seeing things for more than what they are

In today's day and age everyone has to know how to use social media and especially when you are in the public eye. A lot of politicians have learned that Twitter is an effective way to get their message across to their audience in a more organic way than through traditional media.In the article Twitter Bites and Romney by Janet Johnson I believe what she concludes with is important. She states "Rhetoricians need to spend more time in social media venues to learn more about how rhetors—including newsmakers and candidates—correspond with the public, particularly in the political realm." I feel that more research needs to be done on social media in the political sphere for sure. So many politicians and people who hold public offices for the government are beginning to utilize these social media features and it is something that should be studied more closely.

In the article Interactivity: The golden fleece of the internet the author really hits home about the importance of finding that balance between interacting with your audience and pushing information at them. I believe that the user to web site author interactivity was the most interesting of the different types within the article. It is something that many organizations use online but rarely is it something that I think about when visiting a website. Everything down to the color of the background is created in order to get you to communicate with the authors of the website (that being the business or political persons team).

I also found the Google Maps piece interesting. I think it shows great expansion in the area of involvement with the public. "According to Ben Rigby, researcher for Rock the Vote, with these new programs “Google offers Earth as a canvas. Organizations like the Holocaust Museum paint this canvas with what are called layers, which mapmakers use to thematically organize information, such as images, icons, graphs, charts, and text.”

I also loved when the author talked about how maps don't just simply show us where we are or how to get somewhere. "These maps, instead, help us to locate ourselves on a more philosophical level, and work to build our identity in relationship to our location in the world (Pg.109)."

All of these articles this week made me see things for more than just what they appear to be on the surface. Websites are more than just places that house information, Twitter is more than just where people talk about social trends and maps are more than just something to point me in the right direction.

The Cherry on top..

So many people say that social media is taking over traditional media and that it is this totally new concept. 

I would have to disagree, especially after this weeks readings. 

I begin by bringing up the Gustafsson piece which is about social networks and viral politics. I take a quote from page 9 " It is not correct to describe or define social network sites or social media in general as the opposite of traditional or main stream media." I feel that social media has been able to add on to traditional media in many facets but most definitely in the theme of this weeks readings about protests and viral movements.

In Gustafssons article as well as all of the articles from this week, they both discuss how social media has been able to aid movements and protests to help spread the word to the followers of the different movements mentioned.

I love the idea brought  up by Gustafsson which is the Small World Pattern. It notes that social networks aren't held together by the bulk of people who just have a few hundred friends but it is supported by those who have tens of thousands of connections. I believe that is very true, people use social media to connect with others such as friends but also to connect to ideas and problems that they identify with. 

In the article by Penney and Dadas about the Occupy Wall Street Movement they describe the way that Twitter allowed people involved in the movement around the country to connect and be in the know with what is going on in real time. On page 16 they discuss Warner's idea of a counterpublic which "enables a horizon of opinion and exchange; its exchanges remain distinct from authority and can have a critical relation to power." I love how they also discuss the concept of audiences. I feel that this ties in a lot of ideas we have previously discussed and helps to bring to light something that I know I haven't thought of as a positive use of social media before. 

Using social media can enhance traditional media and help those who are not (as Gustafsson says) influencers, have an idea and voice to be heard.

Through the looking glass

This weeks readings were something that hit home to a lot of concerns that many people, such as myself, have about big data and online personalization of web space/interface.

To think that there are companies and people who choose what you should and shouldn't see online based on your 'likes' or clicks on different web spaces and even your interface that you use is something that I'm sure many people don't want to dwell on.

In the article The Big Data Divide, it brought a lot of  that home for me. It is crazy to think that someone can choose you for a job based on which web browser you use, let alone HOW they know which one you use. I like what Adrejevic quotes in his article from Weinberger "in the era of big data, the smartest person in the room IS the room." I think that this brings it to light that computers are more than just devices we use to communicate.

