paigeypaigerrrs-blog

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

'Twitter. An online social networking service that enables users to send and read short messages called "tweets"...Registered users can post tweets, but unregistered users can easily read them.'

It should go more like this.. 

'Twitter. An online social networking service that enables users to identify as whoever they chose to portray or be - whether for professional, recreational, or political use - in an array that they will find other twitter users who either think as they do or have a similar thought on the tweet.'

Social networking sites (such as Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus) allow you to create whatever online identities you want. Whether or not you choose to take on your physical identity or create an entirely new identity that represents your virtual self is completely up to you. People use these networking sites for a variety of reasons. Whether it is a way of self expression or confession or even for the mere purpose of contacting with friends that exist in the real world as well. But have you ever thought about the users that use these as a way to relay information? And no I'm not talking about the information that relates to your life personally, but the information that everyone deserves to know (information that some people want to hold confidential when in actuality, it is the people's information.) The kind of information that leaks through anonymous users on Twitter, viral YouTube videos or bloggers who don't leave their trace. These people often disguise their identities because they don't want to get in trouble by the major capitalist companies or the government for sharing this information. They just strongly believe that the people deserve to know this information. 

These type of social media users are activating their right to having a digital freedom. Similarly, this concept can go directly back to freedom or speech and the idea that we should have a freedom of being watched (kept under a close surveillance.) These users, and other types of anonymous users and groups as well, often start movements and "operations" this way. Sometimes in order for a change or a protest to take place in society today, people use their online identities as a shield in order to protect themselves from the dangers such that can occur, 

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

In the article, Burning Man at Google: A Cultural Infrastructure for New Media Production, Fred Turner goes into depth about not only the Burning Man festival itself, but why Google chooses to support and thrive on this festival so much. 

Now if you're anything like me you might be asking yourself, why the hell is there a festival all about a burning man? Well this is where symbolism comes into play. In the late 1980's a couple of guys decided that they wanted to burn a man (a 9-foot wooden interpretation of one - not a real one!) as an act of radical self-expression. Over the next 30 years, this event made it's way to becoming one of the biggest Arts festivals on the Globe. Now known as the Burning Man, this week long festival draws over 65,000 people to create this alternative and experimental city known as Black Rock City, NV. 

This festival draws creative people from all different types of backgrounds. From dancers and musicians, to software geeks and computer hackers, these people all come to Black Rock City for the same mutual purpose - to push their creativity and their minds to places never having been before. Those who have been to the Burning Man festival say that it is an experience like none other. 

Now one thing that many people don't know about the festival is how much it can offer up to major industrial companies - in this case such as Google. In 1999, Google's founders went to the festival for the first time and have returned every year since the first time. Google's Executive Chief attended in 2001, and was hired on to the Google team shortly after Burning Man. But why is Google such a strong backer of such a cultural experiment and self-expressive movement? Google wants people and developers that are willing to think outside the box of regular society norms. Google wants people who will push their digital freedom (and freedom within society) past their set boundaries. In order to get ahead in technology, they need people who won't be afraid to test these limits and take chances. 

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

In May of 2013, Edward Snowden began sharing confidential NSA information with a couple of the United State's leading journalists. He did this in such a way that exploited the US National Security Agency for taking and with holding private information from US citizens that were not posing any threat to the country or Washington DC at all. When documents were released, it was shown that major companies such as Google, Yahoo and Facebook were directly passing our information along to the NSA. It was also shown that these websites were using specific algorithms in order to decide what advertisements would most likely appeal to us. For instance, Google's ever so popular gmail would sift through the content of various emails the user was receiving and sending in order to offer up the best advertisements. These websites use this in order to help capitalize and earn profits in these companies. 

But is this ethically and morally right? Just because we, the people, are partaking and inputting our information into web 2.0 does that mean we are voluntarily giving our information up to the government? This question just opens the door for other questions about what rights does our government have? and who actually owns our information that we put onto the internet?

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

"You can't survive, unless you keep them a secret." 

In the documentary titled United States of Secrets: Part 1, it asks the question - could the attack on September 11th in 2001 have been prevented? If so, how? And would it have been under a constitutional means? Towards the beginning of the documentary we learn that the National Security Agency (NSA) was created in order to prevent a surprise attack, but the irony of this situation is that the NSA were one of the last agencies to find out about the terrorist attack. As said in the documentary, some of the directors of the NSA found out because CNN was on the television in his office.. the television! These government officials that we are placing our trust and faith in to protect us can't even know that a huge attack is coming for a country.. now what is there to say about this?

