode or comic book where he states the specific details about the particular book or episode, then wants to know even more about it. Usually the person that was staring in the feature has no clue what he is even talking about (showing how obsessed he actually is). This is showing that he is going above and beyond just viewing a particular episode or reading a comic book, he wants to be a part of it and lives his life by it. Bart and Millhouse regularly go into the shop and Comic Book Guy is very protective of his comics and they usually make fun of him for his appearance and “freak-like” nature. Jenkins talks about how fanatics are usually characterized as psychopaths take on this anti-social nature. This is no different when it comes to Comic Book Guy as he is probably the most anti-social character featured on the show. It is interesting how we see these types of fanatics in the media or in a YouTube video and in all places, an animated series. Comic Book Guy might not be a real person, but the creators have portrayed him exactly how Jenkins talks about how a fanatic is portrayed in real life.
Jenkins
Link to the article discussed further into the blog post: HERE
Henry Jenkins discusses in Photoshop for Democracy on page 317 of the readings the concept of spin in politics. This concept basically means that all of the spokespersons for that particular campaign are using a set of “talking points” that are used by everyone to interpret an event or topic. Everyone knows the talking points for the particular event and will continue to use the same points to talk about the party. Whether you are a party member on the Anderson Coopers show or giving an appearance on David Letterman, everyone knows exactly what should be talked about with each particular event or topic. In the past the public has not been able to pick up on this spin in the political parties, but now the public is becoming more aware of these methods of politics. Jenkins talks about how Kerry made an announcement to the supporters through email about his running mate. This turned around and had the Republicans come out with talking points about Edwards that gave details about his political career, voting record in the Senate and his comments on the political trail. This was all done to make sure that when Republican Party members were asked about Kerry or Edwards they would all know exactly what to say (good or bad). This has also allowed the uninformed public to pick up on these talking points to make sure they know what to talk about when they are having dinner with friends or a conversation on the bus. It creates a stir and gets everyone involved, once again whether it is good or bad. This goes even deeper because then bloggers start using the talking points or a concerned voter calling into a show about a candidate or even on our best friend Twitter. To Kerry he thought that this notification of his running mate would be a great idea, but it turned out only to hurt him and tarnish his running mate because the GOP came right back with these talking points to ensure that the public knew of Edwards before Kerry or Edwards could even get to the public. I say well played by the Republican Party, just as Jenkins has mentioned about spin, the public knows what it is now, but this does not stop them from using these talking points to help inform themselves about politics. While Kerry was hoping to gain the edge, he only tarnished himself. This whole concept of political spin and talking points used by parties can be seen in the article that has been linked to above. This follows exactly what Jenkins is talking about with how spin is used by the parties to develop talking points and then the public just uses these points and run with them, only thinking that this is what to believe. Senator Clinton made the comment before the Iowa caucuses in January 2008, “I’m in and I’m in to win.” Then, the following comment was made before the start of the caucuses, “As the presidential candidates engage in furious pre-caucus spin, one of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent Iowa supporters said Wednesday that she’s already accomplished what she needs to in Iowa, and can declare success even if she finishes in third place.” This just goes to show how the comment made by Hilary before the Iowa caucuses was made to state that she was in and in to win. Then however right before the actual caucuses were held a supporter then stated that even if she came in third she would still win. A win nonetheless? This article might be short but it is giving an example of how spin is used and these “talking points” are followed by the supporters. She was in to win, but even if she finished third she would win either way. The party wants you to believe that whatever they say, and in this case it is about winning, and whatever the outcome is, it will be spun to make it out their way. Jenkins touched on this with the Kerry example. Even though he tried to come out with a way to gain advantages by emailing about his running mate the GOP party used this to gain political spin about the candidate before Kerry knew what hit him. Turned out it did not work for Kerry. It was turned around and used by the Republicans as a way to gain an upper hand. This is just the same as Clinton did by proclaiming she was a winner whatever the outcome. So down the road even if she did come in third she is still a winner. Do we really want to have a candidate that is always spinning and trying to make the public believe what they want us to believe, as the article states? We need to know when an event is happening that the facts we receive are the truth and that the public is educated on this event and the real truth.Thursday, April 24, 2008
Identity in Virtual Worlds
http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2008/03/most-online-wor.html(I'll explain this link later in my blog)
Turkle wrote in her article Tinysex and Gender Trouble about identity in the virtual world. After our class discussion on Monday, I got to thinking about people's identities in virtual worlds and why some choose to be animals or someone of the opposite gender. All I could come up with is that it is a way for them to be someone that they are not without making any drastic change (like a sex change operation, for example).In relation to gender-swapping, Turkle talks about this in her article and claims that "gender-swapping is an opportunity to explore conflicts raised by one's biological gender." This makes prefect sense to me because you would never know what it is like to be a guy (if you're a girl) unless you choose to gender-swap or get an operation of some sort. I know when I was in middle school, I talked on AIM all the time and when my friends weren't on or I was really bored, I would IM random people and pretend I was older or even a guy. This may sound strange but I did it because I got away with it and just made friends with people who thought I was really a guy, they had no reason to suspect otherwise. I did this for about a month and became good friends with these two guys until I accidentally made a comment about being a girl and got caught. But the point is, it made me experience something that I wouldn't normally feel in real life. In class, we talked about how Turkle states that a "fake" identity allows you to express unexplored facets that you are unable to manifest in real life. This is exactly what I was doing when I pretended to be a guy. The link above shows a study done in order to find how many gamers gender swap and they found that 70% of women gender swap and 54% of men do. It explains different reasons as to why they gender swap but they can all be grouped into the category of exploring facets that you can't in real life (being outgoing was an example from the study). In conclusion, Turkle made valid points about virtual identities that seem to make sense and I agree with doing it for exploration.
Turkle wrote in her article Tinysex and Gender Trouble about identity in the virtual world. After our class discussion on Monday, I got to thinking about people's identities in virtual worlds and why some choose to be animals or someone of the opposite gender. All I could come up with is that it is a way for them to be someone that they are not without making any drastic change (like a sex change operation, for example).In relation to gender-swapping, Turkle talks about this in her article and claims that "gender-swapping is an opportunity to explore conflicts raised by one's biological gender." This makes prefect sense to me because you would never know what it is like to be a guy (if you're a girl) unless you choose to gender-swap or get an operation of some sort. I know when I was in middle school, I talked on AIM all the time and when my friends weren't on or I was really bored, I would IM random people and pretend I was older or even a guy. This may sound strange but I did it because I got away with it and just made friends with people who thought I was really a guy, they had no reason to suspect otherwise. I did this for about a month and became good friends with these two guys until I accidentally made a comment about being a girl and got caught. But the point is, it made me experience something that I wouldn't normally feel in real life. In class, we talked about how Turkle states that a "fake" identity allows you to express unexplored facets that you are unable to manifest in real life. This is exactly what I was doing when I pretended to be a guy. The link above shows a study done in order to find how many gamers gender swap and they found that 70% of women gender swap and 54% of men do. It explains different reasons as to why they gender swap but they can all be grouped into the category of exploring facets that you can't in real life (being outgoing was an example from the study). In conclusion, Turkle made valid points about virtual identities that seem to make sense and I agree with doing it for exploration.
The Virtual Community
Rheingold's article The Virtual Community brought up a valid point that I had never thought of before. Rheingold talks about virtual communities in that they are used by some as a form of psychotherapy. He claims that many virtual community users spend hours upon hours pretending to be someone they're not which can be a way to get things off their chest or live someone else's life. Rheingold didn't go too much into detail about this as a form of psychotherapy but it made me think of the way I use Facebook. We discussed in class why some people use virtual communities and some freshmen stated that they used it before coming to IU to meet their future roommates or other people on their dorm floors. As a senior, I didn't know about Facebook until I got to IU and even then it wasn't as popular as it is now. To begin with, I was against Facebook because I didn't see the point in joining. However, over the years I have found that if I don't have anything else to do I get on Facebook and look at pictures of old friends, talk to recent friends or even rearrange my profile. It sounds kinda lame but, in a way, I use it as a form of psychotherapy. It makes me feel good to get online and communicate with friends of mine. Plus, looking at friends' pictures from our recent SB activities is always fun because you get to see where everyone went and how much fun they had. It is such a nice and relaxing (and convenient) way to share pictures and information to people that may go to a different school or live in a different state. Rheingold makes a good point that we use virtual communities this way and we may not even be aware of the ways in which we use this technology. I really hadn't ever thought of it in that way but after reading this article, it opened my eyes to a different way of thinking.