In the article by Aaron Hess he also touches on this aspect. He uses a quote by David Gunkel who argues this point. " Communication theory positions computers and other digital technology as part of the channel that send the message, rather than as an inherent part of the message itself." I do agree that the computer/phone/tablet/etc is more than just the technology we use to form our messages but it also changes the way we communicate our message based on which platform we are on.

I really like when Hess discusses how the media and technology are extensions of our selves. He says "As extensions of ourselves, media accentuate the physical and experiential form of the human body - television extends our sights while radio extends our hearing."

The Hess article was definitely my favorite this week. I like when he discusses Sherry Turkle's work and how she connects the nature of identity. "the nature of identity is a larger cultural context which is the story of the eroding boundaries between the real and virtual, the animate and inanimate, the unitary and the multiple self, which is occurring both in advanced scientific fields of research and in the patterns of everyday life."

I believe that our online identities are a little like Alice in Through the Looking Glass. We see potential in what we can be, and we let our imaginations have more of a home in the virtual world than they might in the "real" world. We can see ourselves and see how we have built this other self which still remains a part of us. I really think that is one of the better topics to focus on in this scary navigation of  big data and personalization of the web.

Something noteworthy to giggle about: I also thought that it was hilarious in the Fernback piece the people trying to fight for Facebook to stop invading their privacy were using Facebook to organize it...

Googling Egypt

This is what my search page looked like when I Google searched Egypt. (In class discussion)

What's in a name?

I remember the days when people had two separate Facebook profiles, one for work/professional and then their "real" one. I still have a few friends who have Facebook profiles that don't have their real names because of various reasons. One of my friends it is because she is an elementary teacher and doesn't want her privacy of her real life taken from her by a parent or student finding her on Facebook.

A good example of other very serious reasons as to why someone would want to use another name was brought up in an article this week by Danah Boyd. What if someone was a rape victim or had been harassed? That is more than enough reason to want to change your name online to keep from having something like that follow you.

The discussion this week is about online identities and how you portray yourself online. I like what Van Dijck discussed in his article You have one identity: performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. He discusses about the move from connectedness to connectivity. The idea of connectivity is something that is on the rise with social media research and I agree with him that we have moved from just wanting to connect with people to wanting to be connected to people via social media.

Over time people have been able to use this to their advantage by "cheating"the system. I know I have done it before. We have talked a lot before in other classes about the presentation of yourself online and this is a good example of that.By choosing what you want to show and how you want to frame it you can become anything you want online. In the article Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media the authors Marwick and Boyd state "To manage an environment where information is easily reproduced and broadcast, we find that many teenagers conceptualize privacy as an ability to control their situation,including their environment, how they are perceived, and the information that they share."

So, to change a name or not to change a name? I believe that it is everyone's right to be able to choose whether they want to go by their name or a pseudonym. After all people such as "Mark Twain" have been doing that since before Facebook was even though of.

Are people born bloggers? Or do we having blogging thrust upon us?

One short day on the blogosphere reflecting. (LOL)

This week we were asked the review previous blogs we have written and reflect on it. It almost like blog-ception.I feel as if in my blogs I mainly focus on reviewing information from the articles we have read from week to week. In my mind I rationalize doing that because I feel if someone who has no clue what articles they are happens upon my blog they could grasp a general understanding of what I am blabbing on about.

I feel that as the weeks have gone on I have increased in my reflections upon the readings instead of just the summary of said readings.  I have started to include my feelings on certain readings and whether I enjoyed them or not which I feel adds to the content and enjoyment of reading the blog.

I can definitely tell which weeks I prefer more just by the way I wrote each post but I don't know that anyone else would be able to tell apart from myself. I value being able to share my opinion with others online and I feel this has given me a way to show people a different side of me, that being the academic side. I do feel like I am better at personal blogging than academic however I feel as the weeks have gone I have grown in my strength with academic blogging.

