blog 12

Studying New Media

Though I don’t consider myself to be very creative, I love the feeling I get when I’m crating something. It could be anything, really. I have dabbled in sketching and collaging and audio remixing, but my favorite medium has always been photography. Whether the picture was taken with a disposable camera (throw-back to when waiting an 1 hour to get a roll pictures back was common place), a point-and-shoot digital camera (revolutionary), or with the new-aged instant print cameras (can’t say “Polaroid camera/picture” anymore; Polaroid gave up on a field they pioneered), I think every form of photography has its charm. Moreover, I think every method of capture says a lot about the time it was developed in.

Just last week, I found a disposable camera while helping my boyfriend clean out his room. It has 15 pictures left on the roll. First of all, can you imagine being limited to just 15 pictures again? Secondly, can you imagine having to wait to see if the picture came out well? Naturally, I felt a hurricane of nostalgia brewing, and immediately stated clicking away. A bad selfie, a worse candid of my boyfriend, probably a very of-centered or out-of-focus shot of us together. Not being able to instantly validate the worth of the photos felt kind of reckless (which I can’t even believe I’m saying) and—more so—it felt carefree. It felt effortless and fun and I imagined myself years from now looking at these pictures again and being so happy I took them. Even if they’re technically terrible, or if I ever found somewhere to get them developed. Maybe I wouldn’t remember the event at all, but there would still be proof that it happened, regardless of my faulty human memory and the now outdated medium.

So in regards to my “final project,” I choose photography because pictures tend to make me feel something, generally something just beyond the reach of words. And not just in the “a picture’s worth a thousand words” way. (Something I never bought, by the way). I think what matters more are the thoughts and images and emotions inside ourselves that they evoke. And the connections we make between the pictures we see and messages we infer the photographer is conveying to us.

In an attempt to capture this feeling and send it back out into the world, I experimented with two types of photography, two editing platforms and one social platform. I worked with one type of photography (digital), experimented with both two types of editing software, and one social networking site. 

Initially, I wanted to learn a photo-editing software. It seemed like the perfect "new media" to study. So I messed around with Picassa, which has very basic (although useful) editing tools. A lot of them reminded me of the filters on Instagram, but more controllable. And easier to differentiate between. But it seemed a little too basic to base my final project off of, so I went from one extreme to another, and downloaded a free trial of Adobe Photoshop. (I will not upload that video, because it's just 20 minutes of me saying "wtf" over and over. I could not make heads or tails of anything.) That portion of the project was embarrassingly short lived, and I realized this wasn't going to be substantial enough on its own. I had to do more than just learn to edit an image. There had to be a bigger end-goal.

The next stage of my project was the "Tumblr Culture" replication.Many of the pictures I see on a daily basis evoke a sort of pale/ faded/ vintage feel when I looked at them (which I love), and this is what I wanted to capture in my own photography (mine are shown on the right):

My goal was to recreate these images and share them with the class. However, Dr. Zamora encouraged me to take a more social route, which I was extremely hesitant about. My main source of social networking, as I have mentioned throughout the semester, is Tumblr, which is primarily an anonymous blogging site.By “anonymous,” I mean that your account will not suggest people you know; you cannot use Facebook to log in. The username you create becomes your blog’s URL and that is only way people can find you. Therefore, it makes it nearly impossible to find someone if you don’t know their username, because their username could be anything. For me, this is the major draw to Tumblr. It allows a greater level of expression and honestly, while still remaining as private as a social media site can be, since nobody I follow knows me personally.

When Dr. Zamora suggested I look into the Phonar Nation sessions, I was hesitant (at the very least) because I am generally uncomfortable with the kind of direct attention posting on Instagram generates. It is simply a matter of fear: fear of putting myself out there (creatively) and not having that effort be validated enough. There are a lot of jokes regarding Instagram, but people really take that stuff seriously, and will delete posts that don’t receive enough attention:

I know it's a joke, but someone actually took time out of their day to write this article. So for me, the Instagram thing was a challenge. I was afraid of not being “good” or “creative” enough, but I posted my pictures anyway. I was excited about different sessions that were available and looked forward to seeing the works of others. I especially liked the examples provided by the Phonar staff.

Unfortunately, I found that the Phonar hashtags were not as active as I thought they would be. In the “most recent” section of the hashtag, five out of the first six belonged to me. What’s really upsetting is the fact that one of my pictures was posted on March 30—almost 5 weeks ago. And it is still in the top 6 most recent images of the hashtag. Furthermore, all the likes I got on that image (a whopping 7) were from people who already follow me, not by anyone outside my own personal network. Therefore, I am sad to say that the Phonar challenge did not connect me to anyone new. Nor did it further my goal.

These are the images I posted: 

And here is a screen shot of the "Most Recent" tag:

You can see that only one image does not belong to me (^ that picture directly above). The picture in the bottom right corner is the one I posted on March 30. The most popular image in this tag has 123 likes, which is still relatively low, considering there are roughly 300 million people using Instagram. There are only 306 results in the tag overall. 

In regards to "unexpected outcomes," I was most surprised by the lack of activity in the Phonar tag. Furthermore, I was surprised by how disappointing I found this. Also, I feel that, although my pictures did not reach excessive recognition, I learned a bit about my own style and the art of photo manipulation. I did not realize how visually similar my images were, compared to the images I was modeling them after. Though there are still striking stylistic differences, I feel that I successfully captured the essence or foundation of the image format. I think that this will not only help me in future pursuits, but will also influence the pictures I take in the time to come. I also received a few compliments from friends regarding my posts on Instagram, which was very surprising to me. It showed me that what I see isn't what others see. My fear of being a "creative failure" did not translate to my friends, and instead they saw a creative "success."

I forgot how fun it is to find (hunt) that "perfect shot" and get the editing just right. Though I was stressed in the moment of photographing, when I look back at this brief compilation, I realize how valuable my experiences were and are, and how documenting those experiences matter; no matter how small the moment is or how stupid it may seem to take a picture, it definitely matters in ways we can't always foresee.

Mostly, I think this project not only reinforced my love of photography, but revitalized it too.

blog 11

Chapter 6 (p. 150 - 170)

“Participatory cultures work together to inform each other about the world and teach communication and organization skills. They help each other find their personal and collective voice…ultimately, these communities encourage conversations about social and political change” (p. 152).

Under what conditions do young people consider themselves political agents? When they can engage in “civic imagination.” (That is: )

a.       When they can feel empathy for others

b.      When they can imagine what a “better” world would look like

It is common among young activists to use “pop culture” references / language associated with pop culture / participatory culture to help advance their causes; often times, this is lost on adults.

Star Trek – a platform to discover representation and idealism? The idea that media (pop culture?) can influence how youth see and interpret the world; how it could inspire them to imagine the way a new one would (should) look. The images of diversity in programs like Star Trek reveal faults in our own reality.

Important to find your own voice as well as finding a collective voice that shares your opinion: “engagement with popular culture might inspire shifts in one’s political identity” (p. 154).

Early engagement actions often turn to activist habits (skills we learn in extracurricular settings that we carry over to our political endeavors).

Networked Power & DREAMer Movement

Mimi: the internet makes information and causes more accessible, but are people really participating (“engaging”) more? She does not think so. The issue of agency ownership arises, in which we do not take responsibility for the participation we contribute to. Issues like welfare and education – more personal and private responsibility and less support; EXAMPLE of Kickstarter. Everyday people need to take responsibility for/in public life? I think what she is saying here is that we need to stop separating the two as much?? Personal and private don’t have to be “either/or” situations.

Danah: (“communicate, coordinate, and advocate”) what kids desire, parents fear. Networked places are great or challenging status quo, but also awful for preserving it. Trying to prevent youth organization, this is not a new concept. Boarder protection, anti-terrorism and illegal immigration act of 2005 – meant for regulating illegal immigrants; treated them very poorly; teens organized against it through a walk-out in LA. The response to their involvement (as it often is) is the kids were admonished for their activism, because they were “throwing their education away” when their predecessors fought so hard to their right to get one. Adults are appalled by political indifference yet terrified of youth involvement. (Perhaps this has to do with fearing a different opinion?) Furthermore, this move was viewed less because of its traditionally political significance, and portrayed more as an act of laziness and vandalism.

Henry: DREAM – development relief education for alien minors; act 2001; conditional permanent residence to teens enrolled in h/s and had been in residence 5 years before bill pass. Effects of DREAMers: united cause, not message, as opposed to previous racially-based causes that were separated by race. Important aspect was for each DREAMer to tell their own story, not every story had to be the same.

The DREAMers were unsuccessful for a time, and began to work locally (in-state, not nationally) until Obama administration signed act much like DREAM. Youth activism helped sway Latino vote, which helped Obama get reelected:

“we see a significant change in public policy largely inspired by youth activism.”

Alternative Activism:

Today’s youth participates primarily online or through digital mediums, however, today’s youth has gotten creative with their protesting. Some of which way are quite different than the way previous generations used to participate. Instead of protests, some groups will boycott (BUYCOTT) a brand in protest instead.

“while participatory politics does raise hope for fostering a more democratic culture, it cannot in and of itself overcome structural inequalities that have historically blocked many form participating in civing and political life.” (161)

What Counts as Political Participation?

Mimi: “fighting the man” isn’t the only way to get involved.

“it is about youth mobilizing to create positive alternatives within existing power structures.” (162). /// not just “adult-guided politics or civics”. So I think here Mimi is saying that political involvement is not enough when it operates within the confines of what adults set before kids/ when kids react and interact with the politics of adults. But rather, there needs to be an inherent initiative on behalf of the youth. What Mimi calls “Big P Politics” (adult-centered) and “little p politics” (extracurricular forms of activism—organization—that develop civic capacity skills, like organizing fan conventions)

StarCraft community = StarCraft Without Borders to help raise money for Doctors Without Borders. Political and civil/ community service/ engagement that defies the traditional (adult) definition of the words.

Taking some kind of control/ practicing with some kind of authority helps youth establish a better foundation for activism than pushing them into voting booths when they’re older and have no experience.

Henry: student government is a shame/ farce of political activism, because students do not have any real power. The power they are given has no relevance to their everyday (school) lives. Young activists need to have a stake in their cause/consequences to be successful in pursuing something.