This, I also want to add, helps me appreciate and respect other people's taste and opinions of other virtual communities like Second Life. We discussed in class that people get on to talk to other friends and share problems with them. It seems odd to those of us who don't do that, but ask yourself this: is it really all that different than what I'm doing with Facebook? Yes, I've met these people in person, but some of my friends I met only once. If I meet someone at a party and they befriend me, does that count as really knowing them? For example, one guy met me at a party when I was visiting a friend at Purdue and I haven't seen him since. He has sent me a couple of messages and posts comments on my wall and on some pictures. As creepy as that sounds, we're actually pretty good 'virtual friends', just not 'personal interaction friends.' So, as I asked before, how different are Second Life and Facebook?
This, I also want to add, helps me appreciate and respect other people's taste and opinions of other virtual communities like Second Life. We discussed in class that people get on to talk to other friends and share problems with them. It seems odd to those of us who don't do that, but ask yourself this: is it really all that different than what I'm doing with Facebook? Yes, I've met these people in person, but some of my friends I met only once. If I meet someone at a party and they befriend me, does that count as really knowing them? For example, one guy met me at a party when I was visiting a friend at Purdue and I haven't seen him since. He has sent me a couple of messages and posts comments on my wall and on some pictures. As creepy as that sounds, we're actually pretty good 'virtual friends', just not 'personal interaction friends.' So, as I asked before, how different are Second Life and Facebook?
Disagreement with Postman
Ok so we've just read Neil Postman's articles and I agreed with mostly everything he said until I came across an article this morning. Postman's article The Age of Show Business says that "every technology has an inherent bias. It has within its physical form a predisposition toward being used in certain ways and not others" (pg. 13). I, at first, pretty much agreed with that statement. I mean, a phone is used to make phone calls to communicate to one another. A computer is used for checking emails and surfing the web, etc. He even used the example about a TV being used as a bookshelf. He claims that a TV is used for entertainment and that is all. A TV shouldn't be used for anything else. I thought I agreed with him.
However, I came across a story about a double amputee who can now walk again thanks to the help of prosthetic legs made with Bluetooth technology (which is known for their hands-free cell phones- they use the little ear piece that you don't notice and think people are talking to themselves, haha). Anyway, according to the article, Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua Bleill uses "computer chips in each leg that send signals to motors in the artificial joints so the knees and ankles move in a coordinated fashion. Each set of prosthetics have Bluetooth receivers strapped to the ankle area. The Bluetooth device on each leg tells the other leg what it's doing, how it's moving, whether walking, standing or climbing steps, for example." THAT IS CRAZY! Who would have thought that technology originally created for a more convenient way to use a cell phone and multi task would be helpful in the use of prosthetics?
I would think that Neil Postman would be blown away. What would he say about this? Doesn't think contradict what he is saying about technology being inherently bias? Maybe I'm not fully understanding what he is saying, but it seems to me that he is wrong. I now disagree with him. Even technology such as an iPod originally was inherently bias but now you can watch movie clips and even surf the web. That wasn't iPod's original usage. In this case of the prosthetics, are we to assume this Bluetooth technology as a medium, instead of a technology? If we did that then is Postman still correct in that technology is inherently bias but not a particular medium? I would like to hear some opinions because I'm a bit confused. I'm amazed that Bluetooth can create new technology like this in the first place! Here is the link to the story if you want to check it out!http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/01/25/bluetooth.legs/
However, I came across a story about a double amputee who can now walk again thanks to the help of prosthetic legs made with Bluetooth technology (which is known for their hands-free cell phones- they use the little ear piece that you don't notice and think people are talking to themselves, haha). Anyway, according to the article, Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua Bleill uses "computer chips in each leg that send signals to motors in the artificial joints so the knees and ankles move in a coordinated fashion. Each set of prosthetics have Bluetooth receivers strapped to the ankle area. The Bluetooth device on each leg tells the other leg what it's doing, how it's moving, whether walking, standing or climbing steps, for example." THAT IS CRAZY! Who would have thought that technology originally created for a more convenient way to use a cell phone and multi task would be helpful in the use of prosthetics?
I would think that Neil Postman would be blown away. What would he say about this? Doesn't think contradict what he is saying about technology being inherently bias? Maybe I'm not fully understanding what he is saying, but it seems to me that he is wrong. I now disagree with him. Even technology such as an iPod originally was inherently bias but now you can watch movie clips and even surf the web. That wasn't iPod's original usage. In this case of the prosthetics, are we to assume this Bluetooth technology as a medium, instead of a technology? If we did that then is Postman still correct in that technology is inherently bias but not a particular medium? I would like to hear some opinions because I'm a bit confused. I'm amazed that Bluetooth can create new technology like this in the first place! Here is the link to the story if you want to check it out!http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/01/25/bluetooth.legs/
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
"You there have you ever kissed a girl?"
A “Trekkie” is a term used to describe a person who is a fan of the Star Trek fictional universe. Their world revolves around Star Trek, and in some cases, people live their lives through Star Trek characters. Star Trek is much more than just a television show; it is a way of life for many people.
In the article, “Get a Life!” by Henry Jenkins, fans, poachers, and nomads are all discussed, and “Trekkies” are the prime example given. In his article, Jenkins discusses the fan culture and the affect the media has upon them. The article opens up with an example from Saturday Night Live, when William Shatner (Captain James T. Kirk) appears on the show and tells “Trekkies” to get a life.
This clip does a fantastic job of characterizing the stereotypical “Trekkie”. In the article, Jenkins discusses the stereotypes about these types of fans. This topic is something that has had much class time devoted to it, and is a good topic of discussion. Personally, I think that the stereotypes are somewhat true, and that they are brainless consumers. They are brainless consumers, but they are the basis for the success of many programs (Star Wars, Harry Potter, X-men, Star Trek, etc.). As Jenkins notes, they are beneficial to society and to the programs to which they are devoted.They are considered brainless consumers because they will buy anything associated with the program. Many fans devote the majority of their income to Star Trek memorabilia. Because of this devotion, series like the ones exampled above can last for many years.
Ironically, as much as Shatner wants to tell the “Trekkies” to get a life, they are the ones who are paying his paycheck. The “Trekkies” may not be able to separate fantasy from reality, but they have a great impact on the economy and help shows like Star Trek stay afloat.
Blogging from Las Vegas (Extra Credit Blog Post)
So...I missed Wednesday's class and quiz to go to Las Vegas to attend the NAB show! This was such an incredible experience because I had the opportunity to learn a lot about the media industry and network with industry professionals.
On Wednesday, I arrived in Vegas at 8am (Vegas time) and went straight to the Las Vegas convention center. I was incredibly overwhelmed by the size of the convention. It was comprised of 3 large halls (about the size of 2 football fields long each). Each hall was divided into specific areas such as media distribution, audio, production equipment, etc. I was able to check out the coolest gadgets coming out in the next year from Adobe, Sony, Panasonic, Cannon, and many others. It was a very hands on experience because I was able to walk up and touch everything I wanted to.
I was in the minority here (young college student) compared to the thousands of industry professionals. They attended the event for their business to check out new equipment and make purchases for their company. I witnessed a lot of schmoozing going on. It was almost creepy because most exhibits have private rooms hidden for deal making.
I also got to attend a couple Apple training labs and learned how to use Apple Motion, Color, and Soundtrack Pro. There were panels during the day and I attended one on the topic of making small budget movies look like they were on a big budget. I learned a lot about production and post skills at the session.
On Thursday, I attended an awards ceremony where I received my scholarship for all my hard work in school, summer internships and campus activities. It was a great honor to receive an award/scholarship in front of hundreds of industry professionals. After the ceremony, several people walked up to me and congratulated me on my accomplishments. They also offered me their business card. I will definitely need to keep in touch with them.
During both evenings I checked out as many hotels as I could. I stayed at the MGM and really enjoyed the hotel. The nicest overall though, I would say is the Venetian. I also saw the Cirque du Soleil show: Ka. It was amazing! Lots of flying, stunts, pyro, and crazyness.
