Book Analysis Summary

The books I chose for my analysis were The Peep Diaries: How We’re Learning to Love Watching Ourselves and Our Neighbors, by Hal Niedzviecki, and Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social Networks by Theresa M. Senft. Both books gave vastly different arguments about the topic of privacy and identity. Senft’s book discussed the reality of feminism being tied into the actions of many women who broadcast themselves in an effort to fight against the patriarchal traditions set in place. Niedzviecki  instead argues against the societal behaviors that justify our need to share information in order to connect with other human beings. Both books offer a great insight into the complex nature of privacy and identity. Both are great reads and offer an in depth perspective on privacy in today’s world.

Jenna Roy: How Facebook Complicates Dating

I actually just encountered this earlier today, explicitly case study number 2. Even if you have moved past it, that faint reminder is always there. While it is definitely a two sided coin, I think facebook at least allows you to come to two conclusions. One: The past is the past. Everyone has to move on a some point. Two: It gives you the chance to learn a bit about prospective loves. It can definitely be used as a tool in a person’s lovelife. But you definitely have to remember to delete old pictures of you and your ex, especially when the new pictures of them and their significant other start showing up in your news feed :/

jroy9390:

Being Facebook friends with the person you are dating can complicate things. The article, “5 Ways Facebook Changed Dating (For the Worse)”, discusses how Facebook can have negative effects on user’s romantic life. The 5 ways Facebook is changing dating for the worse are:

1. Overanalyzing Will…

Untitled: Youtube Wants 3D Qualities Too?

They really are starting to get out of control with the whole 3D thing. Im so tired of movies being remade in 3D, of video games being created for the 3D purpose etc. Its all just a gimmick that the multimedia industries are trying to capitilize on. I just hope it is a fad that quickly fades away.

tremellg:

Over the past couple years, the quality of 3D television has become a big thing in America. Being more subtle in the early 2000s, it is starting to make their way into more movie theaters, people’s homes and now, on Youtube pages. In this article, this social networking site is starting to…

Revolutions and Retweets: Social Networks in the revolution

Along the lines of what we discussed in lecture, this article  conveys a convincing argument that social networks are a useful tool in activism and social movements. This article refutes Malcolm Gladwell’s assertion that the next major revolution won’t be charted on a social network. Author Leo Mirani argues that this has already taken place in recent history. From Iran’s blogging revolution to the way Arab Spring culminated its digital resources, there is evidence that social networks have become a power player in the way protest and events are organized and executed.

I tend to agree with Mr. Mirani. There are so many examples of how social networking is used as a viable resource to communicate and organize its group of mass contributors. For example: Egypt. They utilized the power of networks like Twitter and Facebook to get their messages across their country and the world. Even when the governments cut the use of the internet, Twitter was still a resource. Protestors were able to simply text their ideas and messages to be shared across a network, even when their direct lines of internet communication was cut off. This is a huge occurrence that shifts the power of change into the hands of the people.

But social networking cannot work alone. There still must be action. The use of social media is simply a tool to create and share new ideas at the forefront of revolution. Sharing and planning is easier than ever before, but the steps to implement such action still have to be taken. Social change comes by force. Regardless of whether that force is intellectual or physical, there must be an active resolve to carry out strategies to result in a successful campaign.

There is some truth in Gladwell’s admission: that a revolution cannot be solely conducted within the online community. However it is a useful resource that allows communication within a campaign to prosper and work more effectively. By using the numerous networks available, people are able to send and transmit their messages rapidly and to a wider audience. This distinction shows that campaigns in the future will rely on the innovations in technology. These innovations are tools of communication and foster a vast network within a campaign or social movement.

The life of a Rose: The social media election of 2012

I think that social media most definitely will have an impact on the outcome of the election. Considering the Social Media sphere has grown since 2008, it will determine who the power player in this election is. technology’s advances have given us the opportunity to expand our ways of communication. The politicians would work best to utilize this to their greatest advantage.

roseyyybabyyy:

After class on Tuesday with our discussion about politics and political campaigns it really got me thinking about what to expect for this year. Its time for another presidential election so I want to see what it is like 4 years later. So I went to president Obama’s webpage. Which like the survey…

Untitled: The Facebook Obsession

That is an interesting point about the maturity of Zuckerberg to be holding on to so much responsibility. But perhaps he has come farther than his freshmen ideals. It will be amazing if he indeed develops a way to connect them into his Facebook framework. The man is definitely intelligent enough to come up with a creative and insightful way to pull China away from its restrictions. With time and effeort Zuckerberg could create new innovations for intercultural realtions.

noirmatrix:

In 2011 CNBC released a brief and engaging 45-minute documentary that covered the rapid rise of Mark Zuckerberg as an Internet visionary and the viral growth of Facebook. The short titled “The Facebook Obsession,” details how deeply engrained the website has become in today’s digital age….

