morganauthement

[morganauthement]

Morgan Authement Week 11 4/3

After reading the articles for this week I get this sense that the purpose of reading them was to show us just how much technology plays a role in our lives. It has been said several times over the course of this semester that technology is not inherently good nor is it inherently evil. Technology just is. These articles could not make that point anymore clearer. Technology has changed the way we work, play, and perceive the world around us.

Perhaps, this is why I was immediately drawn in by the article written by Aitamurto. I was first introduced to the concept of 360° several years ago at a Society of Professional Journalists National Convention. At the time I thought that the technology was neat but I also did not think that it would take off in the realm of journalism. I knew that it had to be expensive to make and edit. Plus I had my own concerns about journalistic integrity. I believed that the 360° camera had the potential to put too much power in the editor's hands. As it turns out, after reading this article, my suspicions were completely warranted. Although, I believe Aitamurto may have gone a little overboard on the implications of the paradoxes they present in this article.

After coming home from the conference my SPJ sponsor did some more research on 360° journalism and found some very interesting stories. Many of the videos disprove the first paradox in this article or render it null. Some of the videos indented each audience member to have a different experience or was designed in such a way that the full story could be derived from the images at a glance. For example, one story was meant to illustrate the atrocities happening in a prison overseas. The viewer was placed in a prison cell and was allowed to navigate the cell and any other space that an actual prisoner would have the freedom to go. Audiences did not necessarily have to have the same experience for the point to be made clear. Nor were explanations needed. This means that if one person spent five minutes interacting with the story and another spent ten, they would leave with similar conclusions. Some news stories are better suited for the 360° camera, and I think most journalists realize this. Therefore, I will admit that  Aitamurto is not wrong to propose this paradox but as time goes on I believe it will be less of an issue. All new technologies have a learning curve, 360° is no exception.

As for the second paradox, I must say I would agree with Aitamurto more completely. This technology puts a ton of power in the hands of the editor and videographers. When using 360° technology it is more tempting to omit information or portray a story in a different light. There are ways to fix this, however. As I said before all new technologies have a learning curve because after all, journalistic standards did not just pop up overnight. There was a time when print journalism had very similar problems. Even in modern times, these issues occur. For example, Fox claims to be fair and balanced but has a very conservative political agenda. As 360° becomes more popular people will start to evaluate the problems that come with it and create solutions. I believe that soon most colleges will have classes related to either videography or 360° journalism specifically. We can train our future journalist to use this technology ethically and in accordance with previously established journalistic values.

At the end of the day, 360° journalism is another technology that “just is.” The users will determine if it is good or evil. I have seen some very interesting, thought-provoking, and solid stories presented in this format. This proves that 360° storytelling deserves a place in the modern journalist’s tool belt. After all, I have seen some print news stories that do not follow the “rules” of journalism. Any medium has the potential to create these paradoxes. As long as we are aware of the dangers and can mitigate them I do not see where the use of this technology is all that harmful.

[morganauthement]

Morgan Authement Week 10 3/27

After finishing the book assigned this week I got the feeling Pettman is very pessimistic about social media and the distraction that they provide.  Overall, he paints a very grim picture. He argues that social media has made people more judgmental, relationships more shallow, and takes away much-needed context. After all, while scrolling through Facebook the latest celebrity gossip might get the same amount of attention as the latest Trump impeachment allegations.  Pettman also makes a good point when he says that “social media” is not necessarily new. He states that the earliest known example of these types of interactions date back to ancient Rome, where people would make “status updates” on the city’s protective walls. This illustrates that people have always felt an inherent need to be social and feel like their lives matter. Therefore, I am left wondering if social media the cause of our distraction or is it the result of our distraction? A modern chicken and egg situation, if you will.

If people have always felt the need to be seen, heard, and matter would we not always find an outlet for these distractions? In the past, people did not have the means to make all of these feelings quite as public as we do now. Modern technology affords us the luxury to put our distractions in the palms of our hands. This easy access makes the problem seem worse than what it is. In that past, however, people spent just as much time gathering all the tools necessary to paint on a wall as we do scrolling our newsfeeds. Not to mention, these people could have spent hours reading what others had written as well. Hence, one could argue that our need for distraction created social media and not the other way around.

Plus, today’s lifestyle may encourage and facilitate more opportunities for distraction. In the past, people had to work from sunup to sundown in order to survive. As time has worn on modern technology has afforded us great luxury but this luxury has come with a cost. People who can afford apple watches and fitbits most likely have much free time on their hands and need to find ways to spend it. Alternatively, those who struggle to pay their bills each month may need an escape from their miserable reality. Further, as education and living cost skyrocket it is becoming increasingly more difficult to find a job that is actually fulfilling. Milinales and younger generations are still coping with the consequences of the great recession of 2008. They are paying the price for other’s corporate greed and this leaves them with an overall gloomy disposition. Social media offers them a space to escape their reality and more often than not connect with people in similar situations.

Therefore, at the end of the day are these distractions as big of a problem that Pettman paints them to be? I agree, that social media does create context collapse and creates an alternate form of reality, but if not social media would we not turn to other forms of distraction? I believe that social media play a much bigger role in our lives than Pettman wants to admit. While there are some negative effects of social media, overall it does serve an important purpose in our lives today. Just like in the past television may have caused some negative reactions but it still serves a role in our society. If at our very core we are looking to be distracted, I believe, that it is inevitable that we would have to deal with many of this issues regardless of if we had social media or not. We create most of these problems ourselves. Therefore, I can only conclude that social media is a symptom of our need to be distracted and not the cause of it.

[morganauthement]

Morgan Authement Week 9 3/20

This week I can truly say that I enjoyed the book that was assigned as a class reading, despite the fact that I am still trying to decide if it was worth spending the time it took me to read it in the first place. Perhaps, the book piqued my interest because I am a Reddit outsider, or I may have enjoyed this book simply because it was easy to read. It was refreshing to read a piece of academic literature that did not take itself too seriously and was extremely straight forward. I enjoyed the deep delve into a community that I, quite frankly, do not understand. Massanari has simplified a world that to most would seem overwhelming, and offered points of view I would have never considered. In fact, at one point I contemplated maybe, creating a Reddit account for myself. It was somewhere around the random acts portions of the book. I could definitely get behind a random acts of pay Morgan’s student loans subreddit effort. After finishing the book, however, I think I’ve made the correct decision by avoiding the Reddit community altogether.

Massanari states at the beginning of the book that the book is being written for academics and non-academics alike. Perhaps, this is why the book is so easy to read, for which I am extremely grateful. However, after reading the book I am left wondering if it will serve as anything more than a historical archive of an online forum or an extremely detailed beginner's guide to Reddit. Massanari prefaces this book by stating that she believes that researchers should be doing a more in-depth analysis of online communities. As an academic, I agree with this sentiment for various reasons but Massanari never explains why. I most certainly can feel in the blanks but, someone without my level of education may not. Further, it would be nice to know what one could do with the information provided by these deep examinations of a platform. Why is it important that we, as a society, have this information, and what do we do with it once we have it? The other two goals set forth in the book seem to be respectable, however. The theory is out on weather Massanari achieved them or contextualize them fully, nonetheless.

I will grant that Massanari achieved her first goal of examining how people create online communities but, am left wondering why it matters. I did enjoy getting to explore how people created a common experience on a seemingly infinite platform, but fail to see how these experiences can be generalized. Moreover, there was no context provided as to why it was important that we understand these things in the first place. What does this tell us about how people communicate and why they make the decisions we do? Plus, I would like to see more analysis of why people behave as they do once they are part of these communities. I almost have the same feelings towards this book as I did for the second screening research we read last week. While this book definitely went into great detail, I still feel like it was a surface level examination of Reddit. This book provides a broad overview of what Reddit is but, there are phenomena in this book that Massanari covers in a few sentences that could have their own book dedicated to them. I am optimistic that it may serve as a springboard for future research that looks at these phenomena and behaviors more closely. After all, what is the point of knowing what happens on Reddit if we have no context about how it relates to the real world?

The jury is out on whether Massanari accomplished her second goal. She wished to explain how people make meaning of an online world. I feel as though this goal is easier stated than achieved, however. After reading this book I have a better sense of how Reddit works but if I were to create an account at this very moment I still would have to derive meaning from what I was consuming. Some of what Massanari talked about I was familiar with, like ScumBag Stacy or OAG, but that was only because it had leaked from Reddit onto more popular networking sites like Facebook. At first, they were confusing and foreign to me. Even I cannot say how, when, or why I derived meaning from these memes. Just because one explains how a community is built and what it means, does not ensure that they have discovered the elusive thought process that leads people to assign meaning to artifacts or understand the world around them.

I guess, at the end of the day I can think of far more mind-numbing things I could be doing with my time. At least this book was a pretty good read and I can say that I learned something by the end of it. I just question its validity, other than anything more than a great resource for online historians in the distant future or a guide for Reddit newbies. Although, I must admit that the trip down “meme”ory lane was quite nice.

[morganauthement]

Morgan Authement Week 8 3/13

It was very interesting to look at the concept of second screening this week. I am glad to see that in many cases second screening increases political engagement and makes people feel like they are part of a community. As I read each article, however, I could not help but think what part algorithms and personal biases play in the second screening process. I do not know if it is because the research in this area is budding, but these articles only seemed to examine surface level issues. I would have liked to see a much more in-depth analysis of the effects of second screening and if it is truly beneficial. Higher levels of political engagement always seem to be an optimistic outcome but I suspect there is more at play here.

Throughout this semester we have dealt with digital democracy, who is allowed to see what information, and people’s media preferences. I believe much of what we have learned and discussed in class can be applied here. After all, one must ponder, “Is higher political engagement truly desirable when people are ignorant of the facts and algorithms control what media they consume?”  In an age where fake news is a major issue and media literacy is slowly declining with each new generation is second screening all, it's cracked up to be?

According to the Pew Research Center, 45% of adults strictly use Facebook as their new information source. This seems pretty dangerous to me. While I do not know the percentage of fake news on Facebook I would be willing to bet that most of these people are going to run into fake news eventually and believe it to be true. This coupled with the fact that second screening splits cognitive focus makes for a bad recipe. These people are less likely to fact check any of the information they are looking up on their second screen. Plus some people may be using their second screen to secure biased information that will either prove them to be on the winning side of the debate or information that clearly demonstrates why others are wrong. Plus when people are looking for information on second screen algorithms play a big role in what they see. This means that information obtained from a second screen will be biased according to each individual’s search demographic Google has checked off. Again, I would assume that people second screening would be less likely to compensate for this because their cognitive focus is split. Further, when people are using a second screen to contextualize what is going on in the news or on a television show they may be fed information the algorithm thinks they want to see. Therefore, these people may have a completely different perception of reality than those who have done proper research into matters and did not split their attention while consuming these media.

On the surface, these articles tend to paint a pretty optimistic picture of the benefits that second screening provided to society and democracy. I just cannot help but feel that second screening has the potential to contribute to the ignorance surrounding politics and media consumption as a whole. I feel like all of the problems we discussed in class would be magnified when using a second screen because it involves multitasking. I just do not see where here levels of political engagement is a fair trade-off for possibly more ignorant contributors. After all, the marketplace of ideas only works when people possess the desire and means to seek the truth. At first glance, second screening seems to be ideal for this task but I fear that it will only serve to further exacerbate many of the threats to democracy we have discussed in class thus far. I feel that it is only important to know the effects of second screening but also, what people information people are finding when they do second screen. Not to mention, the importance of what they do with this information and how second screening affects their ability to process it. In a world where fake news is becoming the norm, I will always be skeptical of second screening.

[morganauthement]

Morgan Authement Week 7 2/27

As I read the assigned articles this week I noticed that many of them dealt with the question of how to analyze media. For example, Costa suggests that researchers simply use real-world methods instead of specifically media driven methods and Light et al. made a completely new mode known as the walkthrough method in order to study phone applications. While personally, I do not believe there is one right or wrong way to analyze media I find it interesting that others want to do it one way or the other. Why does it have to be so concrete? As long as we arrive at some form of logical conclusions why can’t multiple methods be used? Not to mention not all research has the same purposes and objectives. It is like solving a math problem there may be multiple ways to get the correct answer but as long as the work is shown why does it matter what methods we use? After all, doesn’t all research stem from the scientific method of discovery? Millions upon millions of articles with many different methods and objectives have sprung forth based on the five steps provided within the scientific method.

I do appreciate the effort to diversify scientific methodology, however. Any new method or approach put forward is always a good thing because it shows that mass media research is not growing stagnant. As media grows and evolves so should the methods we use to analyze them. Sometimes looking at issues from different perspectives is the perfect way to correct problems that have been plaguing researchers and help new innovations prosper.  After all, velcro was invented after an engineer noticed how cockle-burs stuck to his pants and his dog’s fur using tiny hooks. This engineer fixed human problems and mad certain tasks easier by looking at nature from a different perspective. We do need these new methods and suggestions that the authors of these articles are working on, but do researchers have to stick to one method or the other?

It is common for many researchers to use both qualitative and quantitative methods. Therefore, should it not be an option to study media through many different methods and perspectives? I believe that the article about the walkthrough method does a really good job expressing that yes diversity of methods are good. That is why the authors are writing the paper to offer a new method in which researchers can analyze apps. Costa doesn’t express this quite as well, however. They make it seem as though media should be analyzed strictly through real-world methods or through media focused methods. Again, why can’t a researcher use both?

At the end of the day, the reason why there is not one particular method for studying media is that media use is as complicated as the people behind the screens. Not everybody has the same intentions and goals when they log into their social media accounts or while doing any of the plethoras of things the internet offers. This is clearly evidenced by the shock of the young Turkish man Costa wrights about at the beginning of their article. In order to understand media consumption and usage methodologies must be as diverse as the people who use them.

[morganauthement]

Morgan Authement Week 6 2/20

I find the concept of audience homophily to be very interesting. I thought it was utterly brilliant to flip the script and look at the makeup of an audience to determine partisanship. This new term can completely change the way social scientists do research and its implications are boundless.  Of course, I always knew that people pick certain types of media as a form of self-expression, but it never occurred to me that these choices could have such major implications in the real world. It never crossed my mind to take that extra step and examine how being associated with a larger audience affects an individual's media consumption choices.

This term should have been invented much sooner than it has. While reading this article I could not help but notice many of the parallels to the phenomenon known as groupthink. This is when people in a large group start to band together and are easily convinced that because the whole group thinks one way they are correct. Each individual also believes that others in the group think exactly as they do.  Audience homophily is just the online version of this. People are wanting to be associated with a group because they all think alike. Therefore, they all must be correct. They also pick these media because they want to show the world that they identify with the most correct group. These concepts are so simple but Dvir-Gvirsman puts them together in such an innovative and brilliant manner. It utterly amazes me because it was almost as if the potential for this article has been sitting in front of our faces in plain sight but Dvir-Gvirsman was the only one intuitive enough to see it.