All in all, it was a great trip. I really felt like a business man going on a business trip and it was altogether a great experience. I will definitely attend the NAB show in the future when I am working professionally in the industry. Hopefully, that will not be the next time I return to Vegas. I would love to come back as soon as possible!
On Wednesday, I arrived in Vegas at 8am (Vegas time) and went straight to the Las Vegas convention center. I was incredibly overwhelmed by the size of the convention. It was comprised of 3 large halls (about the size of 2 football fields long each). Each hall was divided into specific areas such as media distribution, audio, production equipment, etc. I was able to check out the coolest gadgets coming out in the next year from Adobe, Sony, Panasonic, Cannon, and many others. It was a very hands on experience because I was able to walk up and touch everything I wanted to.
I was in the minority here (young college student) compared to the thousands of industry professionals. They attended the event for their business to check out new equipment and make purchases for their company. I witnessed a lot of schmoozing going on. It was almost creepy because most exhibits have private rooms hidden for deal making.
I also got to attend a couple Apple training labs and learned how to use Apple Motion, Color, and Soundtrack Pro. There were panels during the day and I attended one on the topic of making small budget movies look like they were on a big budget. I learned a lot about production and post skills at the session.
On Thursday, I attended an awards ceremony where I received my scholarship for all my hard work in school, summer internships and campus activities. It was a great honor to receive an award/scholarship in front of hundreds of industry professionals. After the ceremony, several people walked up to me and congratulated me on my accomplishments. They also offered me their business card. I will definitely need to keep in touch with them.
During both evenings I checked out as many hotels as I could. I stayed at the MGM and really enjoyed the hotel. The nicest overall though, I would say is the Venetian. I also saw the Cirque du Soleil show: Ka. It was amazing! Lots of flying, stunts, pyro, and crazyness.
All in all, it was a great trip. I really felt like a business man going on a business trip and it was altogether a great experience. I will definitely attend the NAB show in the future when I am working professionally in the industry. Hopefully, that will not be the next time I return to Vegas. I would love to come back as soon as possible!
Andrew Keen's "The Noble Amateur" - Citizen Journalists vs. Real Journalists
Our first reading this week was “The Noble Amateur” by Andrew Keen. It was a very interesting reading because it offered a particular viewpoint on how the Internet is damaging our culture. Keen’s main argument in this article is that amateur content creators are bringing down our society by providing misinformation to the masses through sites such as Wikipedia and blogging. He compares journalism to citizen journalism. Citizen journalists are “people who are not employed by a news organization but perform a similar function” to real, educated professional journalists. However, Keen also mentions that citizen journalists “aren’t held accountable for their work in the way real reporters are.” He says here that bloggers and Wikipedia editors can get away with the posting of misinformation while real journalists on television and in newspapers could get fired or put in jail.
A story from my internship at a local news station last summer reminds me of Keen’s statement above. One of the freelance reporters decided to cover a story on a man who was recently arrested on the popular show “To Catch a Predator.” The reporter decided it would be an interesting story if he contacted the man’s neighbors to see how they felt about living nearby to an alleged sex offender. The man arrested had a generic name and the reporter decided to pick a name out of the phonebook in the designated town. It turns out that the reporter chose the wrong man that was arrested and wrongfully accused the man of being a sex offender in his story. This report somehow managed to get on the air because this station was small, and during the weekend the fact-checkers were understaffed. The wrongfully accused man sued the news station for false accusations and the reporter was instantly fired and never heard from again.
It is scary to see how fast a career can disappear before your eyes. This story shows that real journalists are held accountable for their work. If a citizen journalist had decided to do this same story and post it on his blog, I highly doubt the man would have been able to sue the blogger. This ties into Keen’s statement that citizen journalists can get away with a lot more than real journalists when it comes to reporting misinformation.
A story from my internship at a local news station last summer reminds me of Keen’s statement above. One of the freelance reporters decided to cover a story on a man who was recently arrested on the popular show “To Catch a Predator.” The reporter decided it would be an interesting story if he contacted the man’s neighbors to see how they felt about living nearby to an alleged sex offender. The man arrested had a generic name and the reporter decided to pick a name out of the phonebook in the designated town. It turns out that the reporter chose the wrong man that was arrested and wrongfully accused the man of being a sex offender in his story. This report somehow managed to get on the air because this station was small, and during the weekend the fact-checkers were understaffed. The wrongfully accused man sued the news station for false accusations and the reporter was instantly fired and never heard from again.
It is scary to see how fast a career can disappear before your eyes. This story shows that real journalists are held accountable for their work. If a citizen journalist had decided to do this same story and post it on his blog, I highly doubt the man would have been able to sue the blogger. This ties into Keen’s statement that citizen journalists can get away with a lot more than real journalists when it comes to reporting misinformation.
Couldn't think of a catchy title for this one...
danah boyd breaks down Friendship on the social networking sites MySpace and Friendster. While I don’t use either—in fact I’ve never even heard of Friendster—most, if not all, of her list of the 13 most common reasons for Friendship apply to Facebook. There is certainly a difference between real life friends and Facebook friends. One might have 15-20 friends that they might actually call up on the phone and initiate plans with. Online, however, one might have those same 15-20 friends, plus an additional, say, 600 friends.
Me, personally, I have 554 Facebook friends as of now, with at least two pending friend requests; 204 of those belonging to the Indiana University network. I just looked up one girl I’m friends with who has 1,077 friends, 672 from IU. Very few people are limiting their friend lists to just people they know very well, but of my 204 IU friends, I’m sure that 95% of those I would, at minimum, say hello to or start a conversation with should I cross paths with them. For me, I don’t just add everyone I meet. I’m not “that guy” who meets someone and 20 minutes later shoots them a friend request. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of people who I’m not more than acquaintances with, but judging by my 204 versus the 672, I also don’t get too carried away.
So who are my friends? Actual friends, as mentioned above, my two siblings and some cousins, as well as acquaintances. There are lots of people from my high school and IU that would fall under an “in-between” type: not great “actual” friends, but definitely more than acquaintances. I am also friends with some people I may have worked with, and friends from my many years playing tennis and attending religious school. There is also one kid, for example, that was one of my sports editors at the Indiana Daily Student. I didn’t know him that well, plus he graduated, so the chances of me ever talking to him again are slim to none. I don’t think that I will actually go as far as defriending him, however, but you never know haha.
The biggest category of people I have yet to mention are athletes, which is an interesting category. Many people like to add their favorite college basketball and football players because it is either cool to be “friends” with them, or simply so they can see their photographs and see what other things they may be up to. I am from Cincinnati and I’m an absolutely huge Bearcats fan. Of my 53 University of Cincinnati Facebook friends, 17 of them are current or former UC basketball or football players (plus the UC Bearcat mascot who sends out sporting event invites which is pretty cool). I’ve only met a couple of them, but I don’t know them personally. Likewise, I am “friends” with most of IU’s basketball players from my two years here on campus, plus a handful of football players. Once again, I don’t know them, but it is still cool to be friends with them. Just ask the majority of (suspended) IU quarterback Kellen Lewis’ 1,907 IU friends. Or most of Jordan Crawford’s 867 IU Facebook friends.
There are some exceptions for me, however, being the former Men’s Tennis reporter and current basketball recruiting reporter for the IDS. I knew all of last year’s and most of this year’s tennis squad from the numerous interviews I had with them (not to mention I personally knew one player from home), so adding some of them wasn’t too random. I have also added 10 or more high school basketball stars that have considered or are currently looking at IU. It is often the best way of setting up a potential phone interview for the ones that have Facebook, and a few instances it has actually worked. In fact, the No. 9-ranked junior in high school is very interested in coming to IU and I just shot him a request this afternoon before coming to the library to work on this, among other assignments.
Basically, I have 554 Facebook friends to date, and with the exception of most of the athletes, they are each friends of mine to varying degrees--even if it is a friend of a friend who I have never met in person. The significance of that is not that I am really cool or popular—you make the call on that one—but rather that I have this huge online network of people whom I have access to. Whether it is making plans with one of them, asking a homework question, requesting an interview, or simply viewing one’s recently posted photographs, I am connected to all of these people. Sure, many of the athletes have random kids like me on a limited profile, but that does not mean they aren’t checking on their Facebook friends either. In fact, Armon Bassett (currently kicked off the IU basketball team) saw me last November or December and said, “aren’t you one of my Facebook friends?” Yes, and as of now, so are 1,746 others on his prep school network’s account (I never bothered requesting him on his IU account). Friends, or just “friends,” they’re basically all the same to me on Facebook.
Me, personally, I have 554 Facebook friends as of now, with at least two pending friend requests; 204 of those belonging to the Indiana University network. I just looked up one girl I’m friends with who has 1,077 friends, 672 from IU. Very few people are limiting their friend lists to just people they know very well, but of my 204 IU friends, I’m sure that 95% of those I would, at minimum, say hello to or start a conversation with should I cross paths with them. For me, I don’t just add everyone I meet. I’m not “that guy” who meets someone and 20 minutes later shoots them a friend request. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of people who I’m not more than acquaintances with, but judging by my 204 versus the 672, I also don’t get too carried away.
So who are my friends? Actual friends, as mentioned above, my two siblings and some cousins, as well as acquaintances. There are lots of people from my high school and IU that would fall under an “in-between” type: not great “actual” friends, but definitely more than acquaintances. I am also friends with some people I may have worked with, and friends from my many years playing tennis and attending religious school. There is also one kid, for example, that was one of my sports editors at the Indiana Daily Student. I didn’t know him that well, plus he graduated, so the chances of me ever talking to him again are slim to none. I don’t think that I will actually go as far as defriending him, however, but you never know haha.
The biggest category of people I have yet to mention are athletes, which is an interesting category. Many people like to add their favorite college basketball and football players because it is either cool to be “friends” with them, or simply so they can see their photographs and see what other things they may be up to. I am from Cincinnati and I’m an absolutely huge Bearcats fan. Of my 53 University of Cincinnati Facebook friends, 17 of them are current or former UC basketball or football players (plus the UC Bearcat mascot who sends out sporting event invites which is pretty cool). I’ve only met a couple of them, but I don’t know them personally. Likewise, I am “friends” with most of IU’s basketball players from my two years here on campus, plus a handful of football players. Once again, I don’t know them, but it is still cool to be friends with them. Just ask the majority of (suspended) IU quarterback Kellen Lewis’ 1,907 IU friends. Or most of Jordan Crawford’s 867 IU Facebook friends.
There are some exceptions for me, however, being the former Men’s Tennis reporter and current basketball recruiting reporter for the IDS. I knew all of last year’s and most of this year’s tennis squad from the numerous interviews I had with them (not to mention I personally knew one player from home), so adding some of them wasn’t too random. I have also added 10 or more high school basketball stars that have considered or are currently looking at IU. It is often the best way of setting up a potential phone interview for the ones that have Facebook, and a few instances it has actually worked. In fact, the No. 9-ranked junior in high school is very interested in coming to IU and I just shot him a request this afternoon before coming to the library to work on this, among other assignments.
Basically, I have 554 Facebook friends to date, and with the exception of most of the athletes, they are each friends of mine to varying degrees--even if it is a friend of a friend who I have never met in person. The significance of that is not that I am really cool or popular—you make the call on that one—but rather that I have this huge online network of people whom I have access to. Whether it is making plans with one of them, asking a homework question, requesting an interview, or simply viewing one’s recently posted photographs, I am connected to all of these people. Sure, many of the athletes have random kids like me on a limited profile, but that does not mean they aren’t checking on their Facebook friends either. In fact, Armon Bassett (currently kicked off the IU basketball team) saw me last November or December and said, “aren’t you one of my Facebook friends?” Yes, and as of now, so are 1,746 others on his prep school network’s account (I never bothered requesting him on his IU account). Friends, or just “friends,” they’re basically all the same to me on Facebook.
Welcome to the Bungle
“A Rape in Cyberspace” by Julian Dibbell…where to begin, oh, where to begin. Well, first I must say that I had a lot of trouble reading this—not because it was written at a really high level, but for the fact that we’re talking about a virtual rape. A virtual rape?!?!?!?!?!
I don’t even know what to blog about because this is more of a story than an argument like Keen, for example. Ok, how about this: We talked about the horrible actions made by “Mr. Bungle” and the ensuing happenings. It’s kind of sick that anyone would do this online, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was someone who is too much of a coward to confront anyone in real life (not to the extent of a rape, but I’m talking about some twerp who was bullied as a kid and wanted to extract revenge on someone for having a rough childhood or something and thought this was the best way to do it).
The question in class was whether or not a virtual rape is as bad as a real rape. I say no, but like we discussed in class, had that happened in 2008 instead of 1993, it could be much more serious. What makes it bad, nonetheless, is the emotional damage a virtual rape might cause someone. I wouldn’t be surprised if something like that today went down as the tort (civil wrong) called Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, which I’ve learned about in L201: Business Law and J300: Communication Law this semester.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress says that the conduct of the defendant (this is assuming the plaintiff (the victim) has taken the “raper” to court) is intentional and reckless and so outrageous as to offend a reasonable person, causing the plaintiff to suffer a serious mental injury.
Now this could go down as sexual harassment for sure too (or instead), and I hope nothing like that has come about, but people on MOOs, MUDs, or anywhere else on the Internet should be more careful if they are not already. Online law is a rising field (? - not sure if this is the word I am looking for), so people must realize that even in a virtual sense, they could still be held liable for illegal actions committed online (aside from hacking or piracy).
I don’t even know what to blog about because this is more of a story than an argument like Keen, for example. Ok, how about this: We talked about the horrible actions made by “Mr. Bungle” and the ensuing happenings. It’s kind of sick that anyone would do this online, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was someone who is too much of a coward to confront anyone in real life (not to the extent of a rape, but I’m talking about some twerp who was bullied as a kid and wanted to extract revenge on someone for having a rough childhood or something and thought this was the best way to do it).
The question in class was whether or not a virtual rape is as bad as a real rape. I say no, but like we discussed in class, had that happened in 2008 instead of 1993, it could be much more serious. What makes it bad, nonetheless, is the emotional damage a virtual rape might cause someone. I wouldn’t be surprised if something like that today went down as the tort (civil wrong) called Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, which I’ve learned about in L201: Business Law and J300: Communication Law this semester.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress says that the conduct of the defendant (this is assuming the plaintiff (the victim) has taken the “raper” to court) is intentional and reckless and so outrageous as to offend a reasonable person, causing the plaintiff to suffer a serious mental injury.
Now this could go down as sexual harassment for sure too (or instead), and I hope nothing like that has come about, but people on MOOs, MUDs, or anywhere else on the Internet should be more careful if they are not already. Online law is a rising field (? - not sure if this is the word I am looking for), so people must realize that even in a virtual sense, they could still be held liable for illegal actions committed online (aside from hacking or piracy).
"Get out my business"
Howard Rheingold is back, this time with his work The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. In “Introduction,” Rheingold walks us through his first Internet experiences with the Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link (WELL), Computer Mediated Communication, and virtual communities.
One thing that I found interesting from this writing was the idea of Jeremy Bentham and the Panopticon. In 1785 (according to Wikipedia because if it’s on Wiki it’s reality right?), Bentham proposed the idea of the Panopticon, which was a prison design that would allow a single guard to see every prisoner. The catch was that the prisoners would be unable to tell whether or not they were being watched, which ideally would lead them to act more cautiously, as if they were indeed being watched.
This idea of the Panopticon and surveillance could eventually exist on the Internet. For the time being, there is no “Big Brother” watching Internet users’ every move (not to say there aren’t hackers or anything), but if there were a figure monitoring our online actions, we would likely alter or online tendencies—at least those that are a bit risqué. If we knew we were being watched, we would be more careful as to which content we would browse.
This is not too different than cameras at some stores and restaurants. At smaller shops, many times the owner cannot afford or at least does not wish to pay for a high-end security system. Even by putting up a camera that is not actually turned on, it is likely that some instances of theft or possible robbery could be deterred.
Rheingold introduces this idea of the Panopticon in this piece because it is possible that the Internet could eventually be tarnished by the “prying ears of state.” In a non-threatening way, sites such as Amazon.com and Google are monitoring what we buy or view, providing us with similar products or corresponding advertisements, but hopefully there will never be an issue of government surveillance. What people do online, for the most part, is their own business and the government should not be tampering with that. If the government starts abusing its power, the Internet will be changed for the worse. Although the Internet has its issues and flaws today, it is in a good state and it needs to stay that way.
