One last EXTRA BLOG

I wanted to write one more extra blog because I got to thinking about whether I was going to continue blogging after this class. I still haven't made up my mind so I searched the internet for articles about the advantages of blogging. Although most of the articles I found were interesting, I don't think blogging really does much for me, especially because I don't have any friends that have blogger accounts so no one would read them. But, it is a form of therapy for me, just like an electronic diary. Most diaries are suppose to be private, but as long as I'm comfortable with what I write about, I can get things off my chest whether anyone reads it or not.
Anyway, one article I found really intrigued me. I found an article on CNN.com about a woman who writes blogs about local people that have been murdered in the Los Angeles area. The article was Blog brings human face to big-city murders. The blog is called 'The Homicide Report' written by Jill Leovy in which she contacts the families of those murdered in LA. She felt that the homicides in LA were growing in numbers and wanted to go deeper and find out more about the stories and who the victims were. She wanted to put a face to the names, particularly in L.A.'s black and Latino communities. Her blog began in January of 2007 and she claims to have started it because the internet gave her something that the newspaper (The LA Times) didn't; which was unlimited space.
This brings up a good point because the internet is known for that. Anyone can write anything and post it on the internet. ME for instance; I'm writing about an article I saw on the internet and sharing it with others. Those other people can either choose to read my blog or simply disregard it. Either way, it is still here and won't be deleted (unless someone chooses to do so or I do) and is in an unlimited space and time. This reminds me of what we read about Henry Jenkins in his article about convergence culture. The fact that I read an article on CNN.com and chose to blog about it shows grassroots (blogger) and corporate media (article on CNN) intersecting. I've learned a lot about the advantages of blogging and how our culture has adapted so vividly to this new technology and it amazes me more and more everyday. I just felt like sharing a story that related to class and that I found very interesting. Here is the link to the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/18/homicide.blogger/index.html

danah boyd

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6699791.stm
danah boyd wrote the article Friends, friendsters, and Top 8: Writing Community into being on social network in which she discusses the multiple uses of Facebook. Boyd talks about how "friendships" on Facebook and how teens define their different forms of friendships. She lists 13 different reasons for accepting friendships some of which include: they're your actual friends; acquaintances, family members, or colleagues; having lots of friends makes you look popular; your list of friends reveals who you are; and it’s easier to say yes than no. Now I realize that many people don't want to reject anyone on Facebook because of the guilt left behind the rejection. I'm not so sensitive I guess. I don't care if I reject someone because if I don't know them, more than likely I won't feel bad about rejecting them. This is not my main concern, however.
My argument for this blog is how I think a lot of people accept friendships for the popularity of it all. If you have 1,000 friends and someone else only has 200, then you automatically look "cooler" than that other person, in some teens' eyes. However, how popular are you if you take into account that the person with only 200 friends probably knows all 200 of them and the one who has 1,000 friends probably only knows about 20% of those friends. Now I consider the person who knows more of their "friends" to be the more popular one. I found an article about a guy who is older than the normal teeny-bopper age group that has Facebook. The article talks about a couple of older users who know that the teens don't really want them spying on their profiles, such as a father having access to his son's profile. This is interesting because the teens who are faced with this decision of whether or not to reject a professor or parent get put in an awkward position. Does guilt go as far as parents and teachers or just other teens? The article made a comment about "not knowing the people you add as friends, you just add them and then don't have to say anything to them. Just adding them makes yourself look more popular- its what all the cool kids are doing." This just goes to show that popularity over true friendships mean more to some teens on Facebook. I think this is sad, but at the same time, having 1,000 "friends" on Facebook just gives you more options of people to hang out with, get advice from, and so on. In the end, it all comes down to how much you cherish your relationships with your online "friends" versus how popular you want to be perceived as by others.

Extra Blog- Facebook

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010608F.shtml
Ari Melber's article About Facebook was extremely interesting and intriguing. I found many of the issues Ari brought up to be some of the most crucial concerns I have about Facebook. I'll be graduating in 3 weeks and will have a career so knowing that the information I post on Facebook may end up in my future boss' hands is frightening! One major topic Ari discusses is the idea of privacy and how teens post information on Facebook and then get mad that random people have access to that information. Here is my opinion: I post photos and comments about myself (not my address or phone # of course) because I want my friends to see it and other people that I choose to be able to see it. I have my privacy settings at the highest security and I don't accept friendships unless I know you. This is because I am trying to restrict who has access to my profile. Its not the fact that I don't want people seeing these pictures, because otherwise I could just erase them. Its the fact that I only want my friends to see them, no professors or employers.