Danah: “lack any meaningful form of agency in their lives” (163)

“act out what adults say it means to be a leader rather than actually learning to lead” (164)

KNOWING when to lead and when to follow

Cultivating activists & the HP Alliance

Mimi: important that political groups aren’t too specialized, otherwise power is contained to only that community, and nowhere else. How to connect these movements to big p politics. Problem of transfer between different contexts. It is important that young activists see their efforts being connected to more adult-oriented areas.

Henry: civic imagination at work – hpa; take fantasy world, connect to real life events. Gives young activists a platform to do so.

Fan activism – using the fandom of choice to make changes to your world (usually having to do with representation?? Star Trek & the gay alien).

Identify problem

Identify decision-makers

Established a tactic

Educated others

Took Action

Steps for political campaign

Mimi: connecting domains takes skills and a network. Your results will only b as good as your tools.

Danah:  networks help “leverage skills effectively” “activism is cultivated”

Mimi: can the policies of the hpa be applied to other channels of political activism???????

blog 10

Ch 5

“web 2.0 and participatory culture” I know this chapter talks about commercialization of the web and all that, but this one paragraph really got me thinking. It’s pretty off topic, so I’m sorry; though Web 2.0 has increased the average individual’s ability to (a) become informed about a particular cause and (b) become “involved” in one, I think that digitized participatory culture is weaker than its non-digital predecessor. Why do I say this? It is not because of recognition, because the digital era has made is impossibly easy for any cause to gain momentum and awareness. But what about web 2.0 and results? In today’s society, it is very easy to express support and align yourself with any given movement. But how much further does the average person pursue the endeavor? We can throw around as many hashtags as we like, but how likely are we to get physically involved? How likely are we to go to a rally, a protest, a sponsored event, a charity drive for our cause? In my opinion, I do not think it is very likely at all. Especially compared to earlier generations, whose only choice was to physically get up and do something for their cause. Now we can send out a tweet or change our Facebook picture and bam, we’ve participated. This type of participatory culture seems to cultivate false or shallow participation—participation that does not really mean anything. It is participation that is only for show. It is more performance art than anything, in my opinion.

“pointed to the crash as proof…the web was just a fad” I can’t imagine that anyone could believe that the web was just a “fad.” I really want to know where those reporters are now and ask them what they were thinking, considering how the internet is so omnipresent now. We practically set a plate for it at the dinner table. Also, I don’t really understand what danah means when she thinks we’re repeating this cycle. What cycle does she mean? If she’s speaking about the web and commercialization, I don’t agree; we had to create entire programs (ad blockers) in order to protect ourselves from being bombarded with advertisements (and advertisers are still finding ways to get to us), so I don’t think that aspect of the web is failing. And I know nobody thinks the web is going anywhere. So I’m not sure what she’s getting at here. Unless I missed something?

I never realized there are no ads on Wikipedia. It is true though that Wikipedia does, essentially, beg users for money. I remember the first time I saw it, I was shocked and appalled and worried about Wikipedia’s continued existence. (Which, as danah points out, was basically their goal.) Sure, I can’t use it as a source for my next research paper, but I use Wikipedia a lot in my personal, everyday life. It’s a good place to get some moderately detailed information about something you don’t know anything about—it’s perfect for beginners, no matter what the topic is. I thin, having a consistent online presence like that is important, especially in a time when you’re automatically skeptical of a sources validity (inversely of pre-digital eras?).

I like the idea that the public at large is taking advantage of the industry (whichever one that may be) instead of the industry exploiting us. It is true that fans and consumers always manage to either find or create loopholes that enable them to get free content or alter existing content in some way. Honestly, people who do this are my heroes. The level of dedication (to learning how to modify), skill and ingenuity really blow my mind. An example that I think most of us can relate to: people who mod GTA games. Some of the mods I have seen are absolutely hysterical and when I see these mods and I know that I never would have thought of that myself:

Like what is the purpose of creating such content? There really isn't one, I suppose, but I guess that's also what make sit fun to do. 

I also think that filing every creative endeavor under the term “labor” creates a bad mentality about putting effort into things (the question of “worth” as danah says). On one hand, you have people who will probably try to take advantage of that and try to pass everything they do off as “labor” (which just screams “extortion” to me); on the other, I feel there would be people who wouldn’t want to do anything creative because they’d start to feel guilty or ripped off for not charging to do something, even if it’s something they love doing (which is too capitalistic of a mindset I think). Example: I like to make my friends mixed audio cd’s for their cars. Should I be charging for this, since I use my own resources and put in a lot of creative “labor”? Interesting how the idea that “free access” to something is somewhat scandalous now (danah and her blog). And how, if we don’t try to monopolize on literally everything we do—if we’re not cinstantly trying to eek out a penny from every single effort—we’re stupid, we don’t value ourselves and we’re degrading our own work. 

(Isn't everything done for political interest?) The topic of government in digitized areas honestly gives me anxiety issues. I think the internet is the final frontier in terms of the "unknown" (forgetting the ocean, because there is some scary looking stuff in there that I don't want any part of), and whenever politicians try to regulate the internet, I can't help but think "there goes the last of our freedom." (I'm not sure how that comes across to you guys though.)

blog 9

"Innovation comes with a cost and consumption"

In addition to content being so diverse, there's also stylistic variations as far as speaking patterns goes while vlogging.

