CHOICES

I don't know...maybe it's just me, but I have absolutely NO sympathy for anyone who places damning photos of themselves up on networking sites. Now, if someone else is the culprit of posting this information, then maybe I might sympathize a little. I am a firm believer in not doing anything that you wouldn't want your grandmother to find out about, so forgive me for my apathy on that particular topic.

I do find it hilarious though that sites like, ReputationDefender.com and Namyz are actually making money "clearing" peoples' e-records. (I hope people realize that they can do this on their own)

I think if more people spent time thinking about what might happen to their future prior to making silly decisions that all of this could be avoided and they could save themselves a lot of embarassment, time, money...oh yeah, and future job opportunities.


"The choices we make dictate the lives that we lead." ~Danny DeVito, Renaissance Man

“A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity” ~ Nazi Doctor Joeseph Goebbels

This theme, "Social News" is especially interesting to me. I spent an entire semester researching the effects media on society and politics alike and I feel quite strongly about a few areas concerning this particular topic.

I think that the media, once nominally accepted as the informational hot spot, is in a state of disarray. I feel that it is important to understand the nexus between the political and economic arena and the media in order to comprehend the media as a whole. We live in a capitalist society(definition: driven by money). The media system is not owned by the state, like those of communist countries, instead it is run by a few enormous conglomerates. This corporate control of the media enterprise has ensured that the elite administer the media in a fashion that would suit them, however subtle or inadvertent that might be. In Smart Mobs, Howard Rheingold mentioned citizens "becoming the reporters." (pp 168-169) While I do believe that this social take over of the news was a step in ther right direction, I feel as though this may have created more problems as well.

Here's how:

In the article, “Bad News,” Richard Posner argues that the conventional news media are besieged for a few reasons.

1. The corporatization of the media has much to do with the failure to accurately report a great deal of important business dealings (or scandals if you will). See documentary, Orwell Rolls in his Grave, to learn how "lies become the truth."

2. New media (i.e. Blogs, cable news) have caused an explosion of consumer choices, thus a grapple among media to secure a larger audience.

3.Hard news (homelessness, the economic degradation of the lower class of America, the real issues in the war in Iraq) does not sell. Soft news (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s new baby, Tom Cruise’s latest outburst, Police chases) sells, so the media give the people what they want—entertainment (mixed with tidbits of information here and there).


Posner acknowledges the fact the emergence of new media sources has placed pressure on both owners of news media and journalists alike. With a quickly diminishing budget, the owners are forced to let go of some of the reporters. Now, there are five journalist pulling the same work load as ten before and these journalist are still trying to beat the bloggers to the punch on stories. These factors have led to accidental inaccuracy as well as the blatant erroneous reporting of late. Posner argues that the struggle for a greater viewing base has had a sensationalizing effect on the media and has amplified partisan reporting.

Corporate power, wage disintegration, growing inequality between the rich and the poor, and the disappearance of the middle class are just a few many core issues of class that have completely fallen off the media map.

Million dollar question:

If something happens and it's not reported, did it happen at all???

LOL!!!!

I read the necessary pages of Naked Conversations, and the "Blogs Will Change Your Business" article. I find it quite amusing that people actually think a corporation giant (ie Microsoft) will ever change its ways due to a few measely people writing letters. Now comes my tirade on the decline in social activism...

See, what corporations and politicians alike are sure of is that no major social reform has ever come about without massive mobilization of people AND feet in the streets. That is to say...words on a page are lovely, sit on your computer all day long typing all but incognito blogs, but until a critical mass emerges and takes action against the "issue of the day" then NOTHING is going to change. Corporations laugh in the virtual face of bloggers!

I belive it was in the article, something to the effect of, "blogging is not a business elective. They are a prerequisite." I would argue that this is a statement handed directly down from corporate America. If they can keep people in front of their computers and out of the streets and out of congress and out of their own headquarters, then their work is done. They have NO worries and they know it.


They are LOLing at all you bloggers....Muahhhahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

Social Networking and Collaboration...

Upon the completion of the assigned readings for tomorrow's class, only one of the topics remains with me...SUSTAINABILITY...

Although "sustainability" was never used in Smart Mobs, I do believe that is what Mr. Rheingold was referring to when he mention the regulation of the use of common areas (i.e grazing pastures, aqueducts, etc). (p 34/35) While I do not feel as though he did a good connecting this story to social networking as a whole, I do feel as though this story is analagous for two different situations.

1.) How big can the internet grow without over-running itself???

2.) Is it possible for a network (on a smaller level...maybe Facebook) to become too big.

3.) Who should be in control of regulating the internet???( This is a whole other blog post...Keep your eye out for this one....)

While the first question is far beyond the reaches of my current intellectual capacity, I do have an idea about the latter. I would say that Facebook is a prime example of a network becoming too large. At its inception, Facebook was just a community for college students. It was great!!! Over the past eighteen months or so, it has drastically changed. It went from being a college network, to a high school and college network, to being a network open to the public. I noticed that it was much more difficult to locate people because there were so many more "Joe Shmoe's" in such a large network than in the network of yore. This was just one of many issues that arose from the evolution of Facebook. There were also security/privacy issues that arose with some of the new "features" installed in Facebook.