Journalist blog too, y'know...
In Andrew Keen’s, The Cult of the Amateur, Keen argues attacks amateurism on the Web. As seen in class on the Colbert interview with him, he is not too fond of the so-called “citizen journalists.” He says they aren’t formally trained, they are not experts, and they are unskilled. He refers to citizen journalism as “journalism by nonjournalists.”
I agree with Keen that citizen journalists are not journalists, per se, but I do not agree completely in his argument that blogging translates to millions of “unskilled, untrained, unpaid, unknown “journalists.” Yes, there are millions that do fit that description, but in the entire blogger population, there are also journalists who are paid to blog as part of their job at a news organization. Most print journalists these days are indeed blogging.
There is the desire and almost need for fast information on part of the consumer. I know I check sports blogs and want the latest information about what I am interested in. Why wait until a newspaper is delivered in the early morning when I can go online and find some of the information 12 hours before it comes out in print? Between initial blog posts and the actual print publication, journalists can check with more sources and get more information. Not waiting and instead telling readers what they do know at the time is simply awesome.
Basically, my problem is that Keen says blogging is not journalism. For the most part it isn’t. I, however, have been writing since freshman year of high school. Five years later, I am in my fourth semester with the Indiana Daily Student, currently the basketball recruiting writer, and I am also in the honors program within the IU School of Journalism.
While I am not about to win a Pulitzer Prize or anything, I think my education and experience thus far qualifies me as a journalist. Everytime I write a post on the IDS “Basketblog,” I treat it like a regular article, even if its one paragraph long. I post with the same integrity, I cite my sources of information, and I print only what I know to be true about recruitment. I do not make up stories of players committing to IU that haven’t, and if I haven’t spoken to a recruit or recruiting expert myself, I will cite my source (and probably link to the article too).
I realize that Keen is mostly attacking “citizen journalists,” but he failed to distinguish them from actual journalists who blog. He also fails to define blogging itself, which can come in many forms—opinion writing, more fact-based writing, and the combination of posting links and adding in a bit of commentary to that. My IDS blogging differs from that of my C151 blogging, but in terms of the Basketblog, I am a journalist blogging. Don’t call me an unskilled or untrained non-expert.
I agree with Keen that citizen journalists are not journalists, per se, but I do not agree completely in his argument that blogging translates to millions of “unskilled, untrained, unpaid, unknown “journalists.” Yes, there are millions that do fit that description, but in the entire blogger population, there are also journalists who are paid to blog as part of their job at a news organization. Most print journalists these days are indeed blogging.
There is the desire and almost need for fast information on part of the consumer. I know I check sports blogs and want the latest information about what I am interested in. Why wait until a newspaper is delivered in the early morning when I can go online and find some of the information 12 hours before it comes out in print? Between initial blog posts and the actual print publication, journalists can check with more sources and get more information. Not waiting and instead telling readers what they do know at the time is simply awesome.
Basically, my problem is that Keen says blogging is not journalism. For the most part it isn’t. I, however, have been writing since freshman year of high school. Five years later, I am in my fourth semester with the Indiana Daily Student, currently the basketball recruiting writer, and I am also in the honors program within the IU School of Journalism.
While I am not about to win a Pulitzer Prize or anything, I think my education and experience thus far qualifies me as a journalist. Everytime I write a post on the IDS “Basketblog,” I treat it like a regular article, even if its one paragraph long. I post with the same integrity, I cite my sources of information, and I print only what I know to be true about recruitment. I do not make up stories of players committing to IU that haven’t, and if I haven’t spoken to a recruit or recruiting expert myself, I will cite my source (and probably link to the article too).
I realize that Keen is mostly attacking “citizen journalists,” but he failed to distinguish them from actual journalists who blog. He also fails to define blogging itself, which can come in many forms—opinion writing, more fact-based writing, and the combination of posting links and adding in a bit of commentary to that. My IDS blogging differs from that of my C151 blogging, but in terms of the Basketblog, I am a journalist blogging. Don’t call me an unskilled or untrained non-expert.
Celular Sensation
Several years ago when tests and quizzes went out to college students, professors did not have to say anything like, “put your cell phones away.” For one thing, cellular devices weren’t as common and widespread, but also they did not have the capabilities that today’s do, such as taking pictures and sending them in messages. Now, kids in middle school and on up (and I’m sure some spoiled younger ones too) have cell phones. And unlike when I first got mine, they aren’t just about making calls to my family.
Howard Rheingold explores the aspect of mobile phones and technology in How to Recognize the Future When It Lands on You. He makes a statement about Mobile Internet being a way to do things that couldn’t be done before. “Anybody who remembers what mobile telephones looked like five years ago has a sense of the pace at which handheld technology is evolving,” he said. “Today’s mobile devices are not only smaller and lighter than the earliest cell phones, they have become tiny multimedia Internet terminals.” So true.
I can text and send PIX messages, and I could use the internet on my cell phone, although I choose not to pay for and run up the air time by doing so. Nevertheless, I’m not oblivious to what’s going on around me. Cell phones are exactly what Rheingold said: tiny multimedia Internet terminals. What many of my peers can do is pretty remarkable.
I’ve been on the Internet before and checked sports scores, but people are now accessing their Facebook accounts and requesting friendships with you standing right next to them. People are chatting as well, and by that I mean more than texts back and forth. I am the Basketball Recruiting reporter for the Indiana Daily Student, and I contacted a high school basketball player last night over Facebook. He gave me his screen name, which I added to my buddy list at 8:30 this morning. I saw he was signed on, and when I clicked his profile, it said he was online through his Sidekick.
Through Verizon Wireless’ V CAST, one can easily access audio and video content to meet his or her entertainment demands. And now with the iPhone, we have even more of an "all in one" device, although iPhone's don't have the best service or coverage.
Cellular devices, as I feel most comfortable calling some of them, come in all shapes and sizes and have altered the social practices of people throughout the world. Ten years ago, who knew that you would eventually be able to take photos, send texts and emails, record videos, and possibly listen to music all from the same device. Yes, as Rheingold said, things are being done that couldn’t be done before. We have definitely come a long way from this. Pretty soon we’ll be looking at something like this...just kidding.
Howard Rheingold explores the aspect of mobile phones and technology in How to Recognize the Future When It Lands on You. He makes a statement about Mobile Internet being a way to do things that couldn’t be done before. “Anybody who remembers what mobile telephones looked like five years ago has a sense of the pace at which handheld technology is evolving,” he said. “Today’s mobile devices are not only smaller and lighter than the earliest cell phones, they have become tiny multimedia Internet terminals.” So true.
I can text and send PIX messages, and I could use the internet on my cell phone, although I choose not to pay for and run up the air time by doing so. Nevertheless, I’m not oblivious to what’s going on around me. Cell phones are exactly what Rheingold said: tiny multimedia Internet terminals. What many of my peers can do is pretty remarkable.
I’ve been on the Internet before and checked sports scores, but people are now accessing their Facebook accounts and requesting friendships with you standing right next to them. People are chatting as well, and by that I mean more than texts back and forth. I am the Basketball Recruiting reporter for the Indiana Daily Student, and I contacted a high school basketball player last night over Facebook. He gave me his screen name, which I added to my buddy list at 8:30 this morning. I saw he was signed on, and when I clicked his profile, it said he was online through his Sidekick.
Through Verizon Wireless’ V CAST, one can easily access audio and video content to meet his or her entertainment demands. And now with the iPhone, we have even more of an "all in one" device, although iPhone's don't have the best service or coverage.
Cellular devices, as I feel most comfortable calling some of them, come in all shapes and sizes and have altered the social practices of people throughout the world. Ten years ago, who knew that you would eventually be able to take photos, send texts and emails, record videos, and possibly listen to music all from the same device. Yes, as Rheingold said, things are being done that couldn’t be done before. We have definitely come a long way from this. Pretty soon we’ll be looking at something like this...just kidding.
4 teh lulz
Humanity takes itself too seriously. It is the world's original sin. If the cavemen had known how to laugh, History would have been different. - Oscar Wilde
People in class have clearly been having problems with the idea that anyone would find the racist statements and horrible images used by griefers to be funny. I want to offer an argument that explains, if not justifies, the system of values employed by griefers.