When vloggers first became popular, I remember it would take a bit of time for them to respond to news-worthy events (if at all).

I don't agree that time-restrained videos such as Snapchat or Vine are in the same category as vlogging.

The MTV debate. Honestly, this one is so dense, yet it can be simplified to the issue of "sink or swim," in my opinion. The MTV issue mainly resulted due to music piracy issues. There's actually a pretty funny video that also discusses this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ysyZF-DZFY (which I will also tweet). This was honestly an eye-opener for me because the generation that "ruined" MTV referenced in the video is my generation. And it is true that I am guilty of pirating music (I think I have mentioned this in an earlier blog; I used Limewire when I was 11). So when he says this, I feel like I am personally responsible for single-handedly destroying an entire channel's worth of programming. (Not at all dramatic.)

18 months sounds like a fair amount of time. And it is interesting to think that this can apply to non-technical avenues. Which i also agree with.

"Innovation comes with a cost and consumption"

blog 8

“Networked Era” CH 1

Reading about Mimi and danah’s experiences with participatory culture is really surreal, because, though I am significantly younger, I too can remember the beginnings of “widespread internet” use. I know older generations tend to make fun of the Millennials for being “obsessed” with technology, and I’m not trying to sound elitist or anything here, but I am so happy to have been born when I was. My generation—the 90’s babies—was the last generation to not be completely surrounded (not going to say “dependent”) by technology since birth. (Although, any kind of human / tool advancement could technically be considered “new technology”, so maybe we aren’t the last after all?) So when danah says “I can’t even remember what San Francisco was like a few years ago,” I relate perfectly. I remember (as I’m sure all of you do too) what it was like to have very little internet / digital networks, then some very limited/ buggy ones, and then suddenly we had all of it, finely tuned and ready to go. And it is a very strange feeling. But at the same time, learning about the emerging digital nuances is so engrained in my childhood, it just felt like any other milestone: the first day of school, losing a tooth, using the internet.

On Mimi’s point about “barriers of entry” for “in groups”—does having this “bar” not make the group more enriched? Perhaps, in cases of participation, a standard is helpful in making the participation more meaningful? I understand that the whole idea of participatory culture is that every contribution matters, however, I’m sure we all know someone on some digital setting whose keyboard should be taken away and should just never be allowed to log in ever again. Then again, maybe the lack of meaningful contribution makes the surrounding contributors stronger? Perhaps it is a sort of digital Darwinism, where we see the errors associated with certain thinking / behaviors, and we learn to overcome these, lest we be associated with the “problematic” users? Though danah touches on this when she says participation requires a set of skills (not simply posting any old thing), but perhaps this has more to do with Mimi’s point about participatory “status” and user “differentiation.”  

The idea that participatory culture is explicitly “capitalistic” is laughable to me, because literally anything could be capitalistic, if the right people realize money can be made from it. That’s just what capitalism does. The point isn’t to be so “against the man” that we stop what we’re doing once we gain traction. Although that’s something I see very often—a popular cause or group gets too much recognition, and suddenly the movement dies, and the people disperse to other, lower key, endeavors. 

I really like that Henry included the clarification that just because a community is participating, doesn’t automatically mean the community is positive/ beneficial. It has been a long while since I’ve seen or heard of anything “pro-ana,” but I understand exactly what he means when he says they’ve met the criteria for a participatory culture. All this time, I have been thinking of participatory cultures as inherently positive, associating them primarily with social current movements; it never occurred to me that a participatory culture could be negative, although I have seen it many, many times (especially in earlier years, like 2010/ 2011).

I don’t agree with idea that the network created by the individual is narcissistic. A narcissistic network, to me, would be something like Instagram. There, the primary goal is to post pictures of yourself or whatever you see fit, and get as many people to applaud you on it (aka, like the picture). Even though you choose who to follow, you still worry mostly about your own posts than someone else’s. That is narcissism to me (despite talking about selfie culture and self-representation, as I don’t believe the general public is thinking that deeply into their selfies. Honestly, selfies are just things most people do thoughtlessly/ because they’re expected to).  So when the authors (especially danah) say a self-determined feed/ network is narcissistic, I can’t help but disagree. I think it has way more to do with self-expression and self-identification than the authors think.

blog 7

Chapter 2 (Filtered Reality):

“Perhaps in this case, social media is not simply the kind of filter that removes impurities, but also shapes them and flavours people as the ground coffee beans flavour the water  that  passes  through  them” So this is to say that social media controls people and not the other way around? “Shapes [impurities] and flavors people” sounds like the ruling power is being given to the social media and the users conform to whatever the digital standard is, as opposed to the users “shaping” the media that they (and others) see. A later sentence (“Facebook filters our newsfeed, and it also filters our behavior”) seems to confirm that I am understanding this correctly.

“Users who saw posts with more positive words used more positive words in their own posts, and vice versa” this seems like that saying “you are the company you keep.”

