How could I not post this?
Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts
Monday, May 11, 2009
Reflecting Moose
Prior to taking Interactive Media I never appreciated the full capabilities of Web 2.0. After reading and discussing the innovations to cyberspace, it's amazing to see how far the technology has come in such little time. I think about other forms of media that have progressed over hundreds of years while the Internet essentially evolved in a couple of decades.
Social networking is the current fad in the cyberspace community. I find it fascinating how essentially our entire country is trying to figure out how to utilize this new phenomenon. You have the American people, celebrities, and corporations all adapting to this new way of utilizing technology. I'm curious to see how long this sensationalism lasts. I've learned to respect Twitter and all of its capabilities, but I'm not entirely comfortable with how much attention it's receiving. I'm cautious about the amount of time my generation spends on the computer. There are more and more reasons to constantly check your profiles and there are also so many different ways to check. The Internet is at the touch of our fingers and I wonder how much that pulls us away from reality. While I respect technology, I'm also wary of its consequences. I'll be curious to see how it all plays out.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
My experiences with interactive media
Reflecting back on the semester, I have learned some valuable lessons throughout it. The computer has become the medium for my exposure to virtual reality as stated in our textbook in our chapter on Cybertime. One is very broad but I think valuable : be open to experiencing new networks outside of my comfort zone. Up until now, I have only connected with people that I knew personally, but this class has exposed me to learning things about new people from networking sites I have never thought twice about joining. Visits from individuals such as Paul Young have taught me how important networking sites could actually become in our careers. For instance, LinkdIn, is a great example of that. Upon joining LinkdIn, I have searched for people I could possibly know through Fordham and even my previous employers. I have then stumbled upon people I never knew were connected to either.
Looking at social networking from a less professional aspect of it now, I think exposure to sites such as Lastfm.com has really helped expand my iTunes list because once again, I was exposed to songs I wouldn't typically listen to but found as a recommendation from an international listener ( I love international music!).Pandora is also a great site, but the music recommendations are chosen by the website and not other users. Speaking of recommendations, I now started using a heavily advertised by Facebook but helpful site called LivingSocial where my friend's recommendations on books, movies, etc. are constantly updated and help me make a decision based on their judgement. Furthermore, sites such as Twitter not only expose me to updates of my friends but virtually anyone who has Twitter. I am now following a number of celebrities and sometimes listening to their recommendations on books and movies. MySpace, on the other hand also has exposed me to some great bands where I can learn more about their music, their preferences and recommendations all while listening to a couple of their tracks.
I believe that the net has anything that a person is looking for. I have learned about many great cooking websites from our classmates as well as networking sites from other classmates. Watching videos about how technologically advanced we have become has lead me to believe that interactive media has become a necessity in today's economy to follow.
***I would just like to add for you all to start using this search engine : www3.hoongle.org -> every time you do 20 grains of rice will be donated to malnourished children!
Looking at social networking from a less professional aspect of it now, I think exposure to sites such as Lastfm.com has really helped expand my iTunes list because once again, I was exposed to songs I wouldn't typically listen to but found as a recommendation from an international listener ( I love international music!).Pandora is also a great site, but the music recommendations are chosen by the website and not other users. Speaking of recommendations, I now started using a heavily advertised by Facebook but helpful site called LivingSocial where my friend's recommendations on books, movies, etc. are constantly updated and help me make a decision based on their judgement. Furthermore, sites such as Twitter not only expose me to updates of my friends but virtually anyone who has Twitter. I am now following a number of celebrities and sometimes listening to their recommendations on books and movies. MySpace, on the other hand also has exposed me to some great bands where I can learn more about their music, their preferences and recommendations all while listening to a couple of their tracks.
I believe that the net has anything that a person is looking for. I have learned about many great cooking websites from our classmates as well as networking sites from other classmates. Watching videos about how technologically advanced we have become has lead me to believe that interactive media has become a necessity in today's economy to follow.
***I would just like to add for you all to start using this search engine : www3.hoongle.org -> every time you do 20 grains of rice will be donated to malnourished children!
Reflections
Taking a look back at the beginning of the semester - this was the blog post I came across - this blog post described my media usage at that time:
Moreover, when the class first started out - we were instructed to blog about our social networking usage on a weekly basis. However, for me - from a week to week basis - it did not change too much from the initial blog post. Thus, I refrained from writing that I visited the same social networks this week as I did last week, but rather found different social networking sites and shared the interesting ones with everyone in class. Over the semester, I came
acorss anobii, ning, friendfeed, italki, etc. And I came to realize that you can find social networking websites for almost any type of commonality or interest. Some of the students in the class also posted their findings - and shared websites about Twitter like twazzup, twitpic, along with flickr, living social, digg, TED, and slashdot, to name a few. It was interesting to visit these websites, look at what they have to offer users, and learn about the amount of people on these social networking websites.
Everyday - i continued to check my email several times a day and went on facebook once or twice a day. After we all signed up for Twitter in class, I started to check that once or twice a week. At first, I couldn't quite believe I was using Twitter, but as time went on I started to like it. We also signed up for MySpace, but I had a difficult time getting used to it. Even though I checked it about once a week and made an effort to making my profile page look a little bit exciting, I still had a hard time trying to get used to it. However, by visiting the websites the students posted - I learned about what is out there. There are a few well-known social networking websites - that most of the people are on, but it was interesting to see how many other types of social networking sites there are out there. People use social networking websites for different reasons - some to connect with their friends, others to market themselves in the business world. However, everyone uses social networking websites for the same purpose - to make connections with others and to feel a sense of belonging. I also learned about blogging. In the past, I had to blog once a week for my internship and sometimes it was fun while at other times it wasn't. Nevertheless, blogging about the readings for the class, being able to read about other student's understanding of the reading, what they found important - was a good way to learn the material. Not only, was I able to share my thoughts about the reading, but I could learn from the students - because sometimes I may have overlooked something.
So - all in all - my media usage has changed- I've become more aware of and learned about other websites and in addition to the websites i went on when the class first started - i also regularly check twitter and myspace.
The internet is an endless source of information and resources. My daily usage of the internet consists of checking email, at least several times a day, checking facebook, and mostly doing some type of research. Three out of my five closest friends currently live outside of New York, one of them is just several hours away by car, while the other is overseas. Checking email frequently allows us to have conversations and communicate with each other on a regular basis. Even though it may be difficult for us to talk on the phone because of time differences, and schedule conflicts - emailing each other regularly makes us feel that in one way or another everyone is quite close. Also, I help come up with different projects for local youth groups, so many a times I spend my time doing research --> looking at other organizations and figuring out how they do what they do, looking for team building activities, and other useful information for youth group leaders. Throughout the day I tend to check the New York Times website regularly to get my daily dose of news. Additionally, I use the internet to instant message friends, check bank statements, and buy books.
Moreover, when the class first started out - we were instructed to blog about our social networking usage on a weekly basis. However, for me - from a week to week basis - it did not change too much from the initial blog post. Thus, I refrained from writing that I visited the same social networks this week as I did last week, but rather found different social networking sites and shared the interesting ones with everyone in class. Over the semester, I came
acorss anobii, ning, friendfeed, italki, etc. And I came to realize that you can find social networking websites for almost any type of commonality or interest. Some of the students in the class also posted their findings - and shared websites about Twitter like twazzup, twitpic, along with flickr, living social, digg, TED, and slashdot, to name a few. It was interesting to visit these websites, look at what they have to offer users, and learn about the amount of people on these social networking websites.Everyday - i continued to check my email several times a day and went on facebook once or twice a day. After we all signed up for Twitter in class, I started to check that once or twice a week. At first, I couldn't quite believe I was using Twitter, but as time went on I started to like it. We also signed up for MySpace, but I had a difficult time getting used to it. Even though I checked it about once a week and made an effort to making my profile page look a little bit exciting, I still had a hard time trying to get used to it. However, by visiting the websites the students posted - I learned about what is out there. There are a few well-known social networking websites - that most of the people are on, but it was interesting to see how many other types of social networking sites there are out there. People use social networking websites for different reasons - some to connect with their friends, others to market themselves in the business world. However, everyone uses social networking websites for the same purpose - to make connections with others and to feel a sense of belonging. I also learned about blogging. In the past, I had to blog once a week for my internship and sometimes it was fun while at other times it wasn't. Nevertheless, blogging about the readings for the class, being able to read about other student's understanding of the reading, what they found important - was a good way to learn the material. Not only, was I able to share my thoughts about the reading, but I could learn from the students - because sometimes I may have overlooked something.
So - all in all - my media usage has changed- I've become more aware of and learned about other websites and in addition to the websites i went on when the class first started - i also regularly check twitter and myspace.
Monday, April 27, 2009
swine flu infects twitter
The recent outbreak of swine flu has not only taken 100s of lives already, but it has terrified millions around the world. Today, CNN.com reported that Twitter is partially to blame for false information and scares in certain parts of the country and world. This is just another example as to why we cannot trust Twitter as a news source. One quote from the article read,"This is a good example of why [Twitter is] headed in that wrong direction, because it's just propagating fear amongst people as opposed to seeking actual solutions or key information," said Brennon Slattery, a contributing writer for PC World. "The swine flu thing came really at the crux of a media revolution." While Twitter seems to be a harmless form of micro-blogging, it aids in the spread of terror during drastic times like these. See the full article here.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Demi Moore uses Twitter to help prevent fan's suicide
As mentioned before in class, I really think it is Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher that blog all the time, judging from an article in this post. Since I follow them on Twitter, I observe what they write and it sounds very personal and I think only they could write that (as opposed to hiring their PR person to do the work). Furthermore, I began to think about the impact that having 30,000+ "followers" on Twitter could have, especially now that most people have the postings sent to their phone. I think Twitter's ability to do that surpasses the impact on getting people's attention as compared to Myspace. Alhought Myspace is accessible through the phone, I have not seen an option where people could receive updates of others sent directly as a notification to their phone. Hence, not getting immediate attention. So, even though you may have 30,000+ friends on Myspace most people do not know what you're promoting unless they CHOOSE to click on your site and check it out.The site does have a great ability to draw someone in with the music and decor, which Twitter does not provide as extensively. Also, Twitter is very popular with the tiny URL's which usually leads you to a site that the person wants to draw your attention to. Myspace is not popular with using the tiny URL's-- it is actually most focused on 'updating your mood'.
To wrap this up, I basically wanted to state how today's busy society doesn't allow for us to spend a lot of time 'viewing' people's site and reading an often extensive autobiography about them to get to know what they're about. We want to glance, read, and move on. Twitter was wisely constructed.
Here, I found an interesting article that was brought to my attention by a tiny URL from one of my Twitter friends. It is basically about the impace that Twitter interactions actually could have on people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demi Moore uses Twitter to help prevent fan's suicide
Apr 3, 2009, 06:08 PM | by Alynda Wheat
Categories: Current Affairs, Movies, Web/Tech
A "tweet" may have saved a Demi Moore fan's life, CNN reported today. The actress, whose Twitter blog has some 380,000 fans, received an online threat from a woman who said she was "getting a knife, a big one that is sharp. Going to cut my arm down the whole arm so it doesn't waste time." Moore responded to the grim statement with the comment "Hope you are joking." The unnamed 48-year-old woman's suicide threat was traced to a San Jose, Calif., home, where she was taken into custody for a 72-hour psychiatric evaluation. Moore, who was in southern France where husband Ashton Kutcher is shooting the crime drama Five Killers, later informed her Twitter followers that the San Jose police were in control of the situation, and that she was "very torn about responding or retweeting that woman's post but felt uncomfortable just letting it go."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After I read this article I thought to myself, if this lady has posted the same thing with the same amount of friends on Myspace would Demi Moore pick up on it? Would it be brought to attention by someone else? I guess we'll never know but all I know is I'm glad she seen it.
To wrap this up, I basically wanted to state how today's busy society doesn't allow for us to spend a lot of time 'viewing' people's site and reading an often extensive autobiography about them to get to know what they're about. We want to glance, read, and move on. Twitter was wisely constructed.
Here, I found an interesting article that was brought to my attention by a tiny URL from one of my Twitter friends. It is basically about the impace that Twitter interactions actually could have on people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demi Moore uses Twitter to help prevent fan's suicide
Apr 3, 2009, 06:08 PM | by Alynda Wheat
Categories: Current Affairs, Movies, Web/Tech
A "tweet" may have saved a Demi Moore fan's life, CNN reported today. The actress, whose Twitter blog has some 380,000 fans, received an online threat from a woman who said she was "getting a knife, a big one that is sharp. Going to cut my arm down the whole arm so it doesn't waste time." Moore responded to the grim statement with the comment "Hope you are joking." The unnamed 48-year-old woman's suicide threat was traced to a San Jose, Calif., home, where she was taken into custody for a 72-hour psychiatric evaluation. Moore, who was in southern France where husband Ashton Kutcher is shooting the crime drama Five Killers, later informed her Twitter followers that the San Jose police were in control of the situation, and that she was "very torn about responding or retweeting that woman's post but felt uncomfortable just letting it go."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After I read this article I thought to myself, if this lady has posted the same thing with the same amount of friends on Myspace would Demi Moore pick up on it? Would it be brought to attention by someone else? I guess we'll never know but all I know is I'm glad she seen it.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
GroupTweet
In class we were talking about group tweeting - while this website does not allow people to categorize their tweets according to different groups - family, coworkers etc. The site does allow users to post their tweet - once it is sent to the group account - any member of the group can comment back. It kind of seems like a private message board.
This is what it says on their website, GroupTweet:
Have not tested it out as of yet...
This is what it says on their website, GroupTweet:
So how does it work?
GroupTweet piggy-backs on the Twitter service via the Twitter API. Setting up a Twitter group is simple:
- Create a new Twitter account specifically for your group (e.g. initechwebdevs or smithfamily). If you want to make this a private group, make sure that updates are protected in the settings.
- Register your group's new Twitter account at GroupTweet.com
- Tell all group members to follow the group account you created at Twitter. Note that the group account must also follow the group members. (If updates are protected, you will need to approve each follow request)
- Members can broadcast a message to the whole group by sending a direct text to the group's Twitter account. For example: 'D initechwebdevs Just committed the latest code to the repository'
That's it! GroupTweet is constantly listening for direct texts sent to your group's Twitter account. When a direct text is received, GroupTweet instantly publishes it as a tweet from the group account. Since all of your group members are following the group's Twitter account, they will each receive the message. Easy-peasy!
Have not tested it out as of yet...
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Ashton Kutcher battles CNN for Twitterer of the Century
So if you have been living on mars or in Indiana for the past week, then maybe you haven't heard that Ashton Kutcher, everyone's beloved prankster, challenged CNN to see who could be the first to reach a million followers on Twitter. The winner would donate 10,000 mosquito nets and the loser 1,000 on World Malaria Day. Well, CNN's twitter account "cnnbrk" came up short even after holding the lead for a substancial time. Kutcher's account "aplusk" crossed the one million mark around 2:13 a.m. on Friday (4/17) morning, according to CNN. It took CNN's feed til 2:42 a.m. the same day to reach a milli. Aside from how weird it is for a person to challenge a corporate news company to see who can get more followers, the publicity surrounding the bet did create a lot of buzz for Twitter and for World Malaria Day.
Oprah Winfrey, the inventor of hugs, kisses, and motivational posters staring kitty cats, joined up on Twitter, and also pledged to give 20,000 mosquito nets on World Malaria Day. Not to be outshined by Kutcher, CNN, God or anyone else that gets in her way, Oprah obviously had to double the highest pledge amount. I know that it sounds like I really dislike Oprah and this whole publicity stunt by these celebrities, I do have to admit that there will be probably be a record amount of mosquito nets donated this year. CNN upped the ante and pledged 10,000 even though 1,000 was agreed upon by the loser. Ryan Seacrest couldn't miss out on all the fun so he too pledged to donate an undisclosed amount of nets. All in all, Kutcher did manage to get a whole lot of mosquito nets donated with just a little social networking and a computer.
As a side note, Oprah is definitely getting ready to take over Twitter as she had around 73,000 followers before a single Tweet went out. Bullsh*t. Someone follow me already. I'm just sour because I am incredibly jealous that only 36 people want to know that "I like to rock the party," which was my last tweet, but 73,000 pepople want to hear Oprah say "hello." Why do you have to be famous or incredibly good at social networking to get lots of cool followers? I guess I should work on forcing freinds to join up so that I feel like someone is actually listening. I just wish Tony Hawk followed me back, because he is the man. Oh well, watch out for Oprah, she catching on. Sorry for ranting, I just want to be loved on Twitter.
Oprah Winfrey, the inventor of hugs, kisses, and motivational posters staring kitty cats, joined up on Twitter, and also pledged to give 20,000 mosquito nets on World Malaria Day. Not to be outshined by Kutcher, CNN, God or anyone else that gets in her way, Oprah obviously had to double the highest pledge amount. I know that it sounds like I really dislike Oprah and this whole publicity stunt by these celebrities, I do have to admit that there will be probably be a record amount of mosquito nets donated this year. CNN upped the ante and pledged 10,000 even though 1,000 was agreed upon by the loser. Ryan Seacrest couldn't miss out on all the fun so he too pledged to donate an undisclosed amount of nets. All in all, Kutcher did manage to get a whole lot of mosquito nets donated with just a little social networking and a computer.