To Regulate or not to Regulate

This is a very interesting article that is arguing for the government to step out of regulation of the internet. The author creates a convincing argument that insists that net neutrality is the only option that would make a sustainable and justified system. The article in question  “Public Parts – The conclusion Who Will Protect Publicness?” describes the various ways governments have taken a stake in the use of the internet. China restricts almost every facet of the internet for its people, including specific sites and services that could be utilized by the greater public.

 

The argument in the article proposes that governments everywhere should take themselves out of their role as the gatekeepers of the internet. Instead that responsibility should be given to those who regularly use it as a device of communication and public forum. In this case the public. It raises examples that describe how rights to communication and access are against the ethics that should be used in the internet. Ethics that include alienating communities from connecting and communicating across the world about political situations and events. The fact that ideas are being filtered through this siphoning of the internet is an abomination according to many.

 

The principles of publicness state that we as a people have a right to connect, to assemble, to speak, and to retain an open institution of the internet. That is the internet is seen as an open source commodity. It needs to be distributed to all without discrimination. This idea of an equal source internet is seen as a right and an ethical crisis for its mediators. Net neutrality is a large concept within the internet regulation sphere, but in reality it calls for equality in an open resource that many utilize.

 

His claim has logical reinforcement. The web is a commodity like any resource or good. It is manufactured on a large scale and this sometimes calls for regulation. But in the case of the internet, free speech is a large component of what makes up its infrastructure. This is sensitive material that cannot be filtered without infringing upon the rights of the user generated content that makes the internet so interesting. I agree with the author’s principles. The internet is yet another device we can use to express our individuality and creativity. When the government tries to infringe upon these rights, it is only natural that the public should stand up for them. In this case we need to become the moderators in charge, to protect our rights.

 

Shirking Around: RIP Privacy and Identity--MCO 435

brittshirk:

After learning this week in class about privacy and identity, I found it only fitting to continue this discussion, and I would love to hear more about what everyone thinks about the topic of “keeping things private.”

While searching on Google, I came across a recent article by Ben Casnocha on his…

The issues of privacy really dont concern me. I trust in the fact that I can apply pretty strict guidelines on my various profiles to restrict who gets to see them. And I always live by the rules, don’t post anything you don’t want hanging around forever. There is always that distinct possiblity that it will come back to haunt you. So i try to stand 100% behind whatever finds its way from my desktop to web. I used to have professional profiles, but for the most part they have converged themselves into one. I primarily use them to promote my work, so it has not created any problems for me yet. I feel that you should be who you want to be on the internet. Just always be ready to stand behind that ideal at all times.

Charlie Joslin: Social Media and Journalism

charliejoslin:

Getting to work with a bunch of journalists almost every day has opened my eyes to another world of control and rules that are just asking to be broken. The traditional industry of journalism is steeped in prestige and talent. But it is starting to stumble with the shift to digital media and…

I agree that the coventions of traditional journalism are changing. If I want to find feedback about a band I’m into or the events of a music festival, the fact is I will probably be reading the pretentious hipsters of Pitchfork rather than something conventional like Time. I have never been under the impression that simply having a degree makes you the expert in something. There are exceptional and well-versed writers that just started their blog or website on a whim or simply a love of writing. The tides of journalism are changing, and honestly its about time.

Data Mining is Not Exactly Earth Shattering News

Data Mining seems to be the talk of the town these days. It’s no surprise that the great social media connoisseur Mashable has written a piece on describing some of the more positive aspects of the process.  Erica Sandberg describes in the article how data mining is simply a way to tailor to the consumer and improve the online media experience for them. I feel like I am in the sea of neutrality on this topic. On the one hand company’s compiling behavioral patterns on my internet use is a tad big brother esque on the surface, but the truth is we agree to these terms when we sign up.

No matter the social media service, there is always the question of “do you accept these terms of service”, and most of the time people neglect to read the fine print. There is always a double edged sword. Though we gain the use of this free service, we end up bartering for it. In this case our information becomes the precious commodity. As the article explains, this pattern that we leave via the internet becomes important to the marketing team of a particular company. They can modify what information we get in order to tailor to our interests. Everything from products, ads, to even the search results we get, can be better refined to suit our own personal interests.  On the one hand, this is done to make the internet more personalized to our needs. On the other, we may be missing out on stuff that could potentially lie outside of our box that would end up beneficial in the future.  It’s a tough situation. But if it really bothered so many, I feel that they would drop the service. Out of all the more than 50 people I know, two have taken the steps to deleting their Facebook account. Two.

Clearly the benefits of networking tools like Facebook (both socially and professionally) outweigh the possible privacy infringements. While it is a bit intrusive to for companies to be compiling algorithms to create a specialized internet experience for each user, it might be taking the uneccesary fluff out of our web browsing experience. The article hints at utilizing our time on the internet and seeing it as a precious commodity not to be wasted on viewing unnecessary information.

The power is still in our hands. If it bothers a person so much they should take the necessary steps to eradicate the problem. If the trade-off is too great, then everyone has to learn to live with it. Maybe next time we’ll pay attention to those small letters in those seemingly unimportant terms of service window that pops up. Then at least it won’t come as that much of a “shock” to our digital systems.