Later, when President Bush asked the director of the NSA if anything could have been done to prevent this attack he replied with yes, but he does not have the authority. What General Hayden wanted to do was wire-tap into all phone calls, phone numbers, texts, e-mails and all other online information sources in order to monitor possible threats to the country. This goes against many US citizen's privacy rights because the NSA would be hacking into their private information without reason or warrant.

As seen through the remainder of the documentary, this is quite the controversial issue. Who decides what is constitutional or not? What networks are allowed to be monitored by the US government and what are the boundaries of wanting to protect its citizens and invading their privacy? 

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

In the article, "Sorting Places Out? Towards a Social Politics of Neighbourhood Informatization", Roger Burrows and Nick Ellison discuss how urban policy and planning have been virtually absent in modern day times. They also examine the consequences and after math of online Geographical Information System (GIS) for the social policies. Burrows and Ellison not only argue how not only social citizenship and is understood in terms of proactive and reactive engagement, but also how virtual decisions can effect the overall public sphere and the shaping of these communities. 

Farther into the article, we see how Burrows and Ellison compare and contrast different areas by giving them titles such as live zones vs. dead zones, and tame zones vs. wild zones. The comparing and contrasting of live zones vs. dead zones is used to communicate the idea of fluid geographies and the opportunities for the flow and exchange of extraordinary amounts of information. They use these characterizations in order to determine the socio-spatial reconstruction.

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

In the article, CouchSurfing: Belonging and Trust in a Globally Cooperative Online Social Network,b Rosen, Lafontaine and Henderson discuss a study in which the popular social media website CouchSurfing.com is the topic of investigation. The three main components of their study include looking at the sense of belonging, connectedness and trust these users have to build in their online relationships with each other. 

For those of you that do not know, CouchSurfing is a popular site that members use when looking for hospitality accommodations when traveling world-wide. They are able to be connected with other members that are willing to let them into their home for a period of time. Although this might seem a little odd to some, many members of the site find a sense of belonging through using this method. If you have not met this person face-to-face a sense of trust must be made between the two parties. This is build through one's online profile and identity - how they portray themselves to be online.

As discussed in the article, many people "couchsurf" in order to achieve a cultural sense of belonging. When comparing CouchSurfing to staying in a hotel, besides the price of CouchSurfing being much more affordable (especially if you are traveling on a budget) CouchSurfing also gives you the opportunity to connect with locals. By staying with one of the locals, you immediately are completely immersed in the sense of the local culture without having to struggle with the temptation of your travels feeling too "touristy".

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

'The chocolate milkshake, one of America's favorite sweet tooth cravings. It doesn't even matter if you are hungry or not, just looking at the milkshake alone it starts to get your taste buds salivating. If someone offered you a milkshake in return for a favor or something you could do for them you would most likely do it, even if it weren't something you initially wanted to do in the first place.. I mean who wouldn't be persuaded by the ever so delicious power of the chocolate milkshake? '

Now you might be asking why the hell I am going on a on about a chocolate milkshake, but don't worry I promise there is some actual importance to all of this.. just wait. When someone dangles something in front of your face (figuratively) or promises you things you never thought would even be possible could be done, sometimes your common sense just goes out the window and your eyes just see what the final product is - in other words, what's in it for you (by neglecting to look at the logic and rational behind what is being asked of you.) Very similarly when you look at presidential elections, like as done in the article titled Online Emotional Appeals and Political Participation; Young, Hoffman and Jones specifically focus on how different candidates use different emotions in order to persuade voters in their favor. (Kind of like playing into your taste bud receptors by persuading you with a chocolate milkshake.) 

They look at the not only the observer affect, by which experiencing different emotional states can have a wide range on voters, but also how this plays into the candidate affect. By playing to voters specific emotion, a sense of empathy can often be brought on to the voters - which as seen in the past - can actually persuade many voters without them even knowing it. 

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

In Gilad Lotan's article titled The Algorithmic Newsroom, he says "An algorithm is a finite list of instructions that a machine preforms in order to calculate a function." But is that really all an algorithm is? Does an algorithm have a bias? How does it really decide what it decides as important news for the audience to see? (Since in this instance we are referring to the algorithm in which social media sites - such as twitter - use in order decide what stories and tweets to display on the news feeds.) 

