Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Keen Questions
1. Web 2.0 brought along democratized media. Instead of just using the internet to get information, people can put their own input on the internet. On sites like Facebook, all the content is user-generated. Keen thinks this is bad because common people don't know what they're talking about. Disintermediation is an effect of democratized media. Now people are getting their information from their peers instead of experts, and it's not always accurate. Some companies have taken advantage of this. Since there is no way to tell the difference, companies can pose as average people on the internet and push their products, or attack their competition.
2. The difference between Rushkoff and Keen is that Rushkoff is much more optimistic. Keen is completely against web 2.0, while Rushkoff thinks we do have some problems from web 2.0 but there are also benefits and we can learn from it. I agree more with Rushkoff. I think there are some negative aspects of our reliance on the internet and web 2.0 but there are a lot of positive things about it. We haven't perfected the use of web 2.0 because it is still really new, but it will get better with time.
2. The difference between Rushkoff and Keen is that Rushkoff is much more optimistic. Keen is completely against web 2.0, while Rushkoff thinks we do have some problems from web 2.0 but there are also benefits and we can learn from it. I agree more with Rushkoff. I think there are some negative aspects of our reliance on the internet and web 2.0 but there are a lot of positive things about it. We haven't perfected the use of web 2.0 because it is still really new, but it will get better with time.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Whither the Individual
Whither the Individual?
As we join groups and social networks from affinity sites to Facebook, are we extending and expanding identities, or increasingly conforming to the cookie-cutter profiles demanded of these interfaces? Is the loss of "personal space" and "reflection" so many users complain of merely the necessary surrender of "ego" as we learn to participate as members of a more evolved "collective organism" of "hyper-people?"
(you may want to re-watch "bubbie" and "warcraft" sections of digital nation)
In the past few years, social networking has really taken off and almost everyone in the modern world uses some type of social network. The most popular of these social networks is Facebook, with over 500 million users. Some people say social media sites such as Facebook force people to conform to the cookie-cutter profiles that are given on the site. I disagree with this. Although the general layout of each profile is the same, everyone makes it their own by adding pictures and videos and things of interest to to them. Social networking is an extension of ourselves and allows us To stay connected with people that we might not otherwise stay connected with.
The documentary "Digital Nation" Bubbie, a grandmother who has a cooking show blog on the internet. It has not changed her personality or made her conform in any way. She just teaches how to cook and her grandson takes care of the technical aspects. Her show has become very popular and it makes her viewers feel like she is their grandmother too. The show gives her something to enjoy doing and she has reached a wide base of people that she would not have reached without social networking.
Facebook is, of course, the king of social networking. It helps people stay more connected to their friends than ever before. It is a digital extension of our lives. We can post a status about anything and our friends can comment back. We can talk to our friends in multiple ways, from writing on each others' walls to messaging to instant chat. Photos on Facebook create folksonomy; we can tag all our friends in our pictures and share our good memories with our other friends. Facebook makes it really easy to stay in touch with people who are far away, too. As a college student, this is appealing because many of my friends are at other schools so I do not see them very often but I can talk to them on Facebook and see how they are doing. The basic layout of the profiles may be the same, but the purpose of Facebook is the content of those profiles, and that is different for everyone.
MySpace is another social media site. It used to be really popular, but Facebook filled the niche that it had. Now it's used mostly for music. It helps bands get their name out and people can listen to music right from MySpace. Youtube is yet another. Even though it may seem cookie-cutter because all you can do is upload videos, you can put whatever videos you want on there. Whether it's a video of your weekend with your friends, a storyline you made up, or anything else you can put it on and the whole world can potentially see it. These are places to share what you do with other people; it just makes it easier to express yourself.
In conclusion, I do not think social networking sites make you conform to the cookie cutter profiles because you make them yours with whatever content you choose to put in them. They are an extension of ourselves and make it easy to communicate with friends and reach out to the world.
The documentary "Digital Nation" Bubbie, a grandmother who has a cooking show blog on the internet. It has not changed her personality or made her conform in any way. She just teaches how to cook and her grandson takes care of the technical aspects. Her show has become very popular and it makes her viewers feel like she is their grandmother too. The show gives her something to enjoy doing and she has reached a wide base of people that she would not have reached without social networking.
Facebook is, of course, the king of social networking. It helps people stay more connected to their friends than ever before. It is a digital extension of our lives. We can post a status about anything and our friends can comment back. We can talk to our friends in multiple ways, from writing on each others' walls to messaging to instant chat. Photos on Facebook create folksonomy; we can tag all our friends in our pictures and share our good memories with our other friends. Facebook makes it really easy to stay in touch with people who are far away, too. As a college student, this is appealing because many of my friends are at other schools so I do not see them very often but I can talk to them on Facebook and see how they are doing. The basic layout of the profiles may be the same, but the purpose of Facebook is the content of those profiles, and that is different for everyone.
MySpace is another social media site. It used to be really popular, but Facebook filled the niche that it had. Now it's used mostly for music. It helps bands get their name out and people can listen to music right from MySpace. Youtube is yet another. Even though it may seem cookie-cutter because all you can do is upload videos, you can put whatever videos you want on there. Whether it's a video of your weekend with your friends, a storyline you made up, or anything else you can put it on and the whole world can potentially see it. These are places to share what you do with other people; it just makes it easier to express yourself.
In conclusion, I do not think social networking sites make you conform to the cookie cutter profiles because you make them yours with whatever content you choose to put in them. They are an extension of ourselves and make it easy to communicate with friends and reach out to the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)