As a side note, Oprah is definitely getting ready to take over Twitter as she had around 73,000 followers before a single Tweet went out. Bullsh*t. Someone follow me already. I'm just sour because I am incredibly jealous that only 36 people want to know that "I like to rock the party," which was my last tweet, but 73,000 pepople want to hear Oprah say "hello." Why do you have to be famous or incredibly good at social networking to get lots of cool followers? I guess I should work on forcing freinds to join up so that I feel like someone is actually listening. I just wish Tony Hawk followed me back, because he is the man. Oh well, watch out for Oprah, she catching on. Sorry for ranting, I just want to be loved on Twitter.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Friend Feed
As I was reading about social networking websites I came across:
Friend Feed
I just signed up for it - so as of now i do not know much about it yet. But as I'm exploring it, I've discovered - that the website links together Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, Flickr and about 56 other services. These websites range from providing status updates, to sharing pictures and videos, bookmarking, news and a few other random things.
Friend Feed
I just signed up for it - so as of now i do not know much about it yet. But as I'm exploring it, I've discovered - that the website links together Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, Flickr and about 56 other services. These websites range from providing status updates, to sharing pictures and videos, bookmarking, news and a few other random things.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Celebrities on Twitter
For this post, I'll just send you over to my blog, where I incorporated the article Dom brought to our attention into the post: Celebrities on Twitter.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
That's how I beat Shaq
I just found this article about celebrity tweeting. Thought I'd share since we talked about it in class several times.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Into the Social Matrix (reposted from my blog)
In previous blog entries, I've mentioned my friend Paull Young, a social media expert working in the public relations field. The first entry came after he spoke to my Interactive Media class at Fordham University a year ago, and it was entitled The Professionalization of Social Networking, and it was followed by Social Media on Social Media. Of course, you will want to review those posts before continuing... Well? Okay, maybe later then.
So, anyway, Paull recently came back to the Bronx to give another talk to this semester's Interactive Media class. Which was great, I might add. And this time, he taped the talk because he was asked to do a video lecture for students at his alma mater, Charles Sturt University in Australia. As he writes on his blog, Young PR, in a post entitled An Introduction to Social Media for Undergrads:
You can read the entire blog post, it's not very long, by clicking on An Introduction to Social Media for Undergrads and you'll find that it includes the video of the lecture, which Paull posted on Vimeo (an alternative to YouTube that allows for longer videos), but being as always public service-minded, I'll embed that video right here for your convenience:
Paull Young on Social Media from Paull Young on Vimeo.
So, take a little time and enjoy the talk, and the outrageous Aussie accent while you're at it! And while we're on the subject, Time-Warner Cable's local news channel, New York 1 (channel one on local systems in NY and NJ), ran a story on social media that also featured an interview with Paull Young, and his colleague and boss Rob Key (who I met along with Paull last year), from the PR firm called Converseon, Inc., or in Twitter-speak, @converseon. Unfortunately, they won't allow me to embed the video report (how old school, how old media Time-Warner is, and to think that they once were buoyed up by Atari videogames, and later became known as AOL-Time-Warner!!!!). So, I'll just have to give you the link and trust in your good graces to go over to their site and watch the news report: Cleaning Up Your Cyber Image For Employers. There is some text on that site, so I can give you a quote to let you know what it's about:
We then get to the point about how a new medium defines, and redefines who we are, our identity and our selves:
On Twitter today, a number of folks have commented on the description of Paull as "very handsome and intelligent." Leave it at that. Anyway, he goes on to note the breaking down of barriers that is characteristic of all electronic media:
But when it comes to the question of what is the role of public relations in the new social media environment, here's the answer:
And there you have it. But don't take my word for it, go and get it straight from the horses' mouth. And tell them I sent you!
So, anyway, Paull recently came back to the Bronx to give another talk to this semester's Interactive Media class. Which was great, I might add. And this time, he taped the talk because he was asked to do a video lecture for students at his alma mater, Charles Sturt University in Australia. As he writes on his blog, Young PR, in a post entitled An Introduction to Social Media for Undergrads:
Last week I visited Lance Strate’s class at Fordham University on the same mission, so I took the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. While Bathurst and The Bronx have nada in common aside from alliteration, the principles of social media unite PR students around the world.
You can read the entire blog post, it's not very long, by clicking on An Introduction to Social Media for Undergrads and you'll find that it includes the video of the lecture, which Paull posted on Vimeo (an alternative to YouTube that allows for longer videos), but being as always public service-minded, I'll embed that video right here for your convenience:
Paull Young on Social Media from Paull Young on Vimeo.
So, take a little time and enjoy the talk, and the outrageous Aussie accent while you're at it! And while we're on the subject, Time-Warner Cable's local news channel, New York 1 (channel one on local systems in NY and NJ), ran a story on social media that also featured an interview with Paull Young, and his colleague and boss Rob Key (who I met along with Paull last year), from the PR firm called Converseon, Inc., or in Twitter-speak, @converseon. Unfortunately, they won't allow me to embed the video report (how old school, how old media Time-Warner is, and to think that they once were buoyed up by Atari videogames, and later became known as AOL-Time-Warner!!!!). So, I'll just have to give you the link and trust in your good graces to go over to their site and watch the news report: Cleaning Up Your Cyber Image For Employers. There is some text on that site, so I can give you a quote to let you know what it's about:
Learning how to cleanup your online presence is an imporant step in staying ahead of the game when it comes to potential employers. NY1's Tara Lynn Wagner filed the following report.
Sure it's called MySpace, but nothing about it, or any other social networking site, is really yours. The photos, status updates and videos you post on the World Wide Web are there for the whole wide world to see, and while the whole wide world may not be looking, potential employers are.
"More and more employers are beginning to use Google and are becoming more adept at using social media to help find information about both current employees and potential employees and perspective business partners," said Converseon CEO Rob Key.
Key's company, Converseon, is a social media agency that helps companies manage their online reputation. Key says the first step to cleaning up your cyber-image is to do a Google search.
"Look at Google images, go to YouTube and search for your name there as well, you will be amazed at how many places you may end up that you don't know," said Key.
We then get to the point about how a new medium defines, and redefines who we are, our identity and our selves:
Key says when it comes to the web, job seekers need to see themselves as products being promoted. The more content you create for yourself, the more control you have over the impression you give an employer.
"You can find my blog where I've been writing for several years, you can find my linked in profile which is really my very professional CV online, you can find my Twitter page, you can find my YouTube videos," said Converseon Social Media Strategist Paull Young.
Young says while it's okay to have fun with these sites, his Twitter page announces that he is very handsome and intelligent. He adds it's important to know your audience.
On Twitter today, a number of folks have commented on the description of Paull as "very handsome and intelligent." Leave it at that. Anyway, he goes on to note the breaking down of barriers that is characteristic of all electronic media:
"Your mum could read it, your employer or future employer could read it and your significant other could read it. If all those things are fine, then you shouldn't have any problems," said Young.
But when it comes to the question of what is the role of public relations in the new social media environment, here's the answer:
While accentuating the positive is easy, eliminating the negative can be tricky. Key says you can contact the owner of a site and ask politely that the unflattering material be removed and he says you should take advantage of built in security features that allow you to untag yourself from photos posted by others. This enables you to control your image, rather than letting other people define who you are, a definition that can come back to haunt you.
"When it's digitized, it's there forever so something you do at 18 at a college party may likely be here in 10 or 15 years. It's kind of like that tattoo you got one night and years later you are going to regret that you have it, but it's going to remain there," said Key.
And there you have it. But don't take my word for it, go and get it straight from the horses' mouth. And tell them I sent you!
About Facebook (reposted from my blog)
So, let me start off by saying that I'm not a big fan of Facebook, and I'll tell you why. But first let me acknowledge that the opinions expressed here are my own, and not those of the management of Blog Time Passing...
...wait a minute, wait a minute... I am the management of Blog Time Passing, so this is, in fact, the official position of this blog. But I do recognize that my opinion may not be your opinion, nor am I trying to persuade you to come around to my way of thinking. And I also acknowledge that Facebook appears to be the most popular social networking site right now.
Popularity, of course, implies nothing about quality. Back when videocassette recorders were introduced to the consumer market, there were two competing formats, VHS and Betamax. When I started working as a salesman in a video store in the early days of this new medium, back when I was a graduate student (wonder if anyone remembers Video Shack?), VHS was outselling Beta by two to one, and Beta disappeared within a couple of years. VHS won out, even though Beta was actually the superior format, quality-wise. The same thing has gone on in the home computer industry as, for example, the Commodore Amiga was superior to the early Macintosh computers (both used the Graphic User Interface and a mouse), while Windows is a vastly inferior operating system to the Macintosh OS, but is far and away the best selling, no matter the inroads that Mac has made over the past year or so.