Do you ever actually think about how those tweets and stories are decided? Lotan goes into more depth on this topic and attempts to depict some of these answers. He discusses the various biases in which many algorithms are laced with and how the general public is oblivious to these biases - they are seen as neutral.This idea relates to that of the Computational and Algorithmic Journalism concept. We see this in that we know that knowledge generates activity. And these journalists and bloggers utilize the 'big data' with assistance from algorithms. They use algorithms because they are meant to solve problems in a way that produces revenue (capital) - the ultimate goal. 

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

According to Wikipedia, music sampling is the act of taking a portion, or sample, of one sound recording and reusing it as an instrument or a sound recording in a different song or piece. In the Ted Talk titled, How Sampling Transformed Music, Mark Ronson discusses how without music sampling the music industry wouldn't be anywhere near where they are today. In his video he uses many sound clips- samples- in order to get his idea across. So much of modern day music is dependent upon sampling. Building ideas on top of other ideas and mixing them with previously successful ideas is just more opportunity for creativity. 

Remixing sound clips, images, and even movie clips has truly become a modern day form of art. As long as credit is correctly given (or atleast not taken away) from the original creator of these music samples, some pretty incredible things can be created. With critics and others arguing that music sampling is just a way to steal other's works, they are just cutting themselves out of so many more great things that can be done with these clips. 

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

"When we copy, we justify it. When others copy, we vilify it." 

Excerpt taken from Everything is a Remix: Part IV

What does it actually mean to copyright something? What's the difference between stealing someone's work (going against the copyright) or using it as an influence? Where is this fine boundary line to be drawn? After watching Kirby Ferguson's 4 Part Documentary Series, Everything is a Remix, so many of these types of questions come to mind. 

In the documentary Ferguson takes this approach of how everything, whether an original or a copy, it is all influenced from something. But what is the difference between merely taking an influence off of an existing idea or product or just flat out copying it. In the documentary it brings up how the cost of an original is always much much more than that of the copies that follow. This is because they have to pay for the developing fees (the costs to actually take an idea and turn it into a product.) This is where the concept of a copyright came in - in order to prevent this from occurring. A copyright gives the manufacturer a right to have their ideas protected in the form of a contract, most copyrights are put into effect before the final product is even produced. Since many copyrights are only in effect for a certain duration of time, after this time is up other companies are allowed to follow through and manufacture similar products based off the original.

All and all the main goal of copyrighting is to make the best product possible in order of 'the common good.' This way, hopefully much less money can be lost in the process and not as many law suits over who owns these intellectual ideas and sorts.  

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

https://www.ted.com/talks/stefana_broadbent_how_the_internet_enables_intimacy/transcript?language=en

In the Ted Talk, How the Internet Enables Intimacy, Stefana Broadbent discusses what she likes to call the "democratization of intimacy." And by this she means that people are now used to the norm that has been put on the old way of a face to face conversation. For instance, she looks at how an average guy may have 120 Facebook friends, but in all actuality he only interacts with 4 to 6 people on a 2-way basis regularly. People are making themselves isolated within these groups they  are associating themselves with. 

It's interesting to think that Facebook, Skype and other social media sites appear to want to expand your networking and social communities into the virtual world - by meeting new people and adding new friends- but when it comes down to it many of us are actually just isolating ourselves even further with the people we already know. Because it is so easy to interact with others over these social media sites (especially when distance plays a huge factor) people have been increasingly using these sites to stay intimate with the ones they hold close. 

When we think about the role that technology plays in the context of family, we have to think of family as an institution - of which the socialization within the family is how love and intimacy are achieved. Now that we are in the 21st century, when it comes to family and how different interactions are made, we have to consider the role that technology plays. 

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

According to yourdictionary.com, a mommy-blogger is 'a mother who blogs about her children, motherhood, parenting, or related topics.' But is is just that simple? In  the  article, The Radical Act of 'Mommy Blogging': Redefining Motherhood through Blogsphere, Lopez analyzes and explores the way that so called "mommy blogging" challenges the typical society norms are associated with motherhood. The article not only looks at what mommy-blogging is in the view of the author (the mother), but also how specific audiences in society view this information as well.In the past ten years this idea of mommy-blogging has gained lots of popularity within many American mothers across the country, but has also been highly criticized as well. 