“we know what we are supposed to document from having seen other baby journals and photo albums” This has never occurred to me before. Even in this digital age, where we are constantly criticized for “oversharing everything,” there are still a lot of things we opt not to share (filter out). That also brings up the point that even when bad things are shared, they’re shared strategically—there is always an end goal that makes sharing worthwhile. We’ve all seen a cringe-worthy painful video of someone doing something stupid, but has nevertheless gone viral because it is funny; or a status/ long story about how some angry individual was having a meltdown and the person posting the story gets to be the victim. We see these embarrassing posts again and again, in every media outlet, and yet people keep sharing. So what does this say about us and our thought processes when we decide to filter these negative things in, instead of filtering them out?

“One  reason  the  filter  fascinates  us  is  that  it  gives  the  image  that strangeness that defamiliarises our lives”

“the skill of photographing people of colour well is often hard-learned and self-taught” this whole section made me extremely sad and, like last week’s conversation, has brought to my attention another privilege my whiteness has afforded me.

This chapter overall was really interesting and surprisingly enlightening about the science of selfies. It seems so simple, yet I forgot that “filter” means to eliminate/ reduce something, rather than an editing element to enhance a picture. Whenever I think of “filtering” content, the words “blacklist” or “block” usually come to mind, but never filter. I like the implied flexibility of the word; and I think the section about filtering “genres” could have been really interesting if it had been expanded more.

Chapter 3 (Serial Selfies):

While reading, I got curious and looked it up the videos “Me” and “Everyday.” I thought it was kind of messed up how Kalina’s video got more popular when Lee was the innovator for the genre. However, after watching, I could understand why Kalina’s video surpassed Lee’s. Lee takes her photos in the same spot every day with almost no variation in position; Kalina takes his pictures in different locations, in different lighting, etc. So his video shows a greater degree of “action” so to speak than Lee’s did. Here are the links for both:
“Me” : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGdc_qcmFF0

“Everyday” : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B26asyGKDo

“Karl Baden (2007) has taken daily photos every day since 1987 and has exhibited the photos at several places” Oh my god???? That’s a lot of pictures, and real dedication. However, his project seems less lively than both “me” and “everyday.” If the only thing to show progression of time is the date and (eventual) facial features, what’s the point?

“many of these have become very popular too” one of my favorites that I have seen is one of a woman photographing her head after chemo treatment. In this, you can see her hair slowly grow back. Although the pictures were not taken every day, the message still gets across (similar to Rebecca Brown):

blog 6

"Self-Segregation" and "White Flight"

“Self-segregation”

While reading these statistics and polls, I am moderately conflicted on what to say about this article. I’m a white girl who has (quite a few) relatives actively serving in the police force. Based on that alone, my opinion on this issue would seemingly be obvious…but my bigger issue here is that I feel we are comparing apples to oranges? Just this chart alone says to me that we’re (essentially) living in two completely different realities:

And isn’t truth relative? At the very least, truth has to be something you believe—that why someone could be technically lying (like in a lie detector test?) but the individual doesn’t think they’re lying, so to them it is the truth. (Maybe that’s a little too philosophical/ abstract for this particular context.) What I mean is, with such staggering social and cultural differences, how can we not expect disagreements to occur?

I am shocked –but also not shocked –about the whiteness of the average white-person’s social circle. Personally, I think my social circle is a bit more diverse than the article states, but at the same time, I see how accurate it is based on the people I see in my town (predominately white, and almost infamously so). But when I think about social circles I see at school, I am inclined to think that this is not just a white tendency. Most groups I see around campus, I think, are racially homogeneous.

"White Flight"

“digital ghetto” an interesting way to refer to the overall attitude and aesthetic of a website. This idea of “white flight” from “ghetto” environments makes me think of “Black English” (the vernacular used by Black people is so different than that of the rest of the population, that it has essentially become its own language). So far, I am thinking that these white teens moved from MySpace to Facebook—“Not to be racist”—but because the commonality between the users was lost. Even the origin of these sites seems to point towards a lack of commonality.

I didn’t have MySpace as a kid, so this division between “safe” and “unsafe” has a different connotation to me. I was unaware of the fact that the user base of MySpace was primarily Black/ “urban.” My understanding was it was unsafe because you didn’t know who you were talking to. The term for that now is “catfishing,” but back then, it was this unnamed fear looming over all digital interactions. This is still kind of the case, but we are so used to being distrusting of digital social worlds, that the fear is less omnipresent. Or at the very least, less tangible. So to me, it is kind of shocking to think that the unsafety factor of MySpace was actually linked to race. In fact, I am surprised the “predator” factor wasn’t mentioned until page 27. I actually didn’t think they were going to bring it up at all.

The bit about Facebook being “safer” is actually kind of laughable to me, since my parents were really strict growing up, and they were even skeptical of Facebook.

I thought this article was interesting to a point—after a while it felt a bit repetitive to me, and I think the message could have gotten across in less time. I thought there would be more focus on the overarching social connotations that the “digital white flight” insinuated rather than such a heavy analysis of Facebook / MySpace users. My mind is honestly blown by how racially diverse this problem was, because for me growing up, everybody had both while I had neither. I didn’t get Facebook until high school, and even then I was allowed on between the times when I finished my homework and before 9 or 10 PM. So a lot of the stuff discussed in this article went right over my head. I guess even my own experiences cans serve as testimony to what Boyd was trying to prove.

blog 5

Selfie Culture (parts  1 - 4)


Ms. Posner sounds like the kind of teacher everybody should have; the labels and departments and whatever else shouldn't play a role so much in the development of a course as the content and lessons do. Also, I think a course primarily geared towards social norms for millennials is a great idea. I know every generation sees change, but I honestly believe they have seen the most drastic changes of any recent generation. Or rather, the most has changed between their generation and the previous one. I think it is important to explore these changes and integrate them into current curricula. We often complain that schools are teaching kids outdated information/ that lessons are impractical/ do not teach any useful life skills. I think "selfie courses" and things of the like will prove to be a first step in a very good direction.

on "blurry pictures" - almost anything can be aesthetically pleasing when done a certain way. Even if it isn't done a certain way, there are still people who will like an image - whether it be genuine or because they think it is cool to do. Example, I came across this image today:


It had over 1,000 likes, even though it's nothing particularly interesting, creative or original. I guess it follows the "no reason" logic mentioned in selfie pedagogy ii.


"nothing exists outside of context" an interesting point, although I disagree. In fact, I think a selfie is a perfect example of something that can stand without its context. At the very least, the context does not matter yet. I'm sure the context of historical paintings that we now put on display in museums didn't matter much when they were created (although those paintings are some of the few clues we have to life back then, so I guess its possible that causes us to overemphasize the context). And I don't think our selfies will ever reach that level of importance, since there are so many ways to document life now. But I do believe the importance of the context will emerge in the future. Until then, I don't think context really plays that much of a role in selfie culture.

"This kind of self-reflection scrutinizes aspects of self consciousness." This is more what I was expecting these 4 articles to be like. And this idea is extremely interesting to me. A good mix of digital interface and psychology. 

"Playbour" I really like this term and that it has been brought into question. Often times, when companies make a contest or a challenge where people have to post themselves with the company's product, I think, "The company gain free advertising, but what do these people gain?" 

I also love the topic of representation. From reading personal narratives on my own social media platforms, I have learned how important media representation is to the everyday person. 

Final thoughts: these articles were pretty good, although I was expecting a bit more analysis. I felt that 1 - 3 were more explanatory that I expected. I felt 4 was more analytical and I liked that one the best. I think it was a good note to end on, and hopefully it sets the tone for our own class discussions. 

blog 4

Net Smart - Ch 6


"Apply crap detection when you encounter political assertions" this paragraph about politics and the public sphere was pretty helpful to me actually. My main social media site is supposed to be a photography blogging platform, however, many of the users have turned it into a political discussion board. Furthermore, many of the users I follow have opposing political views than the ones of my family (isn't that always the case between generations?). The biggest problem I have when going through my social dashboard is "Who do I believe?" I have a bare-minimum understanding (and interest) in politics, while the blogs I follow are highly involved (I'd go as far as to say obsessed). So I am constantly torn between "well, I was raised believing X, so I feel that is my gut belief, but the majority say Y, so am I wrong?" For me, the paragraph served as a reminder that I cannot take everything at face value, especially when the scale of opinion is tipped so severely in one direction. I have found that, regardless of the topic, the extremist opinion is never right.

"conflicts over intellectual property" this is actually very funny to me. When I think back to how limited the Internet used to be, I wonder how much intellectual property was really out there in the early stages of the 'net that people were already arguing over about it? That issue seems more relevant than ever, especially with the past threats of "Internet censorship." Which, to me, that whole endeavor just seemed like a big waste of time. Like there are so many other topics that need attention. The Internet is like the final frontier for the government. (If that makes sense.)

"Napster" I remember having Napster on my (desktop!) computer. And then Lime Wire and Frost Wire. And when he mentions Apple making it easy to buy music, I am reminded of when songs were 0.99 instead of 1.29. But I guess we have ourselves to blame for that. If we didn't pirate the music (or convert Youtube videos to audio files) music might still cost 99. Or maybe not. The most surreal thing knowing that I lived through this. I saw this change in the industry happen. I was PART of this change. I remember when I found of Lime Wire was illegal- I was only 10 or 12 when i used it - I was terrified that I was going to get caught and go to jail. As if I could conceptualize that a 12 year old couldn't go to jail. And now this period of time is written in a textbook. And in my mind I'm saying, "hey, he's writing about me!"

"criminalized an emerging culture" wow. That is a really powerful assortment of words. Is there where "sampling" in music came from? (Probably not. I'm sure that existed long before the Internet.)

"endanger growth of scientific knowledge...already shaky economics of education" the way he is describing the spread of information here sounds apocalyptic. Like when in 1999, people thought the computers were going to crash because they weren't programmed to reach 2000. I guess at the time, because the threat of "not knowing" where something came from was so new, it sort of was apocalyptic. At the very least, it was an epidemic. And yet today it is so commonplace it is assumed a source is no good until proven otherwise.

I don't have much insight into the paragraph about "free culture" "commonists" and re-balancing the copyright/ profit scale, but I really like all of that.

I didn't know the right to the property has extended to beyond the life of the person. Although I shouldn't be surprised. I learned recently that the rights to "happy birthday" (the song) were finally released- only 70 years after the woman who composed the song had died. 70 years. That's insane.

blog 3

Net Smart Ch 4 -- pages 149 to 156. I'm singling these pages out because I found them to be particularly interesting. I know the point of these pages were to exemplify how digital settings are conducive to our desire to socialize; however, I felt these pages were a philosophical and psychological minefield, and I really had a hard time getting through this section because I was having so many ideas at once. So here are my very pretentious interpretations of Rheingold's writing.

_________________

"humans are super cooperators" -- yet it seems like we're in more social disarray than ever (or at least we have a long history of not cooperating with each other).


"Human higher brain functions ...evolved in order to process social information" perhaps this explains our psychological need for companionship.

"language evolved to allow individuals to learn about the behavioral characteristics of other[s]" this is an interesting theory, although I'm wondering what the exact learning advantage is here, if words can be used to manipulate reality. Wouldn't observation be the more logical and reliable way of assessing our peers, given that people often lie?

"there is a cognitive limit...stable relationships" this is both extremely interesting to me and also strikes me as common sense. Does this cognitive limit vary between individuals, thus explaining what causes people to be intro- or extroverted? Or is this a standard one-size-fits-all limitation for the general population?

 "Dunbar's number" 147 relationships? this raises a lot of questions for me. How close are these relationships? Does it mean only intimate kinds, like those between family, friends and partners? Or is it supposed to mean a total of people we know before we start forgetting. I am thinking it means the latter. And is this number influenced by cyber relations, being we are in such a digital-centric era? Will the number increase to include our cuber relationships, or do physical relationships suffer in order to accommodate the cyber ones?

"social instincts" more evidence to support that we have a physiological need?



I'm sure we've all seen this before, but I never realized how high up from the bottom companionship was; also, it is the first abstract concept. (In this version, "safety" is not referring to just a physical safe place, but also some abstract concepts; however, that is how I was taught to understand it. So let's pretend that I'm not a little bit misinformed here.)

"punishing those who break the institution's rules..." / "altruistic punishment may be the glue that hold societies together" this is provoking some kind of thought that I can't quite articulate...for starters, breaking an institutional rule may not be bad, because if the rule is not altruistic, then the person breaking the rule is not behaving un-altruistically (I know that isn't a real word). Also, I do not think that this is particularly true. Humans are believed to be born with an internal sense of morality, that we have the inborn ability to be good and judge goodness from badness. But I think humans do not often follow it.  That would seem to explain how there are always "bad people" in the world, and how the world always needs "fixing" by the "good people." I think the notion of the "super cooperators" is true in theory, but not really true in practice. Furthermore, I think there has been a very long history of people who have abused their power in inhumane ways all in the name of "altruistic punishment."

I actually love the idea that "cave paintings" lead to "hyperlinks." It's such a ridiculous thing on the surface, but they really are (very) distant cousins.

"tragedy of the commons" this is an interesting concern, and valid I think. However, I cannot stop thinking: over regulation. Also, if this is a hypothetical situation, then Hardin is assuming humans are naturally selfish to the point of stupidity and self-destruction. (It is possibly true, but not a very nice thing to assume anyway. I kind of feel personally attacked?)

Also, his 8 principals are too susceptible to human unpredictability.

"scientific research...we have...the desire...to cooperate..." more about psychological needs/tendencies related to Maslow's Hierarchy.

blog 2

"In the Context of Web Context" 

I agree that the link can be very valuable. Most importantly, I think it allows people to interpret the information for themselves, rather than taking "someone else's word for it".

I did not realize ".info" was an indicator of a potentially questionable source. I also assumed that feedback options were signs that the author was writing unprofessionally / causally. (So the exact opposite of what a feedback option really means.)

I don't actually feel like I've picked up any tips on validating a source. The title of this article was disappointingly misleading.

  _________________

"How's Your Bullshit Detector?"

This next article looks like one of those "fake" sources mentioned in the previous article. 

It also has a moderately aggressive tone. (Random 9/11 conspiracy theory??) 

However, I do agree that we are generally exposed to more mundane, seemingly "important" information ("drama") than is really necessary. What is it about this place in time that everything is a dramatic happening? Id it me, or does it seem like people are constantly overreacting or over dramatizing things? It feels like everything is a fight, and everyone is ready to fight.

The self-awareness is funny, as I really wasn't sure what "transcendent significance" was supposed to mean.

Eichmannism seems to be especially relevant, in this age of questionable digital sourcing. I guess I worry about being a "mini-Eichmann," especially when I compare my political beliefs with those of the younger generation. However, I don;t really want to comment on this section anymore. Although I realize it was meant to illustrate how destructive this way of thinking can be,  I thought the concentration camp analogy was a distasteful. 

Although "verbal excretement" is, at times, an accurate way to describe some social media participants, I feel it is a very belittling and degrading statement to make.I realize that not every single thought is a share-worthy, intellectual goldmine. But Sometimes it is nice to share just because. Not everything has to have a deep, stimulating meaning.  I think Postman's insinuation is a bit pompous.

