Chile!

This year, we were lucky enough to witness one of the most technologically revolutionary events of our time: the Chilean rescue mission. 

Earlier this year,  33 Chilean miners were trapped 200 meters under the ground for what started as a few days and lasted 2 months. What was fascinating about the issue wasn't just the strength and bond that formed between the miners while underground, as well as the amazing spirit of the Chileans in supporting their miners, but the technology that brought it all together. 

The miners were provided with internet connections to allow them to Skype with their families as well as psychologists. They were provided with phones and cameras to document their time underground. The ability to speak to others above the ground provided sanity and comfort for the miners. What's more, we were able to see and hear everything they went through underground until the moment they were rescued. 

For those that watched the rescue mission, as I religiously did, Twitter and Facebook were two of the best sources for updates. The majority of news sources utilized Twitter to notify followers every time a miner was rescued, so information updates were never out of reach. 

New media platforms revolutionized a tragedy. Technology gave the miners a chance to connect with the outside world and maintain their sanity.

Facebook vs Twitter Infographic

I found the following Facebook vs Twitter infographic online: 

Interestingly enough, it rates mobile usage of both between at 30 and 37%, which I have a very hard time believing. The majority of Facebook and Twitter users use the social platforms through their smartphones. As a Twitter and Facebook user, I've observed that the majority of status updates are provided with a mobile upload sign. What's more, only 52% of Twitter users update their status a day? The entire concept of Twitter is status updates, which again makes the infographic seem even more questionable. 

Cyber-Rape: A Crime of the Mind?

In class today, we discussed Julian Dibbel's article on "A Rape in Cyberspace" and the implementations of cyber-action on the mind, on the real life (or "RL") and the online community and it's governance.


I found this article both fascinating and extremely twisted. It provided us with a look at a world that many of us have heard of and some of us are part of: an online community governed by their own accepted social normals for the community. It also provided us with a look at the dark side of these virtual communities. As users, we stumble upon groups and communities where we share photos, stories, etc online and while not necessarily always positive, it is more often than not, legal and within social norms. 


There's a dark side to the internet though. A violent side that we shun in the real world with consequences and punishment. But are there virtual consequences? Is the act of violating via typing an expression of violent action itself? These are questions that I couldn't help but ask myself while reading and during our class discussion. 


To understand the role of consequence for inappropriate behavior, we ultimately have to look at the concept of consequence and measure it in the real world vs the virtual world. Each person's consequence is different. In the real world, consequence for rape would include jail time but maybe criminals in the real world have no real consequence, which is why they act the way they do. They're lack of respect for the rules displays their lack of fear of those consequences. In the virtual world, the highest form of consequence in getting logged off/banned and socially unaccepted - which in theory, could be worse for these users. 


Taking a step back to the larger picture, the internet is a platform of expression with no boundaries. Behind the veil of computer screens and keyboards, people are given a second chance to recreate themselves, to express themselves in ways that they may feel uncomfortable expressing in the real world (for whatever reason), without the fear of real world consequences. This may tie back to individual personalities and psychological factors.


Now taking a look at Mr. Bungle, the online rapist, his actions and statements suggest that this online community is an escape for him, an expression and comfort zone where he can say or do what he wants without fear of real world consequences: 

"I engaged in a bit of a psychological device that is called thought-polarization, the fact that this is not RL simply added to heighten the affect of the device. It was purely a sequence of events with no consequence on my RL existence."

Considering his platform of expression and constant participation in the site (as explained in the article), in retrospect, being banned from this online community may potentially be a worse consequence for Mr. Bungle; the sting of being rejected in his own virtual comfort zone.

Moreover, it boggles my mind that users have this crazy idea that there are no "real world consequences" for virtual world behaviors. The virtual world is not Narnia; it is not an untouchable parallel universe. Besides legal action in cases of illegal activities, there is a psychological effect that carries on from the internet. The internet seems to be a therapist of some sort in which people vent and express themselves (look at Twitter for example). The violent act and wording of a cyber-rape could and probably did have detrimental psychological effects on the cyber-rape victim.

I could continue branching out on this subject so I should stop my train of thought here and potentially consider it for my final?

Media Convergence & Participatory Culture in Films

I previously commented on Henry Jenkins' and his analysