M4.2

I’m going to take the position here that yes, I do feel compelled to communicate using present day mobile technologies and apps, but something about it just doesn’t seem right, I don’t particularly like it, and I especially don’t like where this practise of so many of us is potentially headed, while addressing what we can do to direct our own path.

Regardless of what I may think, I see many people merrily playing the part of the digital locus as Josgrillberg from his reading explains. I see these locus experience life through theirs mobile devices... and that has to be ok, do what you will, its your life, etc. But, considering the scale at which this behavior is breeding it is beginning to affect MY social life. When everywhere I turn everyone is safely perched behind a 4 inch screen. I has definitely changed how we all interact socially. It has almost become a socially awkward action to have a simple conversation with a stranger for the sake of it. I find myself seeking out to our elders, those born well before a time when iPhones existed for these types of interactions. Which has proven to be very insightful, but that is a blog for another time.

The Goggin reading lends much to the positive role of mobile technology and how its expanding our productivity in a sense. Goggin also says this technology has become a culture unof of itself. But it is specifically HOW this technology is used that I think really determines the culture. That being said, what this technology is producing in terms of cultural assets is so very well meaning but becomes ultimately vain and fleeting. With so many social media outlets FILLED with blogs and articles about how to look, what to think and what to feel. Now, we all learn these things socially anyways, but in the days before the internet much of this was learned through real life interactions. Ones with consequences, ones that taught real lessons and provided more opportunity to grow and learn.

Campbell and Park’s take on the changes of personal and private spaces is very noteworthy considering the changes they implicate to the social landscape entirely. They speak of the wide use of mobile devices as a change to the existing social environment rather than the creation of a new one. This does not sit so well. I would much rather this space be its own entity than change the social existence for so many people. What I worry about most is that such absorption into this culture, that encroaches most on our spare and free moments will sap us not only from the conversations with our fellow man, but more importantly and much more tragically, the conversations with ourselves. However, Campbell and Park seem confident that the forecast is good and we shouldn't be as concerned as I am. I can only hope that it move towards more true connections through technology, there is hope.

With all the information from the readings we’re better off not being so rash or quick to judge and accept this change in our social environment. And grow with it, it is obvious that there is much change still ahead and change we can constantly influence. While I might not like it now, its up to me to take a quote of Gandhi to heart and be the change I’d like to see in the world. This kind of thinking I must credit to a favorite author and philosopher of mine, Alain de Botton. He explains in a recent blog by him (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/30/how-to-be-smart-on-twitter.html) that specifically twitter, but I will extrapolate to the greater social media landscape, is highly maleable by us, its users. He has taken the steps to simply start using twitter to his own ends. This is the major take away I want to leave with those who read this post. Social media technology can be an extension of our social lives, and it is up to us to police it. So I encourage users to be vigilant with themselves. Know when and when not to turn to the vast array of social media tools. Participate only in the ones that matter in the long run. And, embrace and learn from those who do. So, I borrow again from the thought of another philosopher, Alan Watts, he would likely agree that the men and women choosing to live outside a life of the digital social realm should be held at a high regard. They chose not to participate and see much of the frivolous uses of modern mobile technology as a game. Which is fine of course, as long as we can remember this fact and know when to put it down.

M4.1

We very much are both enabled and constrained by new mobile communication technology. Just this morning I was reading through a particularly hilarious AskReddit post on instances of extreme laziness and many of them involved use of mobile technology. For example, searching for an online textbook instead of getting the same textbook from the next room and downloading a movie that is on dvd in the basement, instead of actually going to get it. In a strange and funny way access to cellphones, laptops and wifi enable us to be that much more “effective”. I believe the constraint comes with time, when such behaviors become chronic for instance one extreme case in the same string of responses on Reddit was someone who spent an entire three day weekend in bed with nothing else but several bags of sour cream and onion chips, only leaving the confines of their bed twice to urinate. Sounds incredibly boring pre 1995, but in this day and age it is clearly plausible. Beyond this instance, behaviors such as this left unchecked can lead to some serious isolation issues. As many of the readings explain, this technology and its usage changes how we interact with each other.

Our access to almost anything online has affected how I communicate. I do my best to maintain a constant persona across all realms of communication, however, the anonymity offered by internet communication has created some foul beasts of men and women. The technology itself lends me to follow a path of least resistance, usually texting and ignoring most calls from strange numbers. Choice in who you communicate with is complicated. Depending on who is on Facebook or not, for me, is a significant factor in keeping in touch with many friends. Using myself as an example, If certain friends of mine do not use Facebook I can expect significant strain on those relationships, while it is much easier to at least maintain a connection via Facebook. Because of this I’ve made an effort to participate in many different social media technologies to keep these connections. Not because I feel a need to be a part of the technology or have that online persona to the world. I just want to maintain connections.