I think this is a big issue that some people don't understand. They ask questions like "well why do you post the pictures if you don't want people seeing?" I already answered this question by stating that I want to choose who views them and I believe that I should have the right to know if Facebook is sending my information to other companies or allowing users I don't know to view my profile. Ari made a good point by saying that we are always under surveillance whether it is at the mall or ATM or even a grocery store. This is all very true but I don't walk around with my phone number written across my forehead. However, I agree with what Ari said in the fact that we are being tracked all the time, without permission. To track what I purchase at the grocery store is information I never agreed on giving. So what can we do about this? Not purchase food? Of course not; we just have to be careful and watch what information we give out. Same goes for Facebook. Teens need to set their privacy settings to restricted and only allow those whom they know to access their profiles. Then, teachers and employers can't view their profiles without consent.

Griefer Madness

http://www.microsoft.com/protect/family/activities/griefers.mspx
(again, link will be explained at the bottom)

Julian Dibbell's article was difficult for me to swallow. First of all, I enjoyed the overall article but I didn't agree with the theme. I am upset by these so-called "griefers" who enjoy making fun of and hurting people. This kind of mockery and bullying is incredibly immature in my opinion and I can't seem to grasp the concept or reason for doing it. I know Dibbell claims that these griefers cause other people grief for the mere fact that the people who get upset are taking the internet too seriously. WHATEVER! That is not a valid reason for causing harm/ grief upon others for fun. To me, it seems like these griefers expect people to take it seriously or they wouldn't do it in the first place. How can you justify what you're doing and making fun of when you are relying solely on that thing you're mocking? I just can't see why someone would pick on another person just to get a reaction out of them (you can compare this to school bullies who pick on the weaker kids just to upset them). Now Dibbell talks about how these griefers throw penises, or show disturbing images, at people in SecondLife and how it can sometimes crash your Sim. Crashing someone's Sim or showing graphic images for no reason other than to make them upset is so odd. These griefers claim to do it to make a point but they're only making this a bigger issue.
I relate this griefing to bullying and I think its so immature. When I was younger I used to get picked on and my mom would always tell me to just ignore the bullies and they'd go away (I always had a big mouth so ignoring them was never something I wanted to do). She told me this because she knew that bullies only wanted the attention and reaction out of you. This is the same thing with griefers. I don't take the internet seriously because there is a lot of stuff I know may not be true or just posted for fun, but when it comes to making fun of people, I don't agree with that. In this case, it does become serious. I found an article (link up above) in which the author wrote 10 tips for dealing with internet griefers and I thought it was funny that the #1 tip is to just ignore them (like my mom used to tell me). There are other options like change names or games. We kinda touched upon this in class but I think its unfair to have to change the game you're playing just because someone is ruining your fun. Screw them, they should have to go on sties that allow that stuff. This is a serious issue because there are tips on how to "deal" with these griefers. They are getting the reaction they wanted! I guess this is why they do it but, like I said earlier, it just seems mean and immature.

EXTRA BLOG

This blog is basically to rant and rave a bit. When I first signed up for this class I had a completely different perspective about online communities and virtual worlds. However, since taking this class my mind has been opened to a whole new world I didn't even know existed. I'm really excited I decided to take this class because I enjoy learning new things and especially about things I don't fully understand.
However, we have gotten into virtual worlds more in depth than I thought we would and I have discovered that I'm a bit shy about how I feel. I think the fact that we've been learning about the negative side (and obviously the positive side) of virtual worlds, I just can't seem to understand why people are apart of these online communities/worlds. I don't want to offend anyone but it is still hard for me to understand why and how someone would enjoy this. But, after Burcu got back from the convention this weekend, she seemed really happy and content about meeting up with her virtual friends which made me ask myself, "Am I missing out on something I've convinced myself to be so against?" After Burcu made a few comments my opinion kind of shifted once again. Now, I understand a little more why someone creates a friendship with someone online in a virtual world or on LambdaMOO or something and then wants/gets the opportunity to meet them in person. It just made me rethink why I'm so against these virtual worlds and I think I've come to the conclusion that I don't think I'm against them as much anymore. This is really exciting to me but disappointing that I've discovered this so late in the semester.
I know we're going to write a paper about what we liked about the class but I figured I could write about it a bit now. I think that in the future the students who take this class should be assigned to create an avatar on Second Life and instead of writing blogs they can participate in Second Life. This way they will understand what goes on in this world instead of just reading about it. The schedule would probably have to be changed around but I think this would be good for them and they can communicate with one another better (in this case, maybe this could take the place of Twitter). Anyway, I just wanted to rant about SecondLife and how I have changed my perception and am now more open about it. Class discussion will be different now :)