I dunno, I just think it is important not to spread too thin....and large networks tend to do exactly that.

"The Father of the Internet"

I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend Vinton Cerf's lecture this past week. He is an invaluable source of information! I learned so much.

Surprisingly, the crowd was about 90% native-spanish speakers....Why is that you ask???

Well, the main topic of the night happended to be bringing information to Latin and Central Americas...more importantly, bringing information and technology even to the poorest in those countries. There is an alliance between "Microsoft, Intel, and One Laptop per Child [Organization], " that will aid in this massive effort in information sharing.

He encouraged people to think about infrastructure and not just temporary fixes. Often times the U.S military, and even the Peace Corps will enter a foreign country with great intentions and help "fix" a problem. Often times, when they leave, the village collapses. This is a direct cause of this lack of building infrastructure.

I found it very interesting the change in internet usage over the past 30 years. Asia is leading in internet usage with a whopping " 380.4 million users", to North America's "227.5 million" users.
Europe follows close behind and Latin America is running a distant fourth. Cerf pointed out the fact that these numbers, while they seem inconsequential, are very important in determining, "content, products and services of a country. In "1997 there were a mere 22 million computers, now there are over 600 million." This milestone does mark the advent of a new type of consumer, thus is imperative that the market change in order to cater to this new consumer.

His most important point of the night was, "Information is not power, it's the sharing of information that's power." Power is multiplied when we share it... he gave a great example dealing with the scientist of the human genome project:

Scientist who wish to publish any information on the human genome must share the information with the scientific community. He explained in detail how they keep a check on this information sharing while ensuring to promote research and developement.

Sources:
Vinton Cerf Lecture

The over-simplified, complicated Network diagram

From a political perspective, this diagram spells disaster. Anytime there is one or a few indidviduals with a monopoly on the wealth of knowledge held by a community, there is chance for tyranny, or stagnation. There must be a "gadfly to wake the sleeping horse" (Plato, Apology)! If at any time in a community relies upon one source and one source alone for its information, disaster and tyrrany are probably soon to follow.

What is more, from a stategic standpoint (military) this network diagram wreaks of disaster...

Everyone in a system (also called network) has to have some knowledge of all of the working parts or that organization. This is the logic behing the military hierarchical method of information dissemenation. In order to keep the working parts of any machine moving, everything and everyone has to work together. If for some reason, unbenounced to the network, Paul goes senile, should the machine break down, or should, Helen, Sue, John and Lisa be able to keep the machine moving???

Just a few thoughts...that's all for now.

Social Networkers vs. Social Butterflies

I think it is very important that social networkers not be confused with socialites. Mr. Rheingold seemed to put a great deal of value on the importance of raw numbers in a social network as opposed to the effectiveness of the prongs within an individual network. For example, lets compare someone like Paris Hilton to someone like Donald Trump. True, they both have a great number of associates in their social circles, but who has the most social capital??? I would argue that Donald Trump's power greatly surpasses that of Paris Hilton's, not because he does a better job with his money or because he even has a greater number of people in his circle. His ability to connect with people on a business level combined with his ability evaluate a person's future contributions to his social network prior to adding them to his network greatly increases his social capital. Although Paris has a great deal of associates in many different professional circles, her social capital is not nearly as great as Donald Trump's.

There were a few points Rheingold held that I disagreed on. Mainly...

In my past experience, I find that social networks are not always strengthened by technological advancements. In my short lifetime, I have moved a great deal of times. I remained very close to a great deal of friends from second and third grade by maintaining constant correspondence with them via mail--whenever one of the two of us was in the position of possibly moving we would notify the other. Upon the advent of the internet, I found it very easy to put off writing due to the fact that... "I have their e-mail address saved somewhere." I found it harder and harder to keep in contact with people because I had grown lazy and dependent upon the computer to tell me exactly where they were. In many instances, when I finally got around to writting these individuals, much to my dismay, I would recieve a "Mail Delivery Failure" notice in my INBOX.

I read, Democracy and Technology, by one, Richard Sclove for one of my other courses. I learned that the social life of the Ibiecan people of Spain all but collapsed as a result of the implementation of a new technology in the 1970's. As harmless as running water might seem now(because we know nothing else) and as advantageous it may have seemed then(possibly save time & money), the effects it had on the social life of the Ibiecan citizens were dubious at best. Prior to the implementation of running water in this Spanish village, waterholes and wash basins were a place for seemingly superfluous chatter between women and a time of bonding for sons and fathers. Upon the advent of this great technological advancement, the social happenings of the village dissapeared.

The internet allows you to network with many people, yes, but how many people is too many??? How many people do you think someone knows on their friends list of 3,000 people. The internet weakens social ties (or creates fallacious ones) on many levels:

1.) You have so many people to keep up with you can only leave brief notes to keep up with them.
2.) You don't really know the people you call "friends" online anyway, but your network is up to some outrageously large number and you are satisfied because you think you are a great networker.
3.) You become dependent upon technology and end up neglecting your responsibilities as a connector...You get pushed to the spot of that peripheral person and don't even realize it.