So popularity is not an argument in support of Facebook. But I will also acknowledge that Facebook is the most popular form of computer-mediated communication among my students. They tell me that they check Facebook before looking at their email (if they look at their email at all). They also admit that almost all of their interaction there is with people they already know. Many of them feel creeped out when they get friend requests from strangers.
To be honest, I can't imagine what life will be like for the younger generations who will now remain in touch with everyone they meet forever, through Facebook or whatever media take its place in the future. Previously, transitions such as the move from high school to college, or into a work environment, or geographical relocations, all presented opportunites to more or less start over, and reinvent oneself. Now, we leave a long trail or long tail behind us, one that we can never fully shake. It's total recall! This may be comforting in some ways, but leaves you in the position of growing up in a small town where everyone knows all about you from the day you were born, and in the position then of living in that same small town all your life. This relates to Marshall McLuhan's observation, almost half a century ago, that on account of electronic interdependence we live in a global village.
For those of us not native to this digital environment, for us digital immigrants so to speak, the situation is a bit different. We wind up connecting to people that we have not heard from for many years, not having maintained contact when that would have required actual effort on our parts, along the lines of telephones calls and letter writing. So there is this new drive to reconnect, which has its charms and gratifications, and certainly can rekindle old friendships and relationships, especially if the loss of contact was due to situations and circumstances beyond our control, or at least that we had limited control over. And once contact was lost, it would take extraordinary effort to reconnect, especially if the other person has moved. But renewed contact also can be awkward, and ultimately result in reminding us that there were reasons why we drifted apart in the first place (this is not about anyone in particular, in case any of my old reconnected friends are reading this).
Anyway, what I was getting at is that my students find Facebook to be very much in their comfort zone, as of all the social networks out there, Facebook is about familiar and safe connections, while the other networks are more about, well, networking, meeting new people, expanding your contacts, etc. This is risky, yes, that's the trade-off, as psychologist Abraham Maslow noted long ago, safety vs. growth. We learn the most from people we don't already know. For that matter, network research shows that we gain the most from people we don't know well, for example in job hunting--that's known as the strength of loose ties. And for me, my other social networks, MySpace and Twitter, have provided great oppportunities for meeting new people, for growth and learning and networking, as opposed to Facebook.
Of course, I could pursue a more aggressive strategy of networking on Facebook, but another problem I have with the site is its Terms of Service. Simply put, they claim to own everything you put on Facebook, every word you type, every picture you upload, etc. Now, I question whether this would ever hold up in court, but who wants to have to go to court in the first place? And I question whether they could actually enforce such terms, especially given that this is diametrically opposed to the bias of the medium, which is all about sharing--let the spice and the information flow! But it does have a chilling effect, to use an old legal/policy phrase, and it's offensive on principle.
There was a recent uproar, as you may know, when Facebook changed its Terms of Service to say that they also own everything you put there even if you delete it, or delete your profile, and they also said they own everything you link to. There was so much anger generated by this that a few days later they backed off and reverted to their old Terms of Service, which still says they own everything you put up there, just not forever.
Now, they do say that the ToS doesn't mean what it says, that it means something else, but any good general semanticist will tell you that what counts is what the words say, not any inferences that anyone draws about them. When you assume... well, I try to avoid making an ass out of anyone, especially myself. And furthermore, as any good New Yorker would say, I don't like their attitude.
By the way, speaking of Facebook's Terms of Service, here's a marvelous editorial cartoon by Jeff Koterba of the Omaha World Herald:
Neil Postman would've loved that! He always used to point out how all these gadgets and media, from televison on, were great time wasters.
Anyway, getting back to why I'm not a Facebook fanboy, the thing about Facebook is that it is very clean and orderly, closed and safe, the profiles are very quiet, homogenous, with relatively little room for personalization. MySpace, by way of comparison, is much more open and chaotic, and more in tune with the do-it-yourself ethic of the online world. Profiles are customized, so are blogs, it's all very noisy and creative, full of spam and scams and phishers and the like, and full of creative activity--it's a great place for artists, musicians, poets, etc. Twitter, while minimalistic in certain ways, allows for more personalization that Facebook, and is full of hustle and bustle--it's a great place for intellectuals. Neither one makes any claim to own your words, pictures, or soul.
Facebook is very middleclass, and that's the secret to its popularity. To make an analogy, Facebook is like Fabian whereas MySpace and Twitter are more like Elvis. Or in more recent terms, Facebook is like Vanilla Ice, MySpace and Twitter are like, uh, well, you know, real rappers (if I say Public Enemy or Puff Daddy I know I'm dating myself, I just don't know rap very well, but I know full well the sanitizing process that gives us Ice Ice Baby). Ok, how about this, Facebook is like American Idol, as opposed to real rock stars. Facebook is just so very bourgois! It's whitebread, Twitter is rye, MySpace is pumpernickel. Facebook is the suburbs, MySpace is the wild frontier, Twitter is the big city. I could go on, but I'll stop here and add a bit more in another post. Oh, and do feel free to send me a friend request on Facebook, I don't mind. Or on MySpace. Or follow me on Twitter. And of Blog Time Passing of course!
...wait a minute, wait a minute... I am the management of Blog Time Passing, so this is, in fact, the official position of this blog. But I do recognize that my opinion may not be your opinion, nor am I trying to persuade you to come around to my way of thinking. And I also acknowledge that Facebook appears to be the most popular social networking site right now.
Popularity, of course, implies nothing about quality. Back when videocassette recorders were introduced to the consumer market, there were two competing formats, VHS and Betamax. When I started working as a salesman in a video store in the early days of this new medium, back when I was a graduate student (wonder if anyone remembers Video Shack?), VHS was outselling Beta by two to one, and Beta disappeared within a couple of years. VHS won out, even though Beta was actually the superior format, quality-wise. The same thing has gone on in the home computer industry as, for example, the Commodore Amiga was superior to the early Macintosh computers (both used the Graphic User Interface and a mouse), while Windows is a vastly inferior operating system to the Macintosh OS, but is far and away the best selling, no matter the inroads that Mac has made over the past year or so.
So popularity is not an argument in support of Facebook. But I will also acknowledge that Facebook is the most popular form of computer-mediated communication among my students. They tell me that they check Facebook before looking at their email (if they look at their email at all). They also admit that almost all of their interaction there is with people they already know. Many of them feel creeped out when they get friend requests from strangers.
To be honest, I can't imagine what life will be like for the younger generations who will now remain in touch with everyone they meet forever, through Facebook or whatever media take its place in the future. Previously, transitions such as the move from high school to college, or into a work environment, or geographical relocations, all presented opportunites to more or less start over, and reinvent oneself. Now, we leave a long trail or long tail behind us, one that we can never fully shake. It's total recall! This may be comforting in some ways, but leaves you in the position of growing up in a small town where everyone knows all about you from the day you were born, and in the position then of living in that same small town all your life. This relates to Marshall McLuhan's observation, almost half a century ago, that on account of electronic interdependence we live in a global village.
For those of us not native to this digital environment, for us digital immigrants so to speak, the situation is a bit different. We wind up connecting to people that we have not heard from for many years, not having maintained contact when that would have required actual effort on our parts, along the lines of telephones calls and letter writing. So there is this new drive to reconnect, which has its charms and gratifications, and certainly can rekindle old friendships and relationships, especially if the loss of contact was due to situations and circumstances beyond our control, or at least that we had limited control over. And once contact was lost, it would take extraordinary effort to reconnect, especially if the other person has moved. But renewed contact also can be awkward, and ultimately result in reminding us that there were reasons why we drifted apart in the first place (this is not about anyone in particular, in case any of my old reconnected friends are reading this).
Anyway, what I was getting at is that my students find Facebook to be very much in their comfort zone, as of all the social networks out there, Facebook is about familiar and safe connections, while the other networks are more about, well, networking, meeting new people, expanding your contacts, etc. This is risky, yes, that's the trade-off, as psychologist Abraham Maslow noted long ago, safety vs. growth. We learn the most from people we don't already know. For that matter, network research shows that we gain the most from people we don't know well, for example in job hunting--that's known as the strength of loose ties. And for me, my other social networks, MySpace and Twitter, have provided great oppportunities for meeting new people, for growth and learning and networking, as opposed to Facebook.
Of course, I could pursue a more aggressive strategy of networking on Facebook, but another problem I have with the site is its Terms of Service. Simply put, they claim to own everything you put on Facebook, every word you type, every picture you upload, etc. Now, I question whether this would ever hold up in court, but who wants to have to go to court in the first place? And I question whether they could actually enforce such terms, especially given that this is diametrically opposed to the bias of the medium, which is all about sharing--let the spice and the information flow! But it does have a chilling effect, to use an old legal/policy phrase, and it's offensive on principle.