A Rape In Cyberspace

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1998/08/14219
(link explained below)

This article A Rape In Cyberspacce was awkward for me to read. I don't fully understand the need for virtual worlds as it is and then after reading about this rape in cyberspace it became clear to me: I think this is so weird. I really try to be open about this whole idea and although I don't personally use virtual worlds, I can't reject the fact that it is a big part of others' lives. After reading the description of what Mr. Bungle did to the characters in LambdaMOO I was really disturbed. I wasn't sure if something like this could ever happen in a virtual world, but clearly it did. The fact the this actually happened inside a virtual world, and not in real life, just makes it that much worse. No, obviously no one got physically hurt but there is an emotional side to rape that these characters experienced and will have to live with all their lives. Also, the fact that LambdaMOO is completely text- based disturbed me. Not only was it not physical, but it wasn't real, or was it? Rape in a virtual world is just as harmful as real life, to me. Such an action in text form would be terrible. You may not have the physical harm but you have such a graphic description spelled out right in front of you on your computer screen. The only thing I don't get is why didn't they log off? I realize that while you are participating in a virtual world, you cannot control what others say to you, in class for example, but if this were happening to me I would have told him to F*CK OFF and signed off. I guess my point here is that I don't think I would have let it happen to me since it wasn't in real life but who is to say that they would have control in a situation like this? I have never experienced anything like this since I don't participate in virtual worlds but I would hope it never happens.
I know Mr. Bungle got in trouble, or "toaded" as they called it but is that fair? Wouldn't someone who raped a woman in real life get arrested? This is an argument that has been debated for years and the article above talks about virtual courts. This article fits well with this article we read for class and I would hope that if a situation like this happens again, that character should be tracked and sent to jail- for real.

Identity in Virtual Worlds

http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2008/03/most-online-wor.html
(I'll explain this link later in my blog)

Turkle wrote in her article Tinysex and Gender Trouble about identity in the virtual world. After our class discussion on Monday, I got to thinking about people's identities in virtual worlds and why some choose to be animals or someone of the opposite gender. All I could come up with is that it is a way for them to be someone that they are not without making any drastic change (like a sex change operation, for example).
In relation to gender-swapping, Turkle talks about this in her article and claims that "gender-swapping is an opportunity to explore conflicts raised by one's biological gender." This makes prefect sense to me because you would never know what it is like to be a guy (if you're a girl) unless you choose to gender-swap or get an operation of some sort. I know when I was in middle school, I talked on AIM all the time and when my friends weren't on or I was really bored, I would IM random people and pretend I was older or even a guy. This may sound strange but I did it because I got away with it and just made friends with people who thought I was really a guy, they had no reason to suspect otherwise. I did this for about a month and became good friends with these two guys until I accidentally made a comment about being a girl and got caught. But the point is, it made me experience something that I wouldn't normally feel in real life. In class, we talked about how Turkle states that a "fake" identity allows you to express unexplored facets that you are unable to manifest in real life. This is exactly what I was doing when I pretended to be a guy. The link above shows a study done in order to find how many gamers gender swap and they found that 70% of women gender swap and 54% of men do. It explains different reasons as to why they gender swap but they can all be grouped into the category of exploring facets that you can't in real life (being outgoing was an example from the study). In conclusion, Turkle made valid points about virtual identities that seem to make sense and I agree with doing it for exploration.