The implications of audience homophily can majorly change political science and public opinion research. If scientists can break down audiences and compare what the similarities among these audiences are they might be able to more accurately predict public opinion/voting outcomes. For example, if a conservative audience member is actively seeking out conservative media, scientists could profile them by the audiences they belong to. Not to mention, scientists could then analyze cross-sections of each audience and see how each fragment acts and behaves. Meaning, researchers could more accurately predict people's intentions. This is more accurate than survey results because the audience member is showing their true identity when choosing which media they will consume. Whereas, someone who is unsure of their political identity might be choosing to be a part of a wider variety of audiences. Audience homophily could also be combined with other research methods to discover more accurate measurement tools for public opinion. If audience homophily was combined with survey method researchers could compare answers given in a survey to audience membership in order to determine if the answers given reflect the participant's “true self.” This can eliminate social desirability issues, or at least offer a better understanding of them. If one portion of the audience acts a certain way, scientists could predict which issues would need to be corrected for. For example, if scientists know that people who watch Fox News will try to make it seem like they are giving answers that line up with a family values perspective scientists could create questions in such a way that will not activate the cue that would trigger that specific socially desirable response.  

I do not know why this new term has completely blown my mind, but it has. It has opened my mind to so many more possibilities that I never would have considered before. I hope more research is done to expand upon this premise.

[morganauthement]

Morgan Authement Week 5 2/13

Before I get to the meat and potatoes of this thought blog I must say that the following quotation and the paragraph directly following it is the absolute worst definition of journalism that I have ever come across: “However, reciprocal journalism conceptualizes journalists as community-builders who can forge connections with and among community members by establishing patterns of reciprocal exchange.” I sincerely hope that scholars and professionals are not actively endorsing this definition of journalism because it completely disregards professionalism and objectivity. This definition of journalism undermines many, if not all, of the values professional journalist hold dear. Now that I got that rant out of the way I can get to my main point.

While reading this week’s articles I was surprised to notice how much online social networking mirrors real-life networking. For example, people create groups around certain topics and ideas in order to disseminate information. This is like people forming fan groups in the real world. Many people will form networks specifically around one “fandom” and once that particular group dissolves so do the connections it offered. For instance, people can form a fan group dedicated to Sailor Moon where they form connections among other Sailor Moon fans. Once this group dissolves, however, so does the network. This is similar to the spoke and hub groups formed around one centrally focused idea, concept, or person Himelboim et al. described in their article.

Further, online social networking tends to amplify people’s selection bias. I am surprised by this but at the same time, I expected this. I would have thought that online social networking would provide many different viewpoints that expand horizons. Instead, people choose to filter out information they disagree with and blindly spread rumors that benefit their perspectives. This surprised me because I am the type of person that likes to have all sides of a story before I make a decision. Therefore, I expected people to challenge themselves and fact check while participating in online social networking activities. I mean they have the entire world wide web at their disposal, after all. This does not surprise me, however, because this mirrors real life as well. Staunch Republicans will not intentionally seek liberal news networks such as CNN because these networks challenge their views of the world. The same is true for Democrats and networks like Fox News, as well. Further, it is just as rare to find someone who is truly moderate and who seeks unbiased information and news sources. This was mirrored online by the small number of people who would fact check and debunk rumors on Twitter.

Overall, I guess I was expecting to see a difference in how people network online and in person, but these articles mostly proved that more often than not our online habits mirrored our real-world habits. The internet and online social networking present us with a completely new and different social environment. I was thinking this would have changed the way people network and find information. In the future, I think it would be interesting to do some of the studies on networks of people are purposefully leading detective online lives to see how the results might change. For example, would a group of drag queens act the same as a group taken from the regular population? Would a group using cosplay handles behave similarly to those who do not? Do anonymity and perceived duality change how these networks operate and who are the gatekeepers? I also think it would be beneficial to investigate how setting behind a keyboard changes the behavior of those within a social network. For example, would the same people spreading rumors on Twitter spread those same rumors in their real-world lives? Would they go to work and verbally tell their co-workers this information without fact-checking it first? These are all questions I would love to see investigated.

[morganauthement]

Week 4 2/6

I can honestly say that after reading this week’s book that I knew I would have a very difficult time writing a thought blog. I feel that the only thoughts I had about this book were critiques. So I guess I will just critique the book this week as my thought blog.

After reading the introduction to this book I was extremely excited to read the rest of it. I thought the story Papacharissi told was quite interesting and I was highly engaged by the concepts she was explaining. My enthusiasm quickly waned as I began to read chapter one, however. As I read the chapter I instantly realized that the last time I wanted to stop reading a book as much as this one was when I tried to muddle through the Hunchback of Notre Dame in the eighth grade. The difference was I had the option and did put that book down in order to end the misery. The writing was just as confusing and as pedantic as Hugo’s. As Papacharissi tried to define what affect was I felt like I was back in an undergraduate debate round listening to a new debater throwing out as many arguments as possible in the hopes that one would stick and along the way throwing shiny bits of obscure knowledge in order to impress the judges. To make things worse Papacharissi constantly examined dueling points of view further complicating the definition she sought to put forward. It was almost as if she did not want to settle on one specific definition as if to avoid being told she was wrong. After reading this chapter, and the entire book for that matter, I still do not know what affect is according to Papacharissi. As you can imagine this made reading the rest of the book incredibly difficult and frustrating. As I read this chapter I kept hoping the book would become easier to read.

Luckily, my wish came true as I got to the main body of the book. As I continued to read, however, I realized I had only achieved a small amount of relief. Papacharissi truly shines when she recounts historical events and then gives the context necessary for analysis. Much like in the introduction, I truly enjoyed when she explained the Arab Springs and Occupy Wall Street through Twitter. She contextualizes the concepts and events in a very effective manner. I really did enjoy how she demonstrates that Twitter both follows traditional news values while creating new values depending on the situation, but I never understood the importance of this because I never grasped what she aimed to explain by writing this book. Therefore, I think that she made good arguments in this book but each chapter felt like it was completely disjointed from the last. I kept hoping that she would tie it all together at some point but sadly after finishing the book I never got my wish. Although, this could just be because at this point I was fed up with the book in the first place and missed the point entirely.

I was disappointed after finishing this book because I really thought it was going to be an enjoyable experience to read. It as if Papacharissi should have been a historian and not a communicator. Any time she strayed form retelling and contextualizing an event she completely lost me. Maybe the concepts were just to elaborate for me to grasp but I highly suspect that is not true. I have read some articles that had some very conceptual theories proposed and understood them perfectly. This is because the authors of those articles knew how to effectively communicate their thoughts and did not try to skirt around the message they were relaying. I was hoping to get much more than what I did from this book.

[morganauthement]

Week 3 1/30

The first thing that I want to say about this week’s book is that I think it is incredibly appropriate that Google has a product named Borg, given Google’s all-encompassing nature and desire to “assimilate” as much information as possible. Google’s motto should be “Prepare to be assimilated resistance is futile,” at this point anyway.  While I find this Star Trek reference incredibly amusing I have to say it does prove one of the author’s main arguments true. The marketplace that is the Internet tends to favor big and efficient companies. It is as if Google conceded this point flat out by naming one of their products in such a way. Moreover, I do think many of the arguments made in this book are well crafted and I agree with much of what Hindman has to say. There is one problem that I see with this book, however. Hindman never discusses the fact that many successful Internet businesses did not need the major infrastructure required by Google, Amazon, or Facebook to build their business. They simply capitalized on the existing system and took advantage of other physical assets.

A major example of this that comes immediately to my mind is Jeffree Star. He has built a multimillion-dollar makeup company that runs completely online. Star accomplished this coming from a poor family background. He worked most of his adult life as a MAC Cosmetic counter salesman. So he definitely did not have the money or infrastructure that other major Internet brands do now. He did, however, know how to use the existing infrastructure to achieve his goals. Star first become popular on Youtube as a makeup guru. He was able to use this free website that has acres and acres of electricity farms to his advantage. After Star had amassed a huge following on Youtube he used the publicity to start his own makeup company, Jeffree Star Cosmetics. He funded small batches, worked with small companies and crowdfunded much of his early products and development in order to start his business. Since he had achieved Internet fame he was able to advertise his products on Youtube and other websites.

These products became extremely popular due to his association with them and their high quality at affordable prices. As the cosmetics company began to profit Star was able to add more diversity to his product offerings and a variety in product lines at different price points. Star built this empire entirely online and he has stated that he would like his company to say this way for the foreseeable future. He believes that he has more control over his product and business decisions this way. Therefore, he runs a multimillion dollar business completely online that he built form nothing at all. Star was able to use another company's that laid the groundwork to start his own business and continues to do so. Even as his company grew he never needed to have all the tech and speed that Google did because he was running his website through Google. His Internet fame also insured that people were specifically searching for him and his products. Algorithms did not affect him. Unless one would want to make the argument that the Youtube suggested videos algorithm was responsible for his fame in the first place. He did not need thousands and thousands of processor to ensure speed because he was already using Google or some other website generator to build and maintain his site. Star is the perfect example of how someone can work within the existing infrastructure to make a successful Internet business. It is not always necessary to build a major infrastructural back backbone to be successful. Plus it is fairly easy to manipulate the current system to your advantage due to the nature of the Internet. Especially, if you have a “sticky” personality or product.

In conclusion, I do agree that the Internet marketplace does favor big businesses that are sticky, especially when these businesses must be built from scratch. Hindman largely ignores the fact that other methods can be used to achieve extreme success on the Internet, however. There is an increasing number of people and companies that are taking advantage of the system. These companies can become the next Google or Amazon or even Facebook. Hindman always skirts around this and makes it seem as if an Internet endeavor is to be successful it must start from the scratch with nothing and this is simply not true. I think as we move toward the further into a digital society the more untrue this will become. I think this book needed some of this new perspective in order to be more successful.

[morganauthement]

Week 2 1/23

As I read through most of this week’s readings it became abundantly clear to me that I could mostly skip past the literature reviews and head straight to the methodology, results, and conclusions sections. All of the scholars tended to agree that online usage is directly affected by socio-economic factors. They also agreed that those who would benefit from the Internet the most are those with both less access to the Internet and less knowledge of how to use the Internet. While I was reading these articles, however, one particular episode of the show Black Mirror kept creeping to the back of my mind.

This episode followed a woman who was trying to raise her “credit score” in order to rent a new apartment. The twist was that in this world one’s credit score was directly related to how well others rated social interactions with them. Therefore, the entire economy was tied to both your online presence and surface level interactions. These articles reminded me of this one episode so much because in a scene they were treating Internet access as capital in many different ways. It was linked to monetary capital as those who used and understood the Internet more could search for jobs, look up financial advice and even back online. Also, those with more monetary capital tended to be the people more likely to use the Internet in such a way. The Internet was also linked to political and social capital as well with similar results. Those who would seem to benefit the most from these forms of Internet capital where also the people who wear least likely to be using the Internet in such a way as to maximize these features. This again draws me back to the Black Mirror episode. Individuals with wider social networks tended to have better scores than those with who were less social. Therefore, the system was rigged to accommodate those who tended to be extroverts, those who inherited a wider social network from their parents, and those who were particularly good at navigating online appearances. Some people were good and these things and others were not. While some even preferred to be a more authentic form of themselves rather than be fake to higher their scores. Towards the end of the episode, we see that when the protagonist changed her view on the system it no longer worked in her favor and she began to rapidly lose points. The lower her score got the less she could do in this society. Therefore, once she hit her lowest credit score she was unable to access the basic necessities she required to increase her score again. As long as she was in good standing she didn’t need the benefits the system offered but as soon as she ducked below the poverty line she no longer has access to these same benefits. This exhibits the point made by the authors this week. The lower one's Internet access and literacy is the least likely it will be to work in their favor. This also means that these people are less motivated to be on the Internet making the gap wider between user and non-users. After all, once her credit score started to decrease our main protagonist did start to question the efficiency of the credit system she was tied to making her less satisfied with this reality overall.