From this I also have discovered how much I enjoy reading academic writings about more current stuff such as memes and blogging. I feel that this has given me a way to express my thoughts more and when we discuss in class I have a better understanding about the topics because of having to explain it in a blog before discussing in class!

blogging about blogs

I really enjoyed this weeks readings about blogs. I have had a fascination with them for a while by way of some of my favorite beauty gurus.

I love how Miller and Shepherd's article explains blogs and blogging. In all of the articles from this week (miller and Shepherd, Mortensen, Garden, and Shirky) they all agree that there are some key elements that make up the definition of a blog. First is is has to be chronologically organized. Thus each entry is dated. The second is frequent updating. This would make sense because the life of a blog depends on posts beginning constantly added to continue to have it stay relevant. The last is combination of links with personal commentary.

I agree with the article also when it says that across the board bloggers agree that content is the most important feature of a blog. I feel that without specified types of content, and the different versions of blogs, they wouldn't be as popular as they are now. I like how they also go on to say " Content is important to bloggers because it represents their freedom of selection and presentation." As someone who blogs, I find that to be very true.

The article also explains two themes prevalent in blogging: self-expression and community development. In another article by Mortensen it also goes into this idea of community development. The author says " This is part of the nature of weblogs: a personal expression of perhaps not community but an understanding of connectedness. To post online is to declare that you are part of something larger, even if the post is just in order to whine about dinner or about having lost a boyfriend."

Blogs and the content they hold can connect us to someone who shares our same thoughts on video games, or makeup, or anything under the sun and I think it is one of the great things about the internet. It has given a way for people to share their thoughts and opinions with the world in the hopes that there are others out there who share the same.

I think that Garden brought up an interesting argument about whether blogs should be defined as a genre or a medium. In my opinion I think they are more of a genre in the medium of the internet. What do you think?

How do you paint your online portrait?

In our world today we are vastly more connected than even 5 years ago. Thanks to the explosion of SNS's (social networking sites). In this day and age we are a world controlled by our need to access information about the lives of those around us via social media and online connectivity. so what is a SNS? According to Danah Boyd it is "a wed-based service that allows individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connections, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system."

Do you ever feel that you need to make yourself 'seen' online on various social media platforms? I believe that this is a case where the invention of these ideas created the need we have and not vice versa. how can you want to share your lunch on Instagram if there was no such thing before to enable you to do just that? What makes people want to share their entire lives on social media?

Networked narrative is something that aids in the need to be constantly connected to one another. Ruth Page, in her article about the growth of the networked narrative, makes a valid point in that narrating ones life on social media is no longer a solo affair. In order to have a 'presence' online it depends on the shaping of interactive contexts that are built through interaction between people on those sites. The ever growing need to be popular on these sites by connecting to people is shown through the the evolution of the 'like' button. Mainly seen on FaceBook, it is a way for people to show that they agree or indeed like what you are saying when you update your status.

I believe the invention of these things has made us have the need  to paint our online portrait in the most favorable of lighting. By enabling those within your friend network to like and respond to your posts it makes those posting want to put their best selves forward in most cases. There are those few ( I'm sure you have someone in mind now) who post all of their drama and lives on social media and it can be overwhelming to those within their friend networks.

Something that I found interesting in another article was the idea of the social media grape vine. The entire reason you stay so connected to these people you are 'friends' with is to be able to talk about their lives and updates to others in real life. This is why I believe people focus so much attention on making their online portrait as close to perfect as they can.