One thing you might ask is why are these mommy bloggers under so much scrutiny by the media and general public? I mean wouldn't you think that a mother blogging about her family and parenting techniques would do anything except cause harm? Well that's where you are wrong. Lopez examines different factors such as how these mommy-bloggers are not an accurate representation of most mothers, due to race, age and social class (income.) And it's hard enough for a husband and wife to agree on common parenting techniques, let alone when a mother is going to post her parenting techniques online for all social media users to see - this will definitely open up room for conflict within many audiences as well.

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

Facebook has a lot more control over you than you probably think. Between the Top News and Most Recent News Feeds, Facebook only pops up the users that it wants to show you. Not everyone is given equal attention. The mastermind behind Facebook is the ever so powerful algorithm of EdgeRank. EdgeRank is what can make or break your online identity. Whether you want to be visible or invisible, EdgeRank gets the final decision. The three main pieces of criteria it takes into account are Affinity (the strength of the relationship between the two users measured), Weight (how popular the post being interacted with is), and Time decay. It is proven that the more you interact with Facebook, the more it will display your information to others. 

The main reason EdgeRank does this comes down to one simple thing, power. The more information EdgeRank can withhold from you (the user) the more power it is taking away from you. By playing into this idea that the more you interact with others the more "visible" or "popular" you may be online, EdgeRank is slowly manipulating you to become more involved with Facebook - therefore sharing additional information and interacting with others in order to gain more control over you. 

In the article, Want to be on Top? Algorithmic Power and the Threat of Invisibility on Facebook,Taina Bucher investigates the true power that EdgeRank holds. She investigates how Facebook ultimately "rewards" those who are more interactive with the site by having their posts more visible to friends and pop up more often on the News Feeds of others, while EdgeRank "punishes" some of the less active users by making their posts almost invisible. Now while this isn't the most important thing to many everyday people, when it comes to major companies that use Facebook for advertising they use this to their advantage. 

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

The addiction narrative suggests technological determinism and ones lack of self control. Technological determination suggests that these technologies alone will determine the final outcome of society. But does immersing one's self in technology always have to lead to a lack of self control? Some critics argue that if one is overly consumed and caught in technology that they will lose all sense of independence within one's self and therefore not be able to properly function without the use of such machines (in this case the iPhone.) Although this may be true in some cases, not all highly-involved technology users fall into this addiction narrative.

I chose to use this picture to visualize the addictive narrative because it uses one of the more common addictions (snorting drugs) to draw attention to the addiction of technology. Although a technology addiction may not be as physical threatening as the addiction of a serious drug user, some of the same mental and emotional threats may be present -possibly even at a higher extent. 

But is this concept of the addiction narrative actually a bad thing? Is it truly harmful to oneself? Or does that depend upon whether the user is in control or the machine is in control? Who really holds the power here? And even if one falls into this case of addiction, is it in all cases harmful?

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

Although this couple may look a little young to be at a fancy dinner on their smartphones, it does draw your attention to how out of place the smart phones look for not only their age group- but also the setting. People have become so dependent upon technology that even in situations where it isn't even necessary. The two are unable to find satisfaction and happiness within each other that they have to rely on their tech savvy phones in order to achieve this. 

The affective turn represents the relationship between the machine (in this case the smart phones) and the senses of the human body. The smart phones are reshaping the moods of the children thus causing them to have a completely different experience than if their was no technology present. Because they are inputting in such different information visually, they are both having their own individual sensory experiences. In this photo you can also see how the boundary between human body and technology has now been crossed over. 

[paigeypaigerrrs-blog]

"Algorithm. A rhythm named after Al Gore."

Al Gore is known to many as an influential Vice President, politician, and environmental activist. What many Americans don't realize is that he truly is the human version of an algorithm. He believes that he has the key solutions and answers to the ever so threatening Global Warming problem. He is the leading human figure in terms of living algorithms. I mean, who needs a computer to solve your problem when you have Al Gore?

Algorithms are essentially the "brains" behind software and technology. They solve the problems, find the solutions, and maintain order within these systems. Technological programs and software simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for the algorithms in place behind it. They also are influential in our decision making as humans (often times without us even knowing it.) I related Al Gore to an algorithm because of his persuasive ways with the American people and his confidence that he has within himself. He believes that he is the pushing force behind the world's environmental problems and that without him and his ways Earth would just completely fall apart.