In my youth I was tasked with explaining this phenomenon of texting over calling to a couple senior citizens and we both left the conversation confused. Them still wondering why youth today insists on such a muted method of communication when a call takes a similar amount of effort and I wondering just the same. Yet my cohort still does it, and its even grown in a sense. Facebook and Instagram personas are particularly fascinating and definitely propagate the “need” to communicate and not just through texting, your whole life must now be displayed online and its all very much keeping up with the Joneses. I really do not like it at all yet grossly attached to it like so many others because we’ve all adopted it so wholeheartedly. I want to end saying how strange I think this attachment is, and in the back of my head I want to throw it all out and experience life face-to-face, but I can help but to think what I'd be missing out on.

M3.2

http://www.pinterest.com/ahhsity/what-does-it-mean-to-be-human-in-the-information-a/

I chose my pins from the widest variety of iterations of interpretations of the information age and living in it. From its strengths to its weaknesses. A pin regarding the phenomenon of micro-blogging limiting short bursts of information to 140 characters or less is an interesting one, one I think is neither a good or bad thing, merely a product of the information age's evolution, there is clearly more in store here. A clear weakness would be misuse of this same widespread and interconnected micro-blogging platform that lends itself to misinformation that can spread like wild fire and leave real social issues in the dust and priorities misplaced. Ethics is an issue in the information ages they is rarely mentioned, however, one I believe needs much more attention and implementation into how we conduct ourselves online should we continue to move towards heavy communication in digital media and information. In telling this story of kinds of right and wrongs in our journey through the information age it is nice to be grounded in some humor, so I included the following comic strip.

Which I thinks paints a funny yet frightening and accurate picture of how wrapped up we can get in these technologies that affect how we live our lives. An interesting emergence of the information age has been the spawn of its own currency, the Bitcoin. How it works exactly is still very shrouded, however the pin does provide some background. More good sides I've pinned are the gamification of learning, the impact of visual representations over textual and the hashtag which all lend to a positive future. But, I contrast this with two more pins stating a wariness over one's online identity and it permanence as well as a lag in businesses adoption of new means of interaction with its customer bases... which maybe isn't all that bad.

M3.1

The information age, coming after the industrial age, moves value in real (manual) labour and real products having real value into an age where information and knowledge is commodified. In the reading the information in education is under attack. What was once a basic human right like clean drinking water is now being commodified and privatized. In this age labour is centered around information as well, while most industrial tasks not yet overcome by technology by means of robotics and other automation are sent overseas to less developed nations. Labour remaining in North America comprises mostly of tasks in management, marketing, and others in the realm of ICT. This age is not without its downfalls, specifically leaving behind those without access or training to participate using ICT.

Technology largely serves the political economy’s of governments and multinational corporations to maintain a hegemony. Just like anything else these technologies can be bought and sold and can generate income. Although not always electronic or digital, throughout the ages this has been the case when it comes to technology that its owners or controllers are at the throne of massive influence. So it is clear, the power is in the ownership here, usually the ones first up to bat as technology emerges. A companies like Microsoft and Google influence the political economy greatly as they are key in the shift from a point in history of an age of manufacturing to a post-industrial society. They emerged to fill technological requirements, and this is true of all technology. Most all technologies emerge as solutions to issues within a political economy, from the discovery of fire to the iPhone. Not all emerging technology has to be sold or used in some political or economic fashion. Fredrick Banting who discovered insulin as a treatment of diabetes gave it away freely to the world, even when he was entitled to patenting his discovery and charging a premium on its use.

Considering control and ICTs, it's clear they've been come major socializing agents but who is their master? Are we, the people, in control of technology as it emerges? Shaping it and bending it to our will? Or, is there a puppet master behind the curtain? Much like news media and its ever-controversial biases I believe ICTs are subject to the same fate. They are all in fact owned by someone or some business entity. And, each and all of them have their own vision for the future of technology and the age of man. Usually involving them making a buck or two in the process.

Wrapping things up here, its clear ICTs have a massive influence over society and CAN alter the future, however, emerging ICTs are as we all know, largely social. In a sense, this leaves the power in the hands of the collective users. We have a choice to step back and not be marketed to. What is particularly insane are the measures one has to go through to obtain such technological freedom of influence.Take the TOR network for example, which has received some media attention lately. The TOR network is like the underground railroad of the internet, and was created by some to escape much of the surveillance of the so-called “surface level” of the internet. Such as Facebook, Google, etc. Remember what I said before about technology emerging as necessary, to fill some type of need? The very fact that the TOR network exists is testament to the control of modern day ICTs.