While reading these articles I also couldn’t help thinking of my mom. She doesn't like new technology and refuses to learn it unless she is forced. I couldn’t help but wonder if it wouldn’t be for my dad supporting her she may be in these less privileged groups. I also cannot help but wonder if my level of education will save me in this case? Since I have achieved a higher level of education will my Internet “credit score” be higher than either of my parent’s and will that even matter? After all, even though my dad’s more Internet savvy than my mom he still has less education than I do and he runs two small businesses. Therefore, he will make more money than I ever will as a college instructor. He has managed to navigate the Internet to his advantage despite coming from a lower income family and having limited Internet access. Is he the exception to the rule? I am left wondering will Internet literacy and access become our new “credit score” or will the Internet serve to further democratize the world as access becomes more common?

[morganauthement]

Weekly thought blog 1/16

As I read the articles for this week’s class I got a since that as social networking and social media becomes bigger and more diverse researchers are becoming overwhelmed. In the early days when these networks were virgining research was simple and the networks were to. As these networks became more mainstream it became harder to understand and research. Many of the articles dealt with the history of social media and how the online sights have changed themselves. I believe that these changes are reflective of where society is going as a whole. As technology gets better our social media becomes more complex. This is something I think most of these researchers fail to acknowledge. Boyd and Ellison do briefly touch on this but they pass over it pretty quickly. I believe that many of the changes in social media are directly tied to the technology around us and not just the media itself. Just like Boyd said in the easy about technology in teen’s life in order to understand an online profile one must understand the context around that profile in the real life. I believe researchers must also understand technology’s contribution to this equation as well. Technology is allowing today’s youth to become less and less social. For example texting allows people to send quick messages without the need to actually talk to another person. Face to face relationships are quickly becoming obsolete. Meaning social networking is becoming more important in our lives. People are having to learn a new way of socializing. Often times emotions are hard to read when looking at online post. Unless specifically stated with in the post. These new trends contribute heavily to how these social media platforms are used and how they effect our daily lives. Looking at these trends should make it easier to study social media and contextualize it. I also believe that although our online habits are changing and technology is changing the was we communicate social media fulfills a primal need in us. For example in the early days of my space people used their top eight friends to show of what connections the had rather than as a quick link to the people they talked to most, as intended by the developers.

Social media offers us a place where we can be anybody we want. On Facebook we could be conservative because that’s where our parents network, on Twitter we could be trying to impress the people we look up to, and on tumblr we may be our truest selves because we do not know any of our followers personally. Facebook fulfills our need to be close to family, Twitter fulfills our need to be the best or show off, and tumble fulfills our need to express our authentic selfs. The context of each of these networks are very important to look as well when trying to understand and classify each site. For example Facebook is quickly becoming know for older people and family contacts. Fewer and fewer young people are being active on the website. Therefore, the site’s reputation changes the way it is used. When Facebook first gain popularity it was among college students looking to stay in contact with one another as the moved away when they got new jobs or went back to their home cities. I’m sure the website look extremely different in the early days as compared to how it looks now. In many ways I believe the cycle is very reliant on the other part of the equation. Technology will encourage social change but social change greatly influences technology. So is the same with social media. With that being said, however, there will alway be primal social needs we as human beings will always be seeking to satisfy. There will always be social justice warriors looking for a platform, shameless self promoters looking to get their name out there, and people looking to get attention by any means necessary. While the social context and environment may change these needs will never change. People will adapt to the new innovations in order to satisfy these base needs. Therefore, I do believe that all these networks will have something in common as the advance and grow. People adapt to technology as technology adapts to people.