1. Values are culturally relevant. Across the world and across time, values are constantly changing. The argument that we can share common values implies hegemony in an extremely diverse and complicated system of culturally dependent context across the world.
2. Nothing is sacred, save for humor. "its for teh lulz" is the most common explanation give by griefers as to why they're participating in their activity. Humor is the only value held common by all griefers as it is established by their tight knit, jargon filled counter-culture. If the humor comes at the expense of someone else, it is better.
3. Which leads to the final point that we as humans take ourselves too seriously. We have all been raised to think that we're the cause of creation, rather than the result of it. This justifies humanities views of entitlement. Never is this more the case than on the internet, where people are attaching an incredible amount of value to virtual worlds and characters all too often ignoring the real life costs of learning to socialize in an environment where nothing, other than ones mental fantasy is at stake.
While some, such as those on LambdaMOO might argue that assaulting the mind is as damaging as assaulting the mind, griefers explicitly reject this concept. If you have a problem, log off. If you don't want to log off because you're too invested in your online avatar, that's exactly what the griefers are fighting against and therefore will continue to harass you. This is demonstrated extremely well by the /b/tards from 4chan.org's raids on the Habbo Hotel. Habbo Hotel is a programmed designed for teens to chat with each other using poorly animated avatars. /b/ targeted the program because of racism, claiming that admins were abusing their powers and often banning people with ethnic looking characters. How true this is, I'm not sure as Encyclopedia Dramatica tends to...guess it... dramatize everything. /b/tards registered black characters with afros and suits and blocked access to the pool, shouting "POOLS CLOSED DUE TO AIDS", racist slurs, and even forming virtual swastikas. On the surface this looks extremely racist and downright evil.
The idea, however, is that Habbo Hotel is a terrible way for teens to be learning how to socialize. I argue that it is too early to determine the effects that massive amounts of online identity formation in teenagers will affect the interpersonal relationships of the future. Is it potentially good? Yes, but what are we sacrificing? Children use to ride bicycles miles to school, play in their neighborhoods, and generally get into adolescent trouble. In this day and age of exaggerated media stories, parents are convinced their child is going to be abducted, maimed, or killed if they go out and play. In this world, Habbo Hotel becomes a replacement for the normal imagination and adolescent tomfoolery that once defined an age group. Therefore as a questionable agent of this new socialization process it's opened itself to attack. By not maintaining a system capable of preventing this type of abuse on the Habbo Hotel servers, /b/ is demonstrating that it is not a safe place for teenagers to be.
People in class have clearly been having problems with the idea that anyone would find the racist statements and horrible images used by griefers to be funny. I want to offer an argument that explains, if not justifies, the system of values employed by griefers.
1. Values are culturally relevant. Across the world and across time, values are constantly changing. The argument that we can share common values implies hegemony in an extremely diverse and complicated system of culturally dependent context across the world.
2. Nothing is sacred, save for humor. "its for teh lulz" is the most common explanation give by griefers as to why they're participating in their activity. Humor is the only value held common by all griefers as it is established by their tight knit, jargon filled counter-culture. If the humor comes at the expense of someone else, it is better.
3. Which leads to the final point that we as humans take ourselves too seriously. We have all been raised to think that we're the cause of creation, rather than the result of it. This justifies humanities views of entitlement. Never is this more the case than on the internet, where people are attaching an incredible amount of value to virtual worlds and characters all too often ignoring the real life costs of learning to socialize in an environment where nothing, other than ones mental fantasy is at stake.
While some, such as those on LambdaMOO might argue that assaulting the mind is as damaging as assaulting the mind, griefers explicitly reject this concept. If you have a problem, log off. If you don't want to log off because you're too invested in your online avatar, that's exactly what the griefers are fighting against and therefore will continue to harass you. This is demonstrated extremely well by the /b/tards from 4chan.org's raids on the Habbo Hotel. Habbo Hotel is a programmed designed for teens to chat with each other using poorly animated avatars. /b/ targeted the program because of racism, claiming that admins were abusing their powers and often banning people with ethnic looking characters. How true this is, I'm not sure as Encyclopedia Dramatica tends to...guess it... dramatize everything. /b/tards registered black characters with afros and suits and blocked access to the pool, shouting "POOLS CLOSED DUE TO AIDS", racist slurs, and even forming virtual swastikas. On the surface this looks extremely racist and downright evil.
The idea, however, is that Habbo Hotel is a terrible way for teens to be learning how to socialize. I argue that it is too early to determine the effects that massive amounts of online identity formation in teenagers will affect the interpersonal relationships of the future. Is it potentially good? Yes, but what are we sacrificing? Children use to ride bicycles miles to school, play in their neighborhoods, and generally get into adolescent trouble. In this day and age of exaggerated media stories, parents are convinced their child is going to be abducted, maimed, or killed if they go out and play. In this world, Habbo Hotel becomes a replacement for the normal imagination and adolescent tomfoolery that once defined an age group. Therefore as a questionable agent of this new socialization process it's opened itself to attack. By not maintaining a system capable of preventing this type of abuse on the Habbo Hotel servers, /b/ is demonstrating that it is not a safe place for teenagers to be.
Rheingold Virtual Communites
I side more with Rheingold's analysis of the value of virtual communities than Andrew Keen's view of them. I tend to respect their capacity for change and more importantly as Rheingold seems to argue, their ability to create community and culture in a media environment in which these aspects of our society seem to be muddled. I found particular interest in then discussion how virtual communities even develop their own slang and language. As Rheingold says, "There is a vocabulary to CMC, too, now emerging from millions and millions of individual online interactions. That vocabulary reflects something about the ways human personalities are changing in the age of media saturation."
This made me consider what are known as Memes. Which is a concept of cultural knowledge that is distributed in a particular way. The internet has adopted the concept in the form of Internet Memes. Through participation on the web, users make popular videos, websites, and stories which develop to the point of being a vocabulary. This video best describes what I'm trying to talk about.
Actually, it doesn't. But you just got "rick rolled". Rick Rolling is a phenomenon on some websites including 4chan.org, digg.com, ebaumsworld, and Something Awful. . These internet communities actually share a great deal of culture across these websites by nature of attracting the same types of users. These collections of memes create a closer knit community in a wide open space like the internet. By having common themes, users are able to relate to each other and make culture-specific jokes and references. While on the surface this phenomenon doesn't seem that relevant, it is important to remember that Anonymous is made up of many members from the same websites previously mentione. This seemingly innocuous culture has actually developed a political aim through the nature of the communities' high value placed on ruthless justice and humor. Sometimes these causes overlap, sometimes they conflict, but they seem to be motivating cultural values, indeed. This demonstrates clearly Rheingold's point that virtual communities create a culture in and of themselves that would be incapable without computer mediated communications (CMC)
This made me consider what are known as Memes. Which is a concept of cultural knowledge that is distributed in a particular way. The internet has adopted the concept in the form of Internet Memes. Through participation on the web, users make popular videos, websites, and stories which develop to the point of being a vocabulary. This video best describes what I'm trying to talk about.
Actually, it doesn't. But you just got "rick rolled". Rick Rolling is a phenomenon on some websites including 4chan.org, digg.com, ebaumsworld, and Something Awful. . These internet communities actually share a great deal of culture across these websites by nature of attracting the same types of users. These collections of memes create a closer knit community in a wide open space like the internet. By having common themes, users are able to relate to each other and make culture-specific jokes and references. While on the surface this phenomenon doesn't seem that relevant, it is important to remember that Anonymous is made up of many members from the same websites previously mentione. This seemingly innocuous culture has actually developed a political aim through the nature of the communities' high value placed on ruthless justice and humor. Sometimes these causes overlap, sometimes they conflict, but they seem to be motivating cultural values, indeed. This demonstrates clearly Rheingold's point that virtual communities create a culture in and of themselves that would be incapable without computer mediated communications (CMC)
Jenkins Fan Culture
I find much of Jenkins says in Get A Life to be very relevant concerning how consumers interact with their media. Jenkins' idea of textual posting where consumers add their own influence and interpretation into an already established media form seems to be a fairly accurate depiction of the way that viewers enhance their perception, consumption, and interaction with media. This is certainly the case with the Trekkies, who are of course consumers, but actually seem to get more out of their consumption by assigning it some relevance. Sure, in the long run things such as Stark Trek memorabilia don't matter, but neither does most of what we consume. We all participate in this system with an equal level of absurdity when we decide what makes us happy when we consume it.