There was a recent uproar, as you may know, when Facebook changed its Terms of Service to say that they also own everything you put there even if you delete it, or delete your profile, and they also said they own everything you link to. There was so much anger generated by this that a few days later they backed off and reverted to their old Terms of Service, which still says they own everything you put up there, just not forever.
Now, they do say that the ToS doesn't mean what it says, that it means something else, but any good general semanticist will tell you that what counts is what the words say, not any inferences that anyone draws about them. When you assume... well, I try to avoid making an ass out of anyone, especially myself. And furthermore, as any good New Yorker would say, I don't like their attitude.
By the way, speaking of Facebook's Terms of Service, here's a marvelous editorial cartoon by Jeff Koterba of the Omaha World Herald:
Neil Postman would've loved that! He always used to point out how all these gadgets and media, from televison on, were great time wasters.
Anyway, getting back to why I'm not a Facebook fanboy, the thing about Facebook is that it is very clean and orderly, closed and safe, the profiles are very quiet, homogenous, with relatively little room for personalization. MySpace, by way of comparison, is much more open and chaotic, and more in tune with the do-it-yourself ethic of the online world. Profiles are customized, so are blogs, it's all very noisy and creative, full of spam and scams and phishers and the like, and full of creative activity--it's a great place for artists, musicians, poets, etc. Twitter, while minimalistic in certain ways, allows for more personalization that Facebook, and is full of hustle and bustle--it's a great place for intellectuals. Neither one makes any claim to own your words, pictures, or soul.
Facebook is very middleclass, and that's the secret to its popularity. To make an analogy, Facebook is like Fabian whereas MySpace and Twitter are more like Elvis. Or in more recent terms, Facebook is like Vanilla Ice, MySpace and Twitter are like, uh, well, you know, real rappers (if I say Public Enemy or Puff Daddy I know I'm dating myself, I just don't know rap very well, but I know full well the sanitizing process that gives us Ice Ice Baby). Ok, how about this, Facebook is like American Idol, as opposed to real rock stars. Facebook is just so very bourgois! It's whitebread, Twitter is rye, MySpace is pumpernickel. Facebook is the suburbs, MySpace is the wild frontier, Twitter is the big city. I could go on, but I'll stop here and add a bit more in another post. Oh, and do feel free to send me a friend request on Facebook, I don't mind. Or on MySpace. Or follow me on Twitter. And of Blog Time Passing of course!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Know Your Medium--Know Yourself (repost from my blog)
So, this was just a little tidbit that came to me while I was twittering away recently, so let me reiterate:
or maybe I should use archaic language to make it sound better?
Take your pick, either one works for me. And I suppose I could leave it at that, keep it all oracular and aphoristic and, well, mcluhanesque, but then again maybe it's worth saying a little bit more about what this means.
Let's start with the second part. The admonition to know yourself was said to have been written outside of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, back in ancient Greece. No one's quite sure who first said, perhaps old Socrates himself, or one of the pre-Socratic philosophers and Ionian physicists such as Thales or Heraclitus, or maybe it was that old mathematician Pythagoras. Although the Oracle at Delphi is mentioned in Homer's epic poetry, and no doubt originates in the oral culture of ancient Greece, the addition of these words, and perhaps the Temple itself, is a product of a literate mindset. Indeed, it is not possible to know oneself without a mirror of some sorts. A mirror image allows us to reflect upon and become self-consicous of our looks. A mirror image of one's mind allows the same to happen regarding our thoughts, and this is exactly what writing provides. The written word lets us spill our thoughts out on a physical writing surface, freeze them to view and review, and it is only in this way that you can begin to know your own mind. Without writing, there is little capacity for introspection.
Writing then gives rise to the notion that we might have an individual self, a self that is distinct and separate from any other, not bound up inextricably in one's family and tribe, but a single self like a single cell. You might say that writing gives us a self to know, but having done so, we do not automatically set about knowing that self. To do so requires extra effort, additional consciousness raising.
Most media work in this way, extending and externalizing part of ourselves, as McLuhan makes clear in Understanding Media. Each medium, then, lets us learn a little bit more about ourselves, lets us see a different angle of ourselves. But even more basically, each medium lets us create a different self altogether, and every new medium leads to the creation of a new kind of self.
At this point I should probably invoke the perspective known as symbolic interaction, pioneered by George Herbert Mead, popularized by Erving Goffman. From this point of view, we do not have one true self, but rather many different selves, each one true in its own way. You are a different self, in large part because you play a different role, in different situations, for example, when interacting with parents, or when interacting with friends, or when interacting with lovers, or when interacting with coworkers, or when interacting with teachers, or when interacting with children, etc.
Each and every role we play is a self we create for ourselves, and we are the sum of the roles we play, the sum of the selves we construct. As H. D. Duncan has put it, we have a parliament of selves.
Each situation also involves a different relationship, and to bring in now the relational theory of Paul Watzlawick, our selves are defined in our relationships. They never exist in isolation. I can only play the role of teacher if there are students who will accept me in that role, and play their complementary parts in the relationship. They play an integral part in defining me as my teacher-self.
So, now, each medium is also a situation, as Josh Meyrowitz has argued in No Sense of Place, and each medium is also a relationship, as Kenneth Gergen shows in The Saturated Self. So, for each medium that you interact through, you construct a different and new role and self (albeit one that may be similar to others in your repetoire). When you are working with social media, this is very obvious at the moment you create a profile for yourself, but the process doesn't end after the profile is finished. In fact, it has only just begun. You create your self though your subsequent communication behaviors, as your relate to and interact with others. This connects, then, to my previously posted point that You Are What You Tweet.
So, in order to know which self you are at any given time, you have to know which medium or media you are communicating within. And to fully know that self, you have to know that medium well, to understand its nature, its biases, its impact and its effects--its media ecology, so to speak.
So, if you know your medium, you can also know yourself, or at least know one part of yourself, and that may be more than many people know... and if nothing else, certainly, it's a start!
Know Your Medium
Know Yourself
Know Yourself
or maybe I should use archaic language to make it sound better?
Know Thy Medium
Know Thyself
Know Thyself
Take your pick, either one works for me. And I suppose I could leave it at that, keep it all oracular and aphoristic and, well, mcluhanesque, but then again maybe it's worth saying a little bit more about what this means.
Let's start with the second part. The admonition to know yourself was said to have been written outside of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, back in ancient Greece. No one's quite sure who first said, perhaps old Socrates himself, or one of the pre-Socratic philosophers and Ionian physicists such as Thales or Heraclitus, or maybe it was that old mathematician Pythagoras. Although the Oracle at Delphi is mentioned in Homer's epic poetry, and no doubt originates in the oral culture of ancient Greece, the addition of these words, and perhaps the Temple itself, is a product of a literate mindset. Indeed, it is not possible to know oneself without a mirror of some sorts. A mirror image allows us to reflect upon and become self-consicous of our looks. A mirror image of one's mind allows the same to happen regarding our thoughts, and this is exactly what writing provides. The written word lets us spill our thoughts out on a physical writing surface, freeze them to view and review, and it is only in this way that you can begin to know your own mind. Without writing, there is little capacity for introspection.
Writing then gives rise to the notion that we might have an individual self, a self that is distinct and separate from any other, not bound up inextricably in one's family and tribe, but a single self like a single cell. You might say that writing gives us a self to know, but having done so, we do not automatically set about knowing that self. To do so requires extra effort, additional consciousness raising.
Most media work in this way, extending and externalizing part of ourselves, as McLuhan makes clear in Understanding Media. Each medium, then, lets us learn a little bit more about ourselves, lets us see a different angle of ourselves. But even more basically, each medium lets us create a different self altogether, and every new medium leads to the creation of a new kind of self.
At this point I should probably invoke the perspective known as symbolic interaction, pioneered by George Herbert Mead, popularized by Erving Goffman. From this point of view, we do not have one true self, but rather many different selves, each one true in its own way. You are a different self, in large part because you play a different role, in different situations, for example, when interacting with parents, or when interacting with friends, or when interacting with lovers, or when interacting with coworkers, or when interacting with teachers, or when interacting with children, etc.
Each and every role we play is a self we create for ourselves, and we are the sum of the roles we play, the sum of the selves we construct. As H. D. Duncan has put it, we have a parliament of selves.
Each situation also involves a different relationship, and to bring in now the relational theory of Paul Watzlawick, our selves are defined in our relationships. They never exist in isolation. I can only play the role of teacher if there are students who will accept me in that role, and play their complementary parts in the relationship. They play an integral part in defining me as my teacher-self.