The Virtual Community

Rheingold's article The Virtual Community brought up a valid point that I had never thought of before. Rheingold talks about virtual communities in that they are used by some as a form of psychotherapy. He claims that many virtual community users spend hours upon hours pretending to be someone they're not which can be a way to get things off their chest or live someone else's life. Rheingold didn't go too much into detail about this as a form of psychotherapy but it made me think of the way I use Facebook. We discussed in class why some people use virtual communities and some freshmen stated that they used it before coming to IU to meet their future roommates or other people on their dorm floors. As a senior, I didn't know about Facebook until I got to IU and even then it wasn't as popular as it is now. To begin with, I was against Facebook because I didn't see the point in joining. However, over the years I have found that if I don't have anything else to do I get on Facebook and look at pictures of old friends, talk to recent friends or even rearrange my profile. It sounds kinda lame but, in a way, I use it as a form of psychotherapy. It makes me feel good to get online and communicate with friends of mine. Plus, looking at friends' pictures from our recent SB activities is always fun because you get to see where everyone went and how much fun they had. It is such a nice and relaxing (and convenient) way to share pictures and information to people that may go to a different school or live in a different state. Rheingold makes a good point that we use virtual communities this way and we may not even be aware of the ways in which we use this technology. I really hadn't ever thought of it in that way but after reading this article, it opened my eyes to a different way of thinking.
This, I also want to add, helps me appreciate and respect other people's taste and opinions of other virtual communities like Second Life. We discussed in class that people get on to talk to other friends and share problems with them. It seems odd to those of us who don't do that, but ask yourself this: is it really all that different than what I'm doing with Facebook? Yes, I've met these people in person, but some of my friends I met only once. If I meet someone at a party and they befriend me, does that count as really knowing them? For example, one guy met me at a party when I was visiting a friend at Purdue and I haven't seen him since. He has sent me a couple of messages and posts comments on my wall and on some pictures. As creepy as that sounds, we're actually pretty good 'virtual friends', just not 'personal interaction friends.' So, as I asked before, how different are Second Life and Facebook?

Andrew Keen

Andrew Keen's article The Cult of the Amateur is very interesting to me because I feel that I agree with him on some points but then disagree with him at the same time. I am constantly going back and forth about some of the issues he discusses. For instance, the clip of him on the Colbert Report we watched for class made him look a bit elitist but I kinda agree with a him (slighty). He claims that the internet is killing our culture because just about anyone who has the access to and knowledge of computers can post any type of "art" they want. I agree in that I wouldn't want to go online and see some average joe's artwork if I really wanted to be inspired or look at good art. However, this poses another problem in itself. Who is to say that this "amateur" art isn't good quality. Why couldn't someone want to look at this art or other information some average joe posted? Blogs are another exmaple of something anyone could post and write about their personal lives or opinions about an issue going on in the world today. My personal opinion wouldn't necessarily mean anything to some professor researching a topic I happen to write on in my own personal blog. In this example, Keen is making the statement that the internet is killing our culture because my (or someone else's) meaningless blog posts or artistic work is blasted all over the internet as if it isn't worth being there. At the same time, I kinda disagree with him because, like I said above, who is he to say that those blog posts aren't a mode of self expression and deserve to be there? He claims that the internet is for amateurs and amateurs don't actual creat great culture. How can he say something like that? It all goes back to personal taste. I agree with Colbert in that the green screen challenge is a type of art, even though it was created by amateurs. Now so called "stealing" a clip from the Colbert show and posting it on Youtube is a different issue at hand. I kinda agree with him on this but at the same time I don't think it is killing our culture, I think it is changing our culture. To prove my argument, I never watched the Colbert Report before, but after seeing clips from Youtube (and clips in class) I have a new found love for the show. I wouldn't have seen clips if not for Youtube (and this class of course).
This idea also relates to artists posting their artwork online and people stealing it for their own use. This poses a difficult problem when artists start losing money because everyone is stealing their work, so Keen says. Books can be an example of what Keen is talking about here. If an author has his/her book online and someone took a chunk of information out of it, then they wouldn't need to purchase the whole thing if they already got what they needed. Again, I agree with him but at the same time I think that it is convenient for me, as a college student, to search for an article online and not have to rent or purchase the entire book. So, again I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this article because he makes a good point but I think it would be better if he would make the statement that the internet is changing our culture, not killing it.

TRANSMEDIA STORYTELLING

Transmedia storytelling consists of multiple texts of a fiction that get spread out across multiple channels, in order to create a unified entertainment text [as a whole]. The movie Cloverfield is a good example of this in many ways. The simple fact that there are multiple channels through which Cloverfield fans (and the creators) post comments, video clips, pictures and clues serves as a main purpose for transmedia storytelling. Watching the movie is one medium used to tell the Cloverfield story, on-line interactive sites are another, and even searching Youtube where "real clue videos" are posted, are all different points of entry for fans to interact with and become a part of to get the full story.

I wanted to write this blog about how Seth's presentation of Cloverfield is a perfect example of transmedia storytelling. First of all, I would have never known that there were so many channels of Cloverfield text before Seth presented this on Wednesday. Going into this movie I would have had no idea there were secret clues or meanings behind specific scenes and words, etc. According to Jenkins, "transmedia producers have found it difficult to achieve the delicate balance between creating stories which make sense to first time viewers and building in elements which enhance the experience of people reading across multiple media" (Transmedia Storytelling 101). Cloverfield was a good example of transmedia storytelling because if you happen to come into contact with the movie Cloverfield for the first time without previous knowledge of the other forms of media storytelling, you would have simply been a satisfied viewer. However, if you would have had previous knowledge of the secret clues and then saw the movie, you would have been more engaged with the movie. Therefore, the line between "first timers" and so- called "expert fans" would have been crossed, yet clearly separated into two different viewers. Cloverfield did a good job of achieving a balance between keeping the first timers' interest and the expert fans intrigued to find out more clues after the movie.

At first I thought that the on-line sites for fans was a bunch of bull hockey. I felt that the creators just wanted to get money by connecting the Slusho product as a "clue" (on one of the characters' shirts) to the movie and gain financial insights to appear that the movie has secret connections. However, I came to the realization that media conglomerates, like the creators of Cloverfield and the company Slusho, have every reason to want to connect their brands and spread their franchises across multiple media channels in order to promote the movie while publicly advertising their product. This blurs the space between advertising (Slusho) and entertainment (Cloverfield) but in a subliminal way that made fans want to buy the product before seeing the movie. In conclusion, the creators of Cloverfield kept the fans intrigued by telling a story before the movie even came out in theaters. By adding clues that led fans to sites that eventually led them to more sites for more clues was a perfect example of telling a story through multiple media channels. Overall, I thought Seth did a great job of explaining how Cloverfield was a good example of transmedia storytelling.

sorry, here is the link so you can click on it opposed to copying and pasting it into the URL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNl6IJekiHA&feature=related

Textual Poachers

First I'll start by saying that I chose to write my blog on Harry Potter because I am a HUGE fan and I even go to midnight premieres! I know everything about HP and I've been obsessed since I first picked up the book yeeeears ago... :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNl6IJekiHA&feature=related

This is a link from Youtube that a fan of Harry Potter (HP) made of Rupert Grint and Emma Watson who play Ron and Hermione (Harry's two best friends). In the books/movies, Ron and Hermione are thought to have a love interest in one another but nothing is ever discussed openly about it (however, it is very obvious to readers and it is the way J.K. Rowling wrote it). They are really good friends (in the books/movies) and they try and date other people but the other one always ends up getting jealous. In the fourth book/movie, they go to a dance and Hermione gets asked by another guy and when Ron sees her with makeup on and in a dress his heart practically melts. He then sees that she is with this other guy and makes a rude comment about it to her. Hermione gets upset and tells him that maybe he shouldn't have been a wuss and should have asked her himself- proving that she actually wanted to go with him! I won't spoil the last book and tell you whether or not they actually do end up getting together or not, but most fans believe they will/do. However, this link above shows a devoted fan who cut pictures from the previous movies, award shows, interviews, and on-the-set to edit them all together. Adding a "love song" playing in the background of these pictures portrays the idea that they actually have a love connection in real life, not just in the books/movies. This type of fan editing is just like the example Henry Jenkins used in his article "Get a life!": Fans, Poachers, Nomads and the Youtube video about the Star Trek characters Spock and Kirk.

My example of HP explains Jenkins' idea of textual poaching, or stealing text (any form of text= books, videos, picture, art, etc.) and editing it together to create a new text. In the example with Ron and Hermione/ Rupert and Emma, editing pictures taken of them together to make it look like they really have feelings for each other is a perfect example of poaching the original text to create an illusion that may or may not really be there. No one besides those two know for sure if they really have feelings for one another but the fans want to believe it and create a new text to make it look like it. For example, showing pictures of them holding hands [on set] may actually be a scene from a movie in which they are holding hands (because that does happen a few times, by accident of course!). But edited the way the [fan wants it to look] creates a new text in which those two are holding hands in their regular clothes and, taken out of context, looks like they are holding hands in real life! According to Jenkins, this type of fan editing (or textual poaching) becomes a problem with "the relationship between the reader and writers as an ongoing struggle for possession of the text and for control over its meanings" (pg 24). This form of grassroots editing takes the meaning from the text and twists it to create a new meaning according to the fans. Even though Ron and Hermione have a love interest in the books/movies it doesn't mean they do in their personal life. Fans who want to believe that they do can create videos like this one to "prove" that it is real. The only difference in this example is that they are taking a text and creating a new text outside of that original text. By this I simply mean that they aren't cutting and editing parts of the movie to make it look like they love each other [in the movie] because it is already there. Instead they are editing it to look like that love connection reaches out to their personal lives. This example shows how fans take possession of the original text and create a new meaning for the [characters] in their personal lives.

Flickr assignment

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23728129@N06/sets/72157603900642670/show/
Sally, Michal, Katie, and I created this Flickr story.

That is the link to our awesome flickr story about Ugg boots and how every girl loves them and guys hate them... until they give in and try them on! To be honest, at first I wasn't very excited about doing the flickr assignment because it didn't sound very fun to me but I actually found it very fun and interesting. I'm glad we changed it up a bit and did something outside of the classroom. Plus, it was nice to get to know some of my classmates. Now I know at least one member in my blog group!

David Silver talks about photojournalism and how Flickr is (well, can be used as) an example of this. Silver defines photojournalism as "news reporting, enabled by the Internet, done by a dispersed, unorganized group of people — or a group that spontaneously (and temporarily) organizes around their interest in a particular event." Now, in the examples we used in class and many other examples online in Flickr, this is not the case. Our class didn't really make a photo- news story because we were experimenting and having fun with it. This is the case with a lot of the other stories on Flickr. I took a virtual look around Flickr to see other people's photos and saw that they had a lot to do with their personal lives more than on reporting news. However, Flickr offers a quick and easy way to creatively tell a story about anything that interests you, even if that may be news-related. However, Flickr is an internet-based tool, used by an unorganized group of people about a particular event. So, in fact, whether or not the story is news-related is irrelevant. Flickr is a tool used by many for many different stories.
In relation to Maderazo's blog about how Flickr can lead someone in the right direction and even spark a photog career, I agree on her basis for her comment. I can now see how that is possible by using this tool to post really neat and creative photos online for millions of users to view. Then, it is simple to get feedback on what the users liked or disliked. Someone who was really interested in photography could get a lot of helpful hints and useful information on how to take "good quality" pictures and they can learn how to use internet-based tools to reach a wide variety of users.
Flickr is a tool that I have never even heard of before this class, let alone ever used. I'm not sure that I would continue to place photos on this site because I'm not sure how protective it is and I don't want my personal life displayed on the internet, photos and all. However, I really enjoyed this project and I'm glad I got to try it out.

Photoshop for Democracy

I'm using the example that we discussed in class about Howard Dean and the 2004 elections. I remember following the primaries and although I didn't actively participate in Dean's online community, I think that was by far the best way to get votes. The video showing Dean getting excited about the primaries got twisted around to make him look crazy and mad. In reality, Dean actually had many followers because of his connection to voters through online activities. Having that strong of a connection to voters really would have given him the majority vote. I think it is saddening that his personal connection to voters wasn't as strong. He was stronger in the online community connection as opposed to personal and in the end, he didn't prevail. I agree with this article in the sense that online communities bring people closer but I think its attacking the personal connection. If he would have had that same strong connection in his personal connection then things would have been different.