M2.2

There are many ways, I find, in which people negotiate their public and private personae online. As if participants have different levels of comfort as to what they share or don't share online. Some look to not participate at all while others are fully involved in an online display of themselves. The bell curve puts the majority within having a moderate participation in social surveillance due to rising social expectation. And with this rise in expectation there comes a fading of privacy implications.

Anders Albrechtslund of firstmonday.org, in his article describing participatory surveillance in online social networking is highly accurate in his description of the current online culture as a hierarchical panopticon. Traditionally a panopticon would be seen in the physical world as a kind of structure wherein a single person could reach a wide audience efficiently due to their equal perspective of them. Albrechtslund tacks on a hierarchy as he moves this concept into the digital realm of social media which I think is accurate. Online in social media each person is his or her own panopticon, however, each is not created equal. There are those who share almost every aspect of their real lives, like a new breed of celebrity.

Whats more is when I consider that in this digital realm we still live in an age of capitalism and even though our panopticon isn't a real structure it is still owned by companies such as Facebook and Twitter who hold great influence and power over their users just through ownership, Cohen, author of The Valorization of Stirveillance warns. A further example of this power can be thought of and conceptualized in this fact, popular free picture texting app Snapchat is now valued at around $500 million USD for an app with no revenue. This is solely due to the prospect of future monetization.

Websites and apps such as Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat are merely platforms for living a digital life and just as in real life your social circles are in flux either at your will or not. In my online life I choose to lean towards more disclosure online and I find myself doing it as more of a going-with-the-flow than anything. This social digital world becomes strikingly similar to the real social world. With this similarity considered I believe room for managing anonymous digital lives is shrinking and the social expectation of having an online persona, one that is true to the self, is increasing.

M2.1

I am very transparent or at least try to be, when it comes to what I share about myself online. I can somewhat be easily be found online, if someone is looking for me and has a few details about me like my name, country, age, etc. A line is drawn however, at the basic more personal details like address and phone number. So, while it might be easy to track me down online (which is intentional) I, and I hazard to guess most people, tend to be more comfortable having this virtual/physical barrier in place. Clearly exemplifying a separation of an online life and an offline one.

For the purpose of making as much of a connection as possible, with as little effort as possible, much of what I post is fanned out across multiple social media platforms, usually leading to a primary message. I believe this is the model for most of the social media we encounter in our daily lives. In my case, a link to this blog post will be posted on my Twitter account with a short description. The same would go for Facebook. Both Twitter and Facebook (among others) act as social media hubs where information is rapidly shared via links to news media, blogs, videos and other media ready to be consumed.

My online life and offline life are different by consequence of being online and offline (stay with me here), however, I am not pretending to be anyone different. The difference is a product of the interaction interface. Offline, we all have less time to react and must rely on given knowledge thereby giving way to a more true self coming through via face-to-face and real-time interactions. Online, there is time to react and more precisely craft reactions, responses and our representations of the self.

Maintaining alternate personas online is, to me, wasted time. It's time better spent being you, even if its just your own representation of yourself as opposed to your true self. Turkle explains interactions (specifically face-to-face interactions) are the best ways in which we can come to know our own true selves.

Again, I leave out real world contacts as to avoid unwanted online solicitations to come sweeping into my offline life. But, the intentional openness and ease to contact me, that I write about above, is still there. If you're looking to get into contact with me it will not be difficult. It's a kind of fight against the isolated social world, the illusion of a real one, that Turkle writes about in her New York Times article. To me, it is very 1984esque and I get the urge to toss my phone into Niagara Falls, yet it's still here in my pocket. Why? I cannot deny its power as a connective tool. While not perfect, I think as time goes on a balance will be struck, limiting social isolation and promoting more and more meaningful connections.

All in all, my online representation of myself is as true to life as possible. As online surveillance of an online self grows, its inevitable that real world connections will stem from initial online connections more often as online based social media grows and is increasingly popularized.

Pro Turkle tools, Anti Social Isolation apps

I've come across two beautiful examples of social technology that help to break down the isolations brought on by many other social technologies, that I, of course want to share with my COMM 2F00 co-pilots. And, right around the time when the readings for this module couldn't be more relevant (the universe is wonderful like that).