So, now, each medium is also a situation, as Josh Meyrowitz has argued in No Sense of Place, and each medium is also a relationship, as Kenneth Gergen shows in The Saturated Self. So, for each medium that you interact through, you construct a different and new role and self (albeit one that may be similar to others in your repetoire). When you are working with social media, this is very obvious at the moment you create a profile for yourself, but the process doesn't end after the profile is finished. In fact, it has only just begun. You create your self though your subsequent communication behaviors, as your relate to and interact with others. This connects, then, to my previously posted point that You Are What You Tweet.
So, in order to know which self you are at any given time, you have to know which medium or media you are communicating within. And to fully know that self, you have to know that medium well, to understand its nature, its biases, its impact and its effects--its media ecology, so to speak.
So, if you know your medium, you can also know yourself, or at least know one part of yourself, and that may be more than many people know... and if nothing else, certainly, it's a start!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Social Networking & Children
At one time or another during our lives, someone has told us that engaging in media (be it television, internet etc) is bad. I found an article about social networking and children from The Washington Post so I thought I'd share. Lacy argues that social networking, involves an extension of one's real identity, instead of creating an identity - and so it may be good for children.
Why Social Networks Are Good for the Kids
Tuesday, February 24, 2009; 7:05 AM
Why Social Networks Are Good for the Kids
Sarah Lacy
TechCrunch.comTuesday, February 24, 2009; 7:05 AM
The other day I asked somewhat tongue-in-cheek whether Tom Friedman had ever visited Silicon Valley. Today, I'm wondering if Lady Greenfield has ever used a social networking site.
The professor of synaptic pharmacology at Lincoln College, Oxford and the director of the Royal Institution has the United Kingdom up in a tizzy about the idea that Facebook, Bebo and Twitter are warping their children's minds.
She warned that social networking sites are devoid of cohesive narrative and long-term significance. As a consequence, the mid-21st century mind might almost be infantilized, characterized by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathize and a shaky sense of identity.I'm not a psychologist, nor am I a parent, so let me start by saying she might be right that these sites are harmful in some cognitive way. But I think she's wrong to assume social networking is devoid of a cohesive narrative and long-term significance. I can see where she's coming from, but like a lot of people who don't actually use these sites, she's missing a fundamental shift from Web 1.0 chat room days to Web 2.0 social networks: Real identity.
We no longer go to the Internet to interact with some shadowy user name where we pretend to be someone we're not. Ok, maybe people on Second Life do. But sites like Facebook and Twitter are more about extending your real identity and relationships online. That's what makes them so addictive: The little endorphin rushes from reconnecting with an old friend, the ability to passively stay in touch with people you care about but don't have the time to call everyday.
Facebook makes me a more considerate friend because I now remember people's birthdays. Over Geni, I stay in touch with my niece who I used to see once a year, but is now helping me map out our family tree. Via Twitter, my parents and in-laws know everything happening in my life so that when I call home, we have substantive conversations, not the awkward, So,..whatcha been up to?? variety. In dozens of cases, these sites have made my real human relationships longer lasting and more substantive. They have actually given me a longer narrative, because it has rekindled friendships with dozens of people with whom I'd lost touch.
Greenfield may well have a point when she argues that the young brain can't handle over-stimulation of fast action and reaction. But isn't that the same argument we've been making about all technology and entertainment for decades now? Indeed, I'm of the MTV generation and all those fast cuts and blaring sounds were supposed to warp my brain long ago. (I know some TechCrunch commenters who would argue it has) Everything has a trade off, and I'd argue the benefits in communications, education and collaboration of the Web far outweigh the negatives, and indeed give us greater benefits than we get from TV or Guitar Hero.
I do share one concern with her: Whether over saturation online leads to a lack of empathy. This is something that is being debated throughout the blogosphere right now. As we all become public personas in our own sphere we're increasingly subject to the same abuse, scrutiny and haters that actual celebrities have to deal with. Such anonymous venom is, after all, why you are reading a post from me on TechCrunch right now.
But I'm hopeful that the direction social networking is headed in is the answer to this, not the problem. As more of our social graphs move online, via Twitter or Facebook, the more the same social pressures of the real world come to bear. Compare anonymous YouTube comments with Twitter comments. Generally, Twitter is more kind and substantive, especially among users who Twitter under their real names. Now compare that to comments on Facebook. Almost all of the comments on someone's photo, video, status are supportive and empathetic, because the site has mimicked real world relationships and with that real world pressures.
My thoughts:
The last part that Lacy mentions - about comments being empathetic - is an important one. Since these websites reflect real world relationships and pressures - it may seem to enhance and improve a child's development. Even though some may argue that social networking websites may lead to less empathy - i think it depends more so on the type of social networking website. Facebook and Twitter use real names - and users comment on each others pictures, videos, and notes - extending the real world connection. While some may see this as a good thing, many argue that over saturation will lead to a lack of empathy. Ultimately, it depends on the user. People use social networking websites to connect with old friends, promote their company, or just make new friends. The purposes for which people use social networking websites will determine whether or not they are benefitting from this type of interaction with others.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
"Web 2.0" Is Constantly Under Revision
One morning, I've come across a clip on channel NY1 news about Twitter with an awards ceremony involved. NY1 News added how Twitter has expanded and how popular it has become. So I've decided to look up if they might have an article about it on the NY1 website. Upon putting "Twitter" into the search engine I can across the following interesting article especially for our class:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"09/18/2008 12:43 PM
"Web 2.0" Is Constantly Under Revision
By: Adam Balkin
"Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, Twitter, these are typically the types of sites that one thinks of when they hear the phrase "Web 2.0." Though, as you'll find at the first annual Web 2.0 Expo in N.Y., the official definition for what is “Web 2.0,” it is constantly under revision. NY1’s Adam Balkin filed the following report.
“Basically, you're talking about sites that instead of publishing your stuff to the web, invite people to participate in the web. We've got about 5,000 developers, designers, internet entrepreneurs, marketers who come together to figure out what's next for ‘Web 2.0,’” said organizer of Web 2.0 Expo Jennifer Pahlka. “It's the people who are building sites like MySpace and Facebook who are mostly here.”
Friendster.com, the social networking site that helped started this whole “2.0 movement” is also constantly under revision. Its vision now, help to prevent you from having to jump from one place to the next, having to constantly start from scratch on the latest hottest spot online to connect with friends.
“It's going to be more convenient to keep in touch with people to share content, to discover content from other people you may know, and to kind of participate in multiple networks at once without physically being logged in to every single one, every minute of the day,” said Jeff Robert of Friendster.com.
But really what this conference focuses on is taking what people like about using “Web 2.0” technologies on their own time and letting them use those same technologies to be more productive at the office.
“We're seeing companies coming to us to build a social networking strategy within their internal networks that make these young people feel comfortable with their usability and with their executions and actions everyday,” said Jerry Sheer of Sparta Social Networks. “Social networking, in a large company, specifically, is about people connecting to other people who are not in their cube, in their work environment, and in a satellite office.”
And considering a new study by Hitwise, an Internet tracking company, found that social networks have surpassed porn, as the most popular spots online now, it makes sense that big companies are also hoping internal social networks will help employees feel more like part of a community while at the office, rather than just another cog in a giant wheel."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a student of CBA graduating class of 2009, I found it very interesting that large companies are now inquiring about social networks within the company. I see that as a very bright idea. The employees will no longer be limited to sharing insights with those within proximity of their cubicle.Ideas and possibly innovations will start to surface as employees converse and share ideas with each other, which will ultimately benefit the company. I see this as completely beneficial and I think it should be started as soon as possible. Personally, being a member of Twitter and LinkdIn, I spend a lot of time looking of individuals who have similar professional backgrounds to converse with. I can just imagine what a large company that sets up a network for professionals in the same field to collaborate!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"09/18/2008 12:43 PM
"Web 2.0" Is Constantly Under Revision
By: Adam Balkin
"Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, Twitter, these are typically the types of sites that one thinks of when they hear the phrase "Web 2.0." Though, as you'll find at the first annual Web 2.0 Expo in N.Y., the official definition for what is “Web 2.0,” it is constantly under revision. NY1’s Adam Balkin filed the following report.
“Basically, you're talking about sites that instead of publishing your stuff to the web, invite people to participate in the web. We've got about 5,000 developers, designers, internet entrepreneurs, marketers who come together to figure out what's next for ‘Web 2.0,’” said organizer of Web 2.0 Expo Jennifer Pahlka. “It's the people who are building sites like MySpace and Facebook who are mostly here.”