What I don't agree with is the idea that somehow this consumers are being subversive through adding their own interpretations. It's not possible to separate their consumption from their textual poaching, and therefore there's not much to say for the usefulness of such fanaticism. Jenkins, it seems, approaches with the desire to validate his own viewpoints. For instance, consider a quote from his "about me" section on his blog.
"For now, let me just fan the deck of my media passions (Stars Trek and Wars, Battlestar Galactica, the many paneled and animated incarnations of Superman, computer games ranging from the Apple II era to id's first-person shooters) and signal that my preferred mode of engagement with these things tends toward the solitary, obsessive, and archival. I'm the guy who builds model kits and wonders who would win in a fight, the T-800 or a Cylon Centurion." - Henry JenkinsSo coming from his perspective, Jenkins needs to find a way to give the fan some kind of validation for their obsessive behaviors, and he argues that through fan fiction fans challenge the concept that a character can be a commodity. For instance, view the All-Ages Kirk/Spock Archive (don't worry its Safe for Work). To me it's impossible to view the person that hosts that website as being subversive to normal means of media consumption. At best they're altering ways in which people consume, but they still buy memorabilia, and even create and participate in more economies regarding their interest. So to say that somehow these people are reacting to the notion of a character as intellectual property fails to see that indeed they're directly endorsing the idea by continuing to consume the media. One could only imagine the home of the person that runs the Kirk/Spock archive, and how dedicated consumers they must be.
So I don't think his arguments are enough to justify this obsession. I think that this level of fandom is problematic because its an example of rampant and irrational consumption, which is a product of our world view on the value of commodities. In a lot of ways these slash writers are simply making personal connections to the media through their interactions with it, and in that light it seems unhealthy. So while Jenkins wants to defend his media obsession, I say he's missing the big picture; what have we as a culture sacrificed in creating an environment in which this level of dedication to something as irrelevant and unnecessary as Kirk and Spock love stories is acceptable?
Jenkins Reading
I want to focus mainly on some of the beginning statements that Jenkin makes when discussing Joe Trippi's book "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Trippi's book is flawed in the way that Jenkins offers, "The slogan began self-fulfilling prophecy. If the Internet made Dean's candidacy, Television unmade it." If Trippi believed that The Revolution Won't Be Televised because the new medium for politics is the web, the truth is that the revolution will be televised, because Internet support isn't enough.
Take the candidacy of the unlikely Republican Ron Paul. Through support of many different websites, namely the fanatics on Digg, Ron Paul set single-day fundraising records. But this outpouring of support was not enough to support a long shot candidate like Ron Paul. While he represented a genuinely disaffected wing of the apathetic conservative Republicans, these relatively few, but dedicated supporters were not enough to spread his message. I see reflected in this example, and all the time on blogs like The Daily Kos the fact that those involved in relatively ideologically homogenous on-line communities tend to over represent their own views as reflecting the public.
On the other end, Barack Obama's campaign has extremely successfully utilized the amplified power of the individual on the internet to fuel his campaign. The difference is that Obama has a message that the masses are willing to believe in. Howard Dean's netroots organization allowed him to win Iowa, but once he got into the mainstream, his enthusiasm was taken without any context. Obama, on the other hand, was able to utilize his youthful exuberance to motivate netroots by offering a host of well though-out tools to help supporters spread the word. But when he was projected into the role of a mainstream viable candidate, he was ready. This smooth transition stems from one thing; he surrounded his campaign with extremely adept advisers, many of them ex-Clinton operatives.
Notably absent from his advisers is Joe Trippi, who signed on to direct Edwards now defunct campaign. Jenkin's criticism of Trippi, I believe is extremely profound. The internet, as Jenkin argues, is just a new technology that makes grassroots organization easier, by no means is it a way of entirely subverting the tradition of commercial politics. It only serves to work in conjunction with campaigns that are capable of utilizing it to the best of their abilities as a significant portion of a robust campaign plan.
Rushkoff Reading
I agree with a lot of what Rushkoff has to say. I think he understands the development of the Internet, from open source cooperation to media ownership, and then to user-generated content. Web 2.0, or the concept of user content, began from basements and collaborations amongst friends. Facebook, Digg, YouTube were all just ideas and started with small cooperative user bases. However, as they gained in popularity, we've seen that companies like Google and Microsoft try to get involved to make money.
While this is a natural trend on the internet, there will always be two tiers; the company owned and affiliated websites, and the more open source community websites. While Rushkoff suggests that we should utilize this communicative revolution to open up communication with our political leaders, this is a too idealized view of how the internet works. One of the keys to success of the Internet is anonymity, and as anyone that has spent anytime browsing YouTube comments knows, people abuse anonymity to say the most ridiculous and at time hateful things possible. So while Rushkoff has a good idea of trying to integrate the internet into dialogs with our elected leaders, the execution would be very difficult.
On the other hand, there still exists the ability for the net to be used outside of mainstream political purposes. Rushkoff's examples of the WTO protesters is a good example. Another one is the "Anonymous" attacks on the Church of Scientology. Developing within the last couple of weeks, a group of hackers and "cyberpunks" dubbed Anonymous have been focusing themselves on Scientology by attacking their websites. In this way they are utilizing the anonymity of the internet to fight what they perceive as injustice. Here is an example of their press release:
Personally I am fascinated by this movement. I think Rushkoff would agree with me in the fact that this represents the internet being utilized in a communal interest with cooperation between many people across the world.
While this is a natural trend on the internet, there will always be two tiers; the company owned and affiliated websites, and the more open source community websites. While Rushkoff suggests that we should utilize this communicative revolution to open up communication with our political leaders, this is a too idealized view of how the internet works. One of the keys to success of the Internet is anonymity, and as anyone that has spent anytime browsing YouTube comments knows, people abuse anonymity to say the most ridiculous and at time hateful things possible. So while Rushkoff has a good idea of trying to integrate the internet into dialogs with our elected leaders, the execution would be very difficult.
On the other hand, there still exists the ability for the net to be used outside of mainstream political purposes. Rushkoff's examples of the WTO protesters is a good example. Another one is the "Anonymous" attacks on the Church of Scientology. Developing within the last couple of weeks, a group of hackers and "cyberpunks" dubbed Anonymous have been focusing themselves on Scientology by attacking their websites. In this way they are utilizing the anonymity of the internet to fight what they perceive as injustice. Here is an example of their press release:
Personally I am fascinated by this movement. I think Rushkoff would agree with me in the fact that this represents the internet being utilized in a communal interest with cooperation between many people across the world.
Tweet backs 24
"I found that using Twitter as a community-building tool was another purpose it was used for that I didn’t expect at first. I knew that this was the main purpose for the class but I didn’t see this happening at the beginning. However, by February when everyone got the hang of using this tool, I found that I would regularly check Twitter to see what other people were doing. Some people wrote their comments and opinions about movies, television shows, and even concerts/shows. This was a good way for me to get to know my fellow classmates and see what they were doing on the weekends. Since I didn’t know people in person, I felt like I got to know a few of them just by the things they would write in Twitter."
"First of all, Twitter wasn’t as structured as blogger and we were free to write whatever we wanted. Although you said we could complain if we felt the need, I found that I held my tongue quite a bit. Not necessarily complaining about the class, but more about the students complaining. I know some people need to vent and complain about things they’re not happy with but it gets old. Also, people asked the same questions over and over and over again. I’m sure I was at fault a few times, but I also asked [in class] so that people wouldn’t ask a million times on Twitter."
"One problem I noticed was that some people only used it as a status-updating tool and nothing else. I noticed that a few select people rarely made an appearance on the site so I felt that I didn’t really find out much about them. I stated above how I felt like I got to know some of my peers through Twitter because of what they would write about. If they were involved in sports or other activities they would write about how they had to go to meetings. I felt that although I might not have known who the person was, I created an identity for them online."
"First of all, Twitter wasn’t as structured as blogger and we were free to write whatever we wanted. Although you said we could complain if we felt the need, I found that I held my tongue quite a bit. Not necessarily complaining about the class, but more about the students complaining. I know some people need to vent and complain about things they’re not happy with but it gets old. Also, people asked the same questions over and over and over again. I’m sure I was at fault a few times, but I also asked [in class] so that people wouldn’t ask a million times on Twitter."