Memetics and our world

Memes have evolved from something that was originally meant to incorporate things such as fashion, slogans, and phrases in current cultural language (From the article by Johnson). From Dawkins, he looked at memes like cultural genes. They served as ways for us to see how our culture has evolved throughout time. It is very different from what we know today as the internet meme (All pictures in this post represent the internet meme). In one of the articles we read this week Wiggins explains what Dawkins envisioned with memetics as it applies to culture. " He ienvisioned the meme and a cultural unit ( or idea) that sought replication for the purpose of its own survival." [I personally think that cargo pants should never have replicated]

The current meaning of memes takes different form but they all basically say that is describes a genre of cultural transmission. All of the articles this week used different ways to explain memetics from both of these vantage points and how this area of study has evolved from one to the other and I thought it was interesting how participatory culture plays a part in the growth of memetics. My thesis is using participatory culture and I definitely agree that memes survive and thrive because of this online participatory culture. If you don't know what that is it basically is a culture that has relatively low barriers to artistic expression, it has strong support for creating and sharing creations, it has some form of informal mentorship and that is passed on along to those that are new. 

Each article also spoke about how memes are formed and the attributes that make up a meme. In the article by Shifman, I really liked how they state the first attribute is they must be understood as cultural information that passes along but grows into a share social phenomenon (Such as forever alone).

The second attribute it discusses is that they reproduce by various means of imitation. This is basically they have an original, and the memes that are just pictures are normally more viral because it is easier to replicate and change, and anyone can use the 'formula' of that meme and change it to something they create. This then makes them into the viral, genre that they have become known as and helps us to further understand how these funny images can help us learn about our culture.

Are we a moment to moment culture?

This weeks readings dealt with the discussion of technology as the medium for messages but also recognizing that they are indeed more than that.

I really enjoyed reading what Postman had to say in "Amusing ourselves to death." He had some very valid points about how we as people perceive technology. He states "for although culture is a creation of speech, it is recreated anew by every medium of communication." I really agreed with him because whenever new technology is created or a new culture such as at a new job is created there is a new language. If you are majoring in public relations and you go into that field there are many different ways of seeing things and describing things that you learned about in school that if someone who was not a PR professional listened in on would not understand.
This also goes for technology. HTML writing is a completely different language that takes effort to master and learn. Writing for children is also the same. There is a way in which it is done well and then a way to achieve that greatness within the culture. This is just the way it is now and he also agrees when he is at the end of the second chapter of the expert we were given. " Electronic media have decisively and irreversibly changed the character of our symbolic environment." Having technology that can transfer our thoughts and words into a way that others can digest and understand it and don't have to be in the same vicinity has so much changed the way the world and people within it operate. He also took a lot of what McLuhan stated in another reading we had and agreed with him to an extent and when reading I found myself agreeing with Postman the most about how he felt about the medium being the message. The way a message is formed affects the way we will take in the information and how we will regard it in thought.

In the article written by Scolari he talks about the concept of media ecology which I also found very interesting. He states "media ecology tries to find out what roles media force us to play, how media structure what we are seeing or thinking, and why media make us feel and act as we do." He is referring to what Postman mentioned in another one of his works about this subject. It really does give you pause to think, how exactly does media control the way we are and how we interact. One of my classmates, Paul, touched on this in our last class meeting and I found myself nodding in agreement with him. How much of our lives are controlled by media nowadays.

I end with another quote from Scolari that I believe begins to put answer to that question. "Technologies- in our case, communication technologies, from writing to digital media- create environments that affect the people who use them. In this way media is an environment in which to study and understand. Later in the same article he asks the question "do media become extinct." I agree with his answer of, no they really just lead from one to the next by way of evolution to fit the needs and desires of the environment around us which we have come to see as wanting the next best thing. It is like survival of the fittest but with technology and to me that creates a winning atmosphere for the human race because as technology is created to better suit our needs we have more capability of exploring and learning more about the world and ideas around us.


 

Week 2 readings

This week we had three readings that set the groundwork for understanding how people perceive words and writings within the higher education world. They were all different in what they talked about but were all equally interesting to read.

The first reading I looked at was "Writing reconstructs consciousness." This was a very interesting read and made me think in a way I hadn't before about how writing changed the entire game of history. This article argues how some writing can be considered not as important or valuable as spoken word because you cannot understand the way in which the writer is saying them because they are written on paper. I thought that was interesting coming from a world that is surrounded by writing and especially since in our last class we discussed how getting work published makes you a more accomplished scholar. So reading that was indeed the opposite of how many of us feel in today's world about writing. There is a quote I highlighted within this reading that I thought was very meaningful: "Without writing, the literate mind would not and could not think as it does, not only when engaged in writing but normally even when it is composing its thoughts in oral form. More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness." I really agree with these sentences that were in the first bit of the reading. Writing, as the article states, transformed our world and we were able to retain knowledge in a more secure way instead of orally passing it down, it left a way for us to be able to look back on history and understand people of a different time and world from our own and learn from it. Plato disagreed with this thought and stated that it was attempting to state outside of the mind what was in the mind and that was inhuman. I thought this was interesting considering he was having someone write that somewhere for him. The bulk of the article discusses as well the forming of alphabets and languages and it made me thankful I didn't have to learn Chinese back int he day because it would apparently take you almost your lifespan to learn it all! Another excerpt I really found interesting from this reading was on page 100 and it says "For a text to convey its message, it does not matter whether the author is dead or alive." I think that is most definitely a great observation to make. Something else I found interesting was a sentence on page 102. It says "There is no equivalent for this in an oral performance, no way to erase a spoken word: corrections do not remove an infelicity or an error, they merely supplement it that denial and patchwork." This jumped out at me because it reminded me of when I was younger and my mother would always tell me to be careful what I said because it was like a tube of toothpaste; I could say it but couldn't take it back after it was said no matter how much a wanted to. I feel like this gives written word an advantage over spoken because you can erase and rephrase as many times as you need until it is the way you want it.

The next article I read was "Do artifacts have politics." This article was very interesting to me because it made me think of things such a roadways and bridges in a completely different way. In one of the sections I highlighted it says " What matters is not technology itself, but the social or economic system in which it is embedded." It goes on to explain that technology is not just made for the advancement of man but we must remember in what circumstances the technology was developed. It gives an example of Robert Moses, who developed bridges, roads and parks in New York. It states that if you go to Long Island you will notice the overpasses are lower than a normal overpass. The reason is because he intentionally made them that way so that public transit or other big vehicles couldn't come onto the island. This is because he was racially prejudiced and had a social class bias and it was his way of "keeping those other people out." I thought that was very interesting because it had never occurred to me to think of the intention behind why such things as that are built. People can most definitely use their power over technology by using its development to hinder those they do not like. This does in fact show that artifacts have politics (tiny p politics not Politics) and that they then influence the world around them thus making them form to their ways of doing.

The last article for this week was "Always already new." This discusses the impact of media on the different mediums especially social media and the internet. On page 5 the author talks about media being historical on different levels. She outlines that first media are themselves denizens of the past. This means that the media, no matter how new it is, had to come from somewhere and had to go through testing to be able to make sure the new media was workable. The second thing she outlines is media are historical because they are functionally integral to a sense of pastness. This means that using media usually involves encountering the past in order to produce what they are trying to seek out. The third thing she outlines is media as scientific instruments of a society at large.This is basically saying for instance, I am typing on a computer, I am focusing on what I am typing and not focusing on how the computer is even powered, how it works, how it knows what to put on the screen, and so on. I am ignoring the huge scientific hurdles that were overcome to create and maintain this computer and I am using it for what I need. It also takes this a step further by explaining how media do things. Such as shape society, It is giving life to the word media, not the people such as the writers, producers, etc but to the form of medium itself such as television or internet. As if these non-thinking things can produce these results without humans.

All three of these articles took completely different roads to help form an overall opinion of where technology came from, why it is important, how people change the way we use certain aspects of technology and society for their own personal opinions with us even being aware of the why. It shows us that writing is indeed very important even if it did have some naysayers in the beginning stages of development and it shows how we as a society have become so used to the technologies around us we forget to appreciate just how much goes in to making things such as computers, and smart phones work.