Friendster.com, the social networking site that helped started this whole “2.0 movement” is also constantly under revision. Its vision now, help to prevent you from having to jump from one place to the next, having to constantly start from scratch on the latest hottest spot online to connect with friends.
“It's going to be more convenient to keep in touch with people to share content, to discover content from other people you may know, and to kind of participate in multiple networks at once without physically being logged in to every single one, every minute of the day,” said Jeff Robert of Friendster.com.
But really what this conference focuses on is taking what people like about using “Web 2.0” technologies on their own time and letting them use those same technologies to be more productive at the office.
“We're seeing companies coming to us to build a social networking strategy within their internal networks that make these young people feel comfortable with their usability and with their executions and actions everyday,” said Jerry Sheer of Sparta Social Networks. “Social networking, in a large company, specifically, is about people connecting to other people who are not in their cube, in their work environment, and in a satellite office.”
And considering a new study by Hitwise, an Internet tracking company, found that social networks have surpassed porn, as the most popular spots online now, it makes sense that big companies are also hoping internal social networks will help employees feel more like part of a community while at the office, rather than just another cog in a giant wheel."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a student of CBA graduating class of 2009, I found it very interesting that large companies are now inquiring about social networks within the company. I see that as a very bright idea. The employees will no longer be limited to sharing insights with those within proximity of their cubicle.Ideas and possibly innovations will start to surface as employees converse and share ideas with each other, which will ultimately benefit the company. I see this as completely beneficial and I think it should be started as soon as possible. Personally, being a member of Twitter and LinkdIn, I spend a lot of time looking of individuals who have similar professional backgrounds to converse with. I can just imagine what a large company that sets up a network for professionals in the same field to collaborate!
Monday, February 9, 2009
social networking sites
As I was playing around with twitter, myspace, and other social media websites, I found a few interesting ones:
Power
This website allows visitors who have an Orkut, Hi5, or MySpace profile to access everything in one place. With so many different types of social networking websites, power makes it very easy to access everything without having to go to several different websites. I tried logging on with my MySpace username but they are repairing the website or something like that, so it hasn't quite yet worked. Their website says visitors will also be able to access facebook, MSN messenger, and enjoy Yahoo and Hotmail integration very shortly.
Twitter
While exploring twitter, I came across a few interesting things.
Twittervision
This site has a map of the world, on which twitter updates are shown. So if you update your status -- a picture of you, and your updated status will show up on the map from your location.
Twitscoop
This shows the most popular words on twitter right now and is updated every few seconds.
Tweet2Tweet
Through this site you can type in the name of two twitter users and see their @ replies.
It was particularly interesting to find out how many different websites were created as a result of twitter.
Ning
This website allows you to create your own social network. I attempted to create a network, just to see what the website provides. You can create your own network, decide whether or not you want it public or private, and then do anything else any other social networking website allows you to do (upload pictures, videos, join groups, blog, write on discussion boards etc). It seems kind of like a yahoo or google group, because you can create your own name, pick you who want to add, but then again, all other social networking sites allow for that too.
Power
This website allows visitors who have an Orkut, Hi5, or MySpace profile to access everything in one place. With so many different types of social networking websites, power makes it very easy to access everything without having to go to several different websites. I tried logging on with my MySpace username but they are repairing the website or something like that, so it hasn't quite yet worked. Their website says visitors will also be able to access facebook, MSN messenger, and enjoy Yahoo and Hotmail integration very shortly.
While exploring twitter, I came across a few interesting things.
Twittervision
This site has a map of the world, on which twitter updates are shown. So if you update your status -- a picture of you, and your updated status will show up on the map from your location.
Twitscoop
This shows the most popular words on twitter right now and is updated every few seconds.
Tweet2Tweet
Through this site you can type in the name of two twitter users and see their @ replies.
It was particularly interesting to find out how many different websites were created as a result of twitter.
Ning
This website allows you to create your own social network. I attempted to create a network, just to see what the website provides. You can create your own network, decide whether or not you want it public or private, and then do anything else any other social networking website allows you to do (upload pictures, videos, join groups, blog, write on discussion boards etc). It seems kind of like a yahoo or google group, because you can create your own name, pick you who want to add, but then again, all other social networking sites allow for that too.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Strate Talk on Twitter
This time, instead of reproducing the blog post, I'll just leave the link here and you can click on it and head over to my own blog for some...
Be there or be square!
Strate Talk on Twitter
Be there or be square!
Thinking Differently
The first reading was quite interesting, because in class we started out engaging in different types of social media (myspace, twitter, youtube, blogger etc), without really thinking about the issues that the reading brings up. The idea of cyborgs, the merging of people and artificial systems, as mentioned in our reading, raises many issues. For one, it challenges the traditional notion of the self; Rucker goes on to saying that "neither men nor robots are anything but machines." It makes us think about the ethical, social, psychological, and philosophical issues about cyberspace, and artificial intelligence. I disagree with Rucker, because humans have a soul, whereas machines do not, and thus they cannot be compared on the same level.
Another interesting issue mentioned in the reading was about cyberspace's capability of changing people. The reading provided an example from an article in Wired, of a woman who was shy, wore various shades of gray, and prefered a conservative cut, who created a digital identity that was the polar opposite of reality. As a result of her interaction with men online, she changed her style in real life. This brings about the notion of behavior alteration. Its hard to determine why she would create a persona unlike herself, but it did bring about a change in her. It suggests that the interaction of people through social media is capable of bringing about change.
Mead explains that,"The others and the self arise in a social act together." Basically, the individual self is established by putting together the attitudes of others towards the self, and toward one another through social interaction, as mentioned in our reading. This relates to the story about the woman, because she was able to change herself, based on other people's perception of her. She portrayed herself one way, people started believing that is who she was, reciprocated those thoughts to her, and so she started believing that she was "The Naked Lady." You understand who you are, through your interaction with others. Through any form of social interaction, people gain a better understanding of themselves. This also brings up an issue about cyberspace, and ubiquitous computing that I never thought about before.
Additionally, there were quite a few things in this reading, that I never would have thought about in trying to understand the way social media works, but after the reading the concerns mentioned are quite important. For example, virtual reality is supposed to create experiences that are life like interactions, but what happens when the lines between virtual and actual reality are blurred? This was just one of issues the reading made me think about.
Another interesting issue mentioned in the reading was about cyberspace's capability of changing people. The reading provided an example from an article in Wired, of a woman who was shy, wore various shades of gray, and prefered a conservative cut, who created a digital identity that was the polar opposite of reality. As a result of her interaction with men online, she changed her style in real life. This brings about the notion of behavior alteration. Its hard to determine why she would create a persona unlike herself, but it did bring about a change in her. It suggests that the interaction of people through social media is capable of bringing about change.
Mead explains that,"The others and the self arise in a social act together." Basically, the individual self is established by putting together the attitudes of others towards the self, and toward one another through social interaction, as mentioned in our reading. This relates to the story about the woman, because she was able to change herself, based on other people's perception of her. She portrayed herself one way, people started believing that is who she was, reciprocated those thoughts to her, and so she started believing that she was "The Naked Lady." You understand who you are, through your interaction with others. Through any form of social interaction, people gain a better understanding of themselves. This also brings up an issue about cyberspace, and ubiquitous computing that I never thought about before.
Additionally, there were quite a few things in this reading, that I never would have thought about in trying to understand the way social media works, but after the reading the concerns mentioned are quite important. For example, virtual reality is supposed to create experiences that are life like interactions, but what happens when the lines between virtual and actual reality are blurred? This was just one of issues the reading made me think about.
Monday, February 2, 2009
You Are What You Tweet
Reposting this new item from my own blog:
So, a couple of weeks ago I got into a bit of an unpleasant exchange with someone on Twitter (my profile page is http://twitter.com/LanceStrate, in case you're interested). This involved someone who I actually first met offline and several years ago, long before Twitter was even a Twinkle in anyone's eye. Of course it was over politics. What else is new?
Anyway, this person started posting news items about a political controversy via Twitter, and all of the items had a very strong slant, or shall we say bias, one that went counter to my own leanings. Now, I am all for people being free to express their opinions. And of course, that includes having the right to respond to people expressing their opinions with your own opinions and counterarguments. So I started to respond to this person's tweets. (You can send a reply that is still public--Twitter also allows for private direct messages, but that's not what this is about--but coded as a specific reply by beginning the message with the person's Twitter name, which is their profile name preceded by the @ sign. So a specific reply to me would begin with @LanceStrate.)