Smart Mobs

I thought Rheingold's article was intriguing. My blog today relates to a scenario in which I was, at one time, part of a "smart mob."
Back in high school all the seniors played this squirt-gun game and had so much fun doing it. So, two years ago, my friends and I organized this game where you paired up with a partner and you two were against all the other teams. The object of the game was to use a squirt-gun to get your opponent out. This was an intense game that required a fellow friend (who wasn't playing the game) to keep track of who had been "hit" and therefore out of the game. Anyway, once it gets down to the last few people, friends try and help each other out. In some cases, like my example that I will explain in a few minutes, people let fellow players know where their opponents were so that they wouldn't win. So, my team was still in and a friend of mine sent out a mass text message to let everyone know where this specific team member was going to be at a certain time (that happen to be set up just for the purpose of this game). You only have to get one of the two teammates out for the entire team to be considered out. As soon as we all received the message, we carefully designed a game plan as to how each one of us were going to get this person out without being "hit" by another team. This form of mass communication through the device of a cell phone is a useful way to send out information effectively and quickly. This is my example of what Rheingold means when he says "It's not just about building the tools anymore. Now it's about what people use the tools to do."

Rheingold makes this comment about technological devices, like the mobile phone, that were created with a certain intention in mind. However, as times are changing these devices are converging into other technological uses. The way in which we use the devices matters more than the actual device itself. Why would you build another device for the sole purpose of sending a mass text to friends when it can be added to something that already has the capability to do that? Rheingold discusses the use of mobile phones to communicate with a group of people in order to get together and meet for a common goal. In this case, we got together so that we could get a team out of the game that had been hard to locate the whole time. Not only was this a common goal for the remainder of the teams but it brought us together simultaneously. All we had to do was check our phones and see the message, then meet at the specific time and place. Like Rheingold has said, the purpose of these "smart mobs" hasn't always been for good use. Sometimes there are bad intentions in mind, such as riots, lynch mobs, or protests (which could be good or bad depending on how you look at it). This form of technological convergence will allow people to live a more convenient lifestyle but also leaves room for harmful side effects. This is Rheingold's main theory about devices used for the purpose of "smart mobs" and how we are using these devices in more ways to communicate with one another. We are converging these devices in ways for us to communicate easier.

From Birth to Backlash

I thought Rushkoff made some valid comments in his article Electronic Community: From birth to backlash. My example is this site, blogger.com, where we were ordered to create personal blogs for this class. I have never had a weblog before this class and I never really had planned on it. Now I feel that I am more technologically advanced and I feel that I have learned so much about the web. My main argument (more like agreement) is about sites like blogger that allow the users to create their own content and has "forced an interconnected community." I feel close to my group memebers, even though I may not know them in person.

Rushkoff ends his article with a very useful statement: "Blogger.com provides a set of publishing tools that allows even a novice to create a weblog, automatically add content to a web site or organize links, commentary and open discussions. In the short time Blogger has been available, it has fostered an interconnected community of tens of thousands of users. These people don't simply surf the Web. They are now empowered to create it" (pg. 31). This is a good piece of information. I agree with Rushkoff that in a world with Blogger, the users control the content and therefore information. Now, if I needed to know some quick information and I didn't want to surf the web, I could create a question on my weblog and communicate with another blogger. Not only could I get an answer or opinion back from someone, but I could post a comment or opinion of my own to get instant feedback. This web-based community allows its users to communicate via the web in its own little community. Like we discussed in class, its almost like bloggers are connected in a group like the USENET groups. We don't all have to be the same age or race or sex. The internet doesn't care about that. You don't have to have a certain amount of money or class to open a weblog and communicate with fellow Americans (I don't want to stress Americans- I'm sure this is widely used in other countries). As far as I know, there isn't really any strict regulation of what types of posts and comments you're allowed to make. Free speech I guess. I just think its amazing that we can create content based on our interests and share it with people all over the world. Content is then shared for free- as long as you have a membership. This web-based tool is a lot like youtube and other online chat rooms where information is sent via the web and with instant results.

This seems like an example of the internet attacking our culture but not necessarily in a bad way. I mean, to be honest I think its cool that we can post our own weblogs and add any content we want. It gives you a sense of control that you don't always have in a personal setting (i.e. class, work, etc.). By creating these web-based tools of communication you are pulling away from personal interaction. Therefore, we're becoming a virtual culture. Who knows, in 5 years this class could potentially be an online course!