"One problem I noticed was that some people only used it as a status-updating tool and nothing else. I noticed that a few select people rarely made an appearance on the site so I felt that I didn’t really find out much about them. I stated above how I felt like I got to know some of my peers through Twitter because of what they would write about. If they were involved in sports or other activities they would write about how they had to go to meetings. I felt that although I might not have known who the person was, I created an identity for them online."
Tweet backs 23
"I mainly used Twitter to check for quiz hints and blog assignments, complain about my day and how I did not do my homework, talk about the weather and complain about how I am stuck inside now that the weather is getting nice, find out about events on campus, for example the Dave Matthews concert I had no idea until everyone talked about it on the Twitter. Also, how Bill Clinton was like 2 hours late to his speech at Assembly Hall. Then, I have to see what everybody else is up to. Even though I did not have any friends in the class it was fun, especially around little 500 week. I liked hearing about everybody’s plans and how they should not have been out so late last night and what not.
I found it useful because it was easy to get a hold of the teacher and if she did not answer usually another student would answer. The blog questions were usually answered by another student. I liked that because we are all doing the blog assignments so if somebody did not know, there had to be someone in there that knew what was going on. This took some of the slack off of her back, not having to answer the same questions over and over when we can just talk to each other about topics in class."
"I could see Twitter being used for news purposes. Traffic reports, Amber Alerts, terror alerts, or breaking news. I know, personally, those breaking stories would be news I would want to hear about. I could see Twitter in the future offering users to enter their Facebook, Myspace, and/ or Second Life names and Twitter can tell them when they sign in what’s going on. I know sometimes people enter e-mail addresses they rarely check or never check because they like the surprise of getting new comments or new messages."
I found it useful because it was easy to get a hold of the teacher and if she did not answer usually another student would answer. The blog questions were usually answered by another student. I liked that because we are all doing the blog assignments so if somebody did not know, there had to be someone in there that knew what was going on. This took some of the slack off of her back, not having to answer the same questions over and over when we can just talk to each other about topics in class."
"I could see Twitter being used for news purposes. Traffic reports, Amber Alerts, terror alerts, or breaking news. I know, personally, those breaking stories would be news I would want to hear about. I could see Twitter in the future offering users to enter their Facebook, Myspace, and/ or Second Life names and Twitter can tell them when they sign in what’s going on. I know sometimes people enter e-mail addresses they rarely check or never check because they like the surprise of getting new comments or new messages."
Tweet backs 22
"I personally used Twitter to simply vent on the general page discussing what I felt about the class or asking questions about the homework. There were also times, I would associate with the class and talk about something other than homework! I initially thought Twitter also included the forums and discussion pages, but it turns out it is Wiki. I think Wiki is definitely more useful than twitter, because it included discussion forums and other discussion means. I honestly do not really see the point of Twitter necessarily, because it seems to be so simple and a bit boring in my opinion. I think many of us have AIM and other sources such as Facebook or Myspace that does just a good of a job if not better getting one’s point across."
"For the class, Twitter was a great way to open up informally through text. I think many people enjoyed venting a bit or expressing what they felt or throwing out some current events. I do think Twitter is a nice way to get people involved, and have people excited to tell their friends things in an easy fashion."
"For the class, Twitter was a great way to open up informally through text. I think many people enjoyed venting a bit or expressing what they felt or throwing out some current events. I do think Twitter is a nice way to get people involved, and have people excited to tell their friends things in an easy fashion."
Tweet backs 21
"Before starting C151 I had never even heard of such a website, nor that anything of its type existed. Actually, I had never even blogged or used the Internet as a way to let others know exactly what I was thinking or doing. It all seemed like it would be quite foreign to me and in the beginning it was, but now looking back on the semester I can honestly say it was a great experience.
I first logged onto Twitter in early January and used the 140 characters to let others know what I was doing, i.e. studying, being tired, watching TV, etc. As the semester progressed I started using the tool more as just that, a tool to help me out. I started asking questions of others and determining the answers to questions that didn’t have to be asked in class or with other means of communications. That is what makes this tool so unique; it allows you to have a different means of communicating with others. By now I am able to tell you who is frequently updating, what they do in their free time, what they do and don’t like, etc. It has turned from more of a short blurb about what someone is up to, to an educational tool to help learn about other people’s lives."
I first logged onto Twitter in early January and used the 140 characters to let others know what I was doing, i.e. studying, being tired, watching TV, etc. As the semester progressed I started using the tool more as just that, a tool to help me out. I started asking questions of others and determining the answers to questions that didn’t have to be asked in class or with other means of communications. That is what makes this tool so unique; it allows you to have a different means of communicating with others. By now I am able to tell you who is frequently updating, what they do in their free time, what they do and don’t like, etc. It has turned from more of a short blurb about what someone is up to, to an educational tool to help learn about other people’s lives."
Tweet backs 20
"I found myself mainly using this tool more or less exactly how I used the status option on facebook. However there was one primary difference in the manner in which I used it, and that would be the fact that on Twitter I had a tendency to describe more about where I was physically, or how I was feeling physically rather than using it to describe my emotions. Also I felt that on Twitter I had to be a bit less subtle than I was with the facebook status. For example, on facebook, if I want to describe something I’m feeling or something that I’ve experienced, but don’t want to come right out and say it, then I’ll usually use a line from a song or a book to describe the way in which I feel. However, on Twitter I felt compelled to be far less subtle. For some reason I didn’t think it was right to encode what I was feeling, so instead of saying of saying, “I would like to salute the ashes of American flags, and all the fallen leaves filling up shopping bags.” (A line from a song by the band Wilco expressing the ability for self-rejuvenation) as I have recently had as my status on facebook, I would simply say, “I am feeling dead, and hoping that I can recover from this overwork” on Twitter."
"Though Twitter was effective in class information sharing, I think that it ended up failing as a social tool for our class. As was said in class we never really learned one another’s Twitter names, and thus couldn’t really make friends or make plans over the system. I would be interested to see how I would use Twitter if I knew that all of my really close friends were on it. I think that I would use it more often, partially just because I’m a bit more interested in what my friends are doing than what some relative strangers from my class are doing, and secondly it would seem less like a job for me to update, and more like something that was socially empowering."
"Though Twitter was effective in class information sharing, I think that it ended up failing as a social tool for our class. As was said in class we never really learned one another’s Twitter names, and thus couldn’t really make friends or make plans over the system. I would be interested to see how I would use Twitter if I knew that all of my really close friends were on it. I think that I would use it more often, partially just because I’m a bit more interested in what my friends are doing than what some relative strangers from my class are doing, and secondly it would seem less like a job for me to update, and more like something that was socially empowering."
Tweet backs 19
"I had not heard of Twitter before this class and at the beginning the hole idea seemed a little over the top to me, this is not to say that I don’t think this site is still internet overkill but at least I have a better understanding of it now. For our class, I mainly used Twitter instead of e-mail. If I ever had a question that needed to be answered in a timely fashion, I knew that if I put it as my status then many people would answer it. This became very useful especially late at night when the professors are sleeping and the night-owl students are the only ones that can help me. It was also useful because I didn’t know any other students in the class, so simply calling them up and asking them was out of the question. I didn’t use Twitter as a way to keep people updated on my daily status. I found this to be pointless because, like I said earlier, I don’t know anyone in the class and I had no interest in letting them know what is going on in my life.
Twitter did very little to enhance my interaction with my peers, but I am hesitant to say that it impeded it either. I can see how people could use this to make friends, but I was not surprised to see that our class did not use it to get to know each other better. Since we all had user names that were different from our real names, it was difficult to put a face to a comment. It made it feel less like a class, rather more like an online meeting place for questions to be asked and answered. I feel like everyone in the class looked at this as strictly a class activity and were very hesitant to use it to learn more about each other and to make friends."
Twitter did very little to enhance my interaction with my peers, but I am hesitant to say that it impeded it either. I can see how people could use this to make friends, but I was not surprised to see that our class did not use it to get to know each other better. Since we all had user names that were different from our real names, it was difficult to put a face to a comment. It made it feel less like a class, rather more like an online meeting place for questions to be asked and answered. I feel like everyone in the class looked at this as strictly a class activity and were very hesitant to use it to learn more about each other and to make friends."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)