So I sent a few specific replies offering a bit of a rebuttal--not much in depth political discourse is possible when Twitter only allows posts, aka tweets, of no more that 140 characters--that's why it's called microblogging. And I followed the specific replies by also posting a few items, videos actually, that presented the alternate point of view. This is uncharacteristic of me, to be sure, but I found it upsetting to see someone I know posting items that I considered biased, prejudiced propaganda. This individual did respond to me indicating that he was posting this material because American media is one-sided, and he wanted to see what the other side had to say. This sounded strange to me, since there's a difference between looking at items and posting the links on Twitter. Just to reinforce that point, here are some of the specific replies I sent as this exchange continued. While I'm only giving you my side of the story, my intent is not to win an argument, just to make a point about the medium:
Now, you may disagree with me, but the point is that whatever you post can come across as a personal statement. You are implicitly saying, I am ----- and I approved this message, unless you make it clear you haven't. In response to this, I was sent what seemed to be an angry message that, in entering into a dialogue and expressing a different opinion, I was "policing" this person's messages. Given that he considered what he was doing to be his own personal communication, it must have seemed like an invasion, even though to me it came across as interpersonal messages on a public forum. So my response was the following series of tweets:
And again, I'm not asking that you agree with me, I just think it's important to understand that one source of friction here is that there are different metaphors in play for what Twitter is, as a medium, for what it's all about. To this other person, it's a blog, it seems, a place to post items of interest to him, almost like a bookmarking function, a form of intrapersonal communication that is left open for others to view. To me, Twitter is an interactive medium through which people send messages to each other in a public forum.
In part, this also depends upon the actual technologies you use in conjunction with Twitter. If it's just something you go to on the web, it remains somewhat distanced, a list of posts. If you receive updates from the people you are following on Twitter as text messages on your mobile phone, as I do, Twitter takes on a more intimate character, and posts that you may not pay attention to as part of a long list on a web page can become offensive when one comes in as a single update on the phone.
Having said that, I do think that this all relates to the seminal work of Paul Watzlawick, as presented in the book he co-authored with Janet Beavin Bavelas and Donald D. Jackson, entitled The Pragmatics of Communication. This was one of the key works for the discipline of communication back when I was a student, and was also required reading in Neil Postman's old media ecology program at New York University. That's where Watzlawick and his colleagues presented their first axiom of communication, One cannot not communicate. The point of that is simply that everything you say or do, or don't say or do, has message value, says something one way or another, especially about yourself and your feelings. They also note that communication always functions on two different levels, one being the content level we are always aware of. The other is the relationship level, where we communicate about how to relate to one another and how to interpret the content we are sending--in fact, it is difficult to know what to make of the content unless we first have established a relationship. The relationship level is always present, but we may not be aware of it most of the time. But it is much more powerful than the content level--relationship overwhelms content, as Neil Postman and Christine Nystrom used to say in our seminar. Bring Erving Goffman into the mix, based on his well known book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, and it also follows that along with establishing and maintaining relationships, we are projecting our own definitions of the situation to others, and hoping that they accept those definitions. And we are putting on a performance, playing a role, and in doing so, creating a persona or sense of self.
So, with that in mind, here are some tweets that I sent as I pondered this interaction:
This is the bottom line, because in this medium there is nothing else apart from what you put out there. There is your profile, and there's whatever URL you include, and there's your little icon. Apart from those items, you yourself are constituted, in this medium, by and through the messages you send--they create your persona, your self. In face-to-face interaction, nonverbal cues are very powerful and meaningful, and I can remain silent and communicate a great deal, especially on the relationship level. On Twitter, there is almost no nonverbal communication, it's all in what you say, if you never tweet you don't exist for all intents and purposes (silence then is truly death), so that the messages you send become you, comprise you.
Or, once again, when you are on Twitter,
So, a couple of weeks ago I got into a bit of an unpleasant exchange with someone on Twitter (my profile page is http://twitter.com/LanceStrate, in case you're interested). This involved someone who I actually first met offline and several years ago, long before Twitter was even a Twinkle in anyone's eye. Of course it was over politics. What else is new?
Anyway, this person started posting news items about a political controversy via Twitter, and all of the items had a very strong slant, or shall we say bias, one that went counter to my own leanings. Now, I am all for people being free to express their opinions. And of course, that includes having the right to respond to people expressing their opinions with your own opinions and counterarguments. So I started to respond to this person's tweets. (You can send a reply that is still public--Twitter also allows for private direct messages, but that's not what this is about--but coded as a specific reply by beginning the message with the person's Twitter name, which is their profile name preceded by the @ sign. So a specific reply to me would begin with @LanceStrate.)
So I sent a few specific replies offering a bit of a rebuttal--not much in depth political discourse is possible when Twitter only allows posts, aka tweets, of no more that 140 characters--that's why it's called microblogging. And I followed the specific replies by also posting a few items, videos actually, that presented the alternate point of view. This is uncharacteristic of me, to be sure, but I found it upsetting to see someone I know posting items that I considered biased, prejudiced propaganda. This individual did respond to me indicating that he was posting this material because American media is one-sided, and he wanted to see what the other side had to say. This sounded strange to me, since there's a difference between looking at items and posting the links on Twitter. Just to reinforce that point, here are some of the specific replies I sent as this exchange continued. While I'm only giving you my side of the story, my intent is not to win an argument, just to make a point about the medium:
if you're posting one side of a controversy, you're doing more than peeking at the other side, you are advocating for them
Now, you may disagree with me, but the point is that whatever you post can come across as a personal statement. You are implicitly saying, I am ----- and I approved this message, unless you make it clear you haven't. In response to this, I was sent what seemed to be an angry message that, in entering into a dialogue and expressing a different opinion, I was "policing" this person's messages. Given that he considered what he was doing to be his own personal communication, it must have seemed like an invasion, even though to me it came across as interpersonal messages on a public forum. So my response was the following series of tweets:
Policing? Nonsense! Your tweets are public messages, not private thoughts. They're sent to me, so I responded.
Tweeting links that reflect a position on a controversy over and over is advocacy, not "thoughts" If you publicly advocate for a position on an issue, should you be surprised that someone else might question you or disagree?
And again, I'm not asking that you agree with me, I just think it's important to understand that one source of friction here is that there are different metaphors in play for what Twitter is, as a medium, for what it's all about. To this other person, it's a blog, it seems, a place to post items of interest to him, almost like a bookmarking function, a form of intrapersonal communication that is left open for others to view. To me, Twitter is an interactive medium through which people send messages to each other in a public forum.
In part, this also depends upon the actual technologies you use in conjunction with Twitter. If it's just something you go to on the web, it remains somewhat distanced, a list of posts. If you receive updates from the people you are following on Twitter as text messages on your mobile phone, as I do, Twitter takes on a more intimate character, and posts that you may not pay attention to as part of a long list on a web page can become offensive when one comes in as a single update on the phone.
Having said that, I do think that this all relates to the seminal work of Paul Watzlawick, as presented in the book he co-authored with Janet Beavin Bavelas and Donald D. Jackson, entitled The Pragmatics of Communication. This was one of the key works for the discipline of communication back when I was a student, and was also required reading in Neil Postman's old media ecology program at New York University. That's where Watzlawick and his colleagues presented their first axiom of communication, One cannot not communicate. The point of that is simply that everything you say or do, or don't say or do, has message value, says something one way or another, especially about yourself and your feelings. They also note that communication always functions on two different levels, one being the content level we are always aware of. The other is the relationship level, where we communicate about how to relate to one another and how to interpret the content we are sending--in fact, it is difficult to know what to make of the content unless we first have established a relationship. The relationship level is always present, but we may not be aware of it most of the time. But it is much more powerful than the content level--relationship overwhelms content, as Neil Postman and Christine Nystrom used to say in our seminar. Bring Erving Goffman into the mix, based on his well known book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, and it also follows that along with establishing and maintaining relationships, we are projecting our own definitions of the situation to others, and hoping that they accept those definitions. And we are putting on a performance, playing a role, and in doing so, creating a persona or sense of self.
So, with that in mind, here are some tweets that I sent as I pondered this interaction:
When you tweet, you are not just transmitting information, you are establishing an identity, constructing a persona or self
When you tweet, you are projecting a definition of who you are, and your relationship to your "followers" and readers
Your followers and readers in turn take part in defining who you are, based on what you tweet
In other words, you are what you tweet!
This is the bottom line, because in this medium there is nothing else apart from what you put out there. There is your profile, and there's whatever URL you include, and there's your little icon. Apart from those items, you yourself are constituted, in this medium, by and through the messages you send--they create your persona, your self. In face-to-face interaction, nonverbal cues are very powerful and meaningful, and I can remain silent and communicate a great deal, especially on the relationship level. On Twitter, there is almost no nonverbal communication, it's all in what you say, if you never tweet you don't exist for all intents and purposes (silence then is truly death), so that the messages you send become you, comprise you.
Or, once again, when you are on Twitter,
YOU ARE WHAT YOU TWEET!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)