1) Glide. Glide is a video messaging app for mobile devices that allows you to send only video messages between contacts. Sounds familiar right? Wrong. What makes Glider so perfect and so "Turkle" is that it sends your messages as you're recording them. There are no re-takes, its all live. So you and your friends get to experience more of the real versions of each other in all your blunders.

2) Grouper. Grouper is a web service that gets groups of people together for face-to-face social interaction. There is no guess work as to why you're meeting, everyone involved is like minded to the fact to simply hang out with real and new people. While it's clear that Grouper is hinting at the fact its also a great platform for meeting people of the opposite sex with high possibility of relationships forming, it is still none the less an excellent example of social technology in use to bring people together in the real world and promote real relationships as opposed to mere connections.

Disconnect

Took a night off recently, and threw on a film I'd heard about a few weeks ago which ended up being very relative to COMM 2F00. So for some sweet sweet participation marks I decided to write a bit about it.

Disconnect follows multiple timelines, some which converge and others that do not, they all however rely heavily on the internet as a medium of interaction as the basis of each story. The timelines include subplots of cyber bullying, identity theft, and a third involving a reporter getting a story on a male internet stripper which is, in my opinion, doesn't fit as neatly as the other two. Perhaps included for a little sexual tension for Hollywood to better sell the film, and it does ad something of the more seedy underbelly of the internet that some people may not be aware of, which would be intriguing.

Each timeline begins by demonstrating a fracture or disconnect due to the internet medium. As each timeline moves forward and climaxes there is a slow and sometimes subtle (depending on which timeline) breakdown of such digital communication and into more face to face interactions. These interactions ultimately bring the characters back down to earth from the brink that the destructive use, intended or not, of the internet brought them to.

I don't want to spoil too much as it really is a good film. Although most are extreme cases and dramatically portrayed, the threats of cyber bullying and identity theft and other exploitation on the internet are very real. You will most likely re-evaluate your security settings on all your devices after watching, and maybe even contemplate disconnecting entirely.

M1.2.2

The internet did, in fact, begin as a tool of the "maaaaan" as ARPANET a military communication tool which became the publicly used internet protocol we use today. Although its origins are militaristic, once the internet was in the hands of the public many communities, groups and cultures beyond those relating to the military were quickly formed. This internet was much different than the internet most people interact with today. Many of these beginnings did occur in the silicon valley region of California, which was only natural due to its establishment as a headquarters of computers oriented subculture.

It is worth considering how we've come to the middle of the road state of the internet. The convergence topic helps explain this. The top-down and bottom-up really kind of grew together in the shaping of the internet and any user today does have the option to take either road. But, I will state my bias here in saying that a majority of users, especially new ones tend to get stuck in the top-down road of the internet controlled by the mass media and never go beyond their Facebook homepage, for example.

As an aside, it has been reported that a growing minority of users believe Facebook, simply, is the internet. 

Now, it really does depend on the person when asking how one will use the interest. After all, the hippie counter-culture of regional silicon valley was a close relative if not the mother of early online culture. And so, it was the venture capitalists soon after that saw the internet as a new tool for brand new businesses and the expansion of existing businesses, as opposed to the kind of frontier of digital social space as it was being used by its earlier and initial hippie counter-culture users.

Fast forward to today and think about Twitter, Facebook, etc, and its hard to deny that today's internet as consumed by the majority is an amalgamation of both of the mass communications corporations from the top-down and the participatory users from the bottom up.

M1.2.1

I'm Andrew and right now, besides my name, there isn't much about myself I'm pressed for any reader to know immediately. You will learn much about me shortly. But, since you asked, a quick background as to why I'm here. I am taking this course to further my knowledge and gain insight into new media practices. As well as further my experience and knowledge to assist in the social media endeavors that are becoming more and more a part of what I do in my own line of work, and have even lead to new business partnerships rooted purely in social media.

I engage daily in a fair amount of social and new media. A typical day is checking Facebook maybe 10 times a day throughout, Twitter less often with maybe 4 or 5, I use the user generated new website Reddit as often if not more often than Facebook. All of these outlets I use primarily for business related interactions  For pure pleasure, Reddit is probably my primary source for news and other information, sometimes information I'm actively seeking out and sometimes I will browse Reddit similarly to how one might watch the evening news. Just to see whats going on in the world. What attracts me to Reddit the most is the "user generated" backbone on which it operates. Because of this, there is much less influence of media conglomerates on what is distributed on Reddit. A key feature here is the voting system, wherein any registered user (registration is free) can vote on any topic's popularity which increases its visibility. As a sociology major this style of new media interests me immensely and I expect to write more later about social mechanics in social and new media.