Reach Out and Elect Someone

My comments today relate to the article that was posted on wiki about the South Carolina debate:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=148213&title=south-carolina-debate&tag=generic_tag_hillary_clinton&itemId=104903

If you didn't get a chance to check it out, look at it before you continue reading, otherwise you won't understand what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I thought that it was interesting how all three candidates appeared. From the way they dressed to their behavior, all of it was scripted by their "image handlers" (as they are called). I learned this word from a Telecommunications professor during her presentation about politics in the media. She explained how these image handlers control how the candidates appear to the audience, in other words, to us. Postman writes on page 24, "He understood that in a world of television and other visual media 'political knowledge' means having pictures in your head more than having words." Here Postman is referring to the way in which candidates appear in order to win over the viewers. It doesn't matter as much about what they said in the debate, as long as they appeared to be the leader, the most intelligent and passionate about the topic, and genuinely clean and well-kept.
According to my professor, Besti Grabe, visuals are far more important than words. In this case and in the case Postman is trying to make, this is clearly true. Certain roles are depicted by our candidates in order to appear a certain way- the way the audience wants them to appear. Of course we all want someone attractive and clean-looking who just so happens to be pretty intelligent here and now about the issue at large. There have been studies done to prove that certain depictions are more effective than others such as: the ideal candidate in which they are presented as the "Statesman" or the "Compassionate." Usually these candidates are seen with flags, confetti, patriotism, depictions of family and God, and the whole "kissing baby" scam. Another role often played by candidates is the popular "Mass Appeal" or the "Ordinary," in which they are portrayed along side celebrities and a large audience or casually dressed to show they are down to earth and can relate to us poor folk. These are good ways to portray candidates, but aren't always who they really are. Image is everything and that is the point Postman is trying to make in his article Reach Out and Elect Someone. I completely agree with him in this example of all three candidates during the South Carolina debate. They are all appearing to be taking on a certain role.
In contrast to making someone look good, the media can also make a candidate look bad. Postman made a comment in a recent article about how photographs have no room for debate and cannot be taken out of context. Here I disagree with him. Hillary Clinton is sometimes depicted as a "cold bitch" when images are shown of her being fierce. This always pisses me off because if she were a man, then these pictures would just make her look strong and the type of leader we want. In this example, I disagree with Postman in that the image is taken out of context.

However, the main point to my argument is that the image is still the most important factor. This I am in agreement with Postman.

Disagreement with Postman

Ok so we've just read Neil Postman's articles and I agreed with mostly everything he said until I came across an article this morning. Postman's article The Age of Show Business says that "every technology has an inherent bias. It has within its physical form a predisposition toward being used in certain ways and not others" (pg. 13). I, at first, pretty much agreed with that statement. I mean, a phone is used to make phone calls to communicate to one another. A computer is used for checking emails and surfing the web, etc. He even used the example about a TV being used as a bookshelf. He claims that a TV is used for entertainment and that is all. A TV shouldn't be used for anything else. I thought I agreed with him.

However, I came across a story about a double amputee who can now walk again thanks to the help of prosthetic legs made with Bluetooth technology (which is known for their hands-free cell phones- they use the little ear piece that you don't notice and think people are talking to themselves, haha). Anyway, according to the article, Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua Bleill uses "computer chips in each leg that send signals to motors in the artificial joints so the knees and ankles move in a coordinated fashion. Each set of prosthetics have Bluetooth receivers strapped to the ankle area. The Bluetooth device on each leg tells the other leg what it's doing, how it's moving, whether walking, standing or climbing steps, for example." THAT IS CRAZY! Who would have thought that technology originally created for a more convenient way to use a cell phone and multi task would be helpful in the use of prosthetics?

I would think that Neil Postman would be blown away. What would he say about this? Doesn't think contradict what he is saying about technology being inherently bias? Maybe I'm not fully understanding what he is saying, but it seems to me that he is wrong. I now disagree with him. Even technology such as an iPod originally was inherently bias but now you can watch movie clips and even surf the web. That wasn't iPod's original usage. In this case of the prosthetics, are we to assume this Bluetooth technology as a medium, instead of a technology? If we did that then is Postman still correct in that technology is inherently bias but not a particular medium? I would like to hear some opinions because I'm a bit confused. I'm amazed that Bluetooth can create new technology like this in the first place! Here is the link to the story if you want to check it out!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/01/25/bluetooth.legs/

test

Hey guys! I'm testing this out for class. I've never had a blog and never really intended on doing so but hopefully I like it. Let me know if someone sees a problem with the way I post or something else. Thanks for the help!