The only good point Postman has made so far (aside from realizing how pompous he sounds-- it's almost like he heard me say that) is that a person's ability to detect crap is embedded in that person's values. This, unfortunately, is very true. And depending on what somebody values, they can be blind to facts that contridict their beliefs. I don't think this is inherantly tied to superstition, and I think categorizing values as such says a bit about Postman's views of religion. Since superstition is generally born from religion or spirituality, it would seem that "superstitious crap" would also mean that (devout) religious beliefs would also be crap. So would that mean that people who are very religious, according to Postman's logic, are ignorant and unintelligent?

"Fake communication" is a good way to describe over communication.  But I feel Postman did not really discuss "fake communication" as much as condemn the habit (or inability) to recognize it. I did not really care for this piece. I felt it had potential, but instead, was mainly elitist bullshit. 

blog 1

Reading assignment: Intro and Ch 1, Net Smart


Despite "the internet" and "social media" being so omnipresent in our everyday lives, I like how the author refers to the sensation as being in the "still-early" years. Though he was speaking of the immense power of our in-hand devices, in a way, the publicly accessible version of the internet itself is still in its early years. Google wasn't founded until 1998. There are a few of us in this class alone (myself included) who are literally older than Google (yet it knows more than we ever will).

The idea of "mindful use" of technology is really interesting and thought provoking. Although the author was speaking of avoiding "click bait" and "impulsively checking your phone, I interpreted it to also include the way people engage online. The digital culture we live in does engage in a bit over over documentation, where everything is share-worthy. Though sometimes I've wondered things like "why were they recording in the first place??" or "was this really worth posting?" it has only been in extreme cases. But when something ridiculous or outrageous goes viral, I usually just give in to the shock factor and don't worry about the why or the how. And it seems that people post things in this way too. This can be seen from younger people posting things at random, maybe things they shouldn't be posting, and being surprised when these posts get them into trouble. Or when an an employee calls in sick to get out of work and then posts pictures of a football game they went to that afternoon, And then wonders why they got fired.  More than "mindful use" it seems like there has been a complete disregard for consequences. Do we post so often that we forget other people see the things we post? Has sharing become so second nature that we are unable to recognize appropriateness? Social media, it seems, has become too candid.

Information credibility testing certainly is a big issue these days. Although I do feel that many sites are getting better about validating their own content. When I was younger, I never remember seeing any indication at all about who was on the other side of the web page. And I don't think it occurred to me to ever wonder. (Was I the only one taking things at face value in the early 2000's?) But now, it seems like every web page includes, at minimum, the author and the date written.

The idea of the "thoughtful society" and the "master digital network(er)" are two mutually exclusive groups does seem to be a big issue that influences social interactions (specially older generations towards younger generations: "You kids are always in your phones"). However, I don't think these groups are completely separate in the slightest.

"Architecture of participation" I like that a lot. Especially because it doesn't minimize the individual effort. With the web being so endlessly large, it's easy to feel like something you do-- maybe something you do because you love it -- doesn't matter. but the idea that every input contributes to the "overall good" is really cool.

I also like the idea that the power does not lie within the technology, but with us when we decide what to use the technology for ("literacies made possible by the technology").

"being empowered or manipulated" interesting perspective, although that could be said for any medium. The news, for example. Is your news channel of choice biased or indifferent? How can we ever truly know? Isn't it possible that feeling "empowered" could just be blindness to being manipulated?

"social competency" that DOES seem to be mutually exclusive of digital skill (literacy). I;m sure we've all heard that the constant digital interactions are shrinking the part of the brain that processes empathy. (Scary stuff if it actually is true. I have not yet validated it for myself.)

"drowning in torrents of misinformation" it seems like we've already passed that point in our digital history, but I could be wrong.

Social media being "toxic" for our social lives is very real, despite the fact that bringing this up automatically puts people on the defense.

The fear of emails (the "digital treadmill") says a lot about how we are communicating. Or rather, how we AREN'T communicating. I, too, hate going through my emails, as most of them are impersonal alerts and advertisements for things I don't want.

On his comment about answering the phone during dinner, before smart phones: it is true that distractions have existed for years. It is human nature to want the newest, most advanced anything that exist. The latest convenience. Social media is just the newest "big thing." It may even be replaced by something one day. Humanity itself is stuck in a cycle of "we're making history" and "X years ago, this was state of the art. But now..." It's a very surreal feeling.

87% of teenagers being online sounds significantly more accurate than the "50% of teenagers creating/consuming digital media." That seems like a huge understatement.

"Competitive dramas" it does seem like everybody is trying to out dramatize each other. A strange combination of masochism and egotism?

A typewriter! Wow. I remember  seeing only one typewriter in my whole life. My mother would take me to visit my father at work, and he has a typewriter in his office. I don't believe he ever used it. I just remember hitting any and all the keys I could, thinking I was writing some fantastic novel when, in reality, I couldn't even read a Dr. Seuss book without trouble yet. Again is that feeling of "that  used to be state of the art."

The issue of attention should be interesting to explore, as I feel it is not solely influenced by the digital era. Anything can be distracting, as the author mentioned earlier about answering the phone during dinner. I think the digital era has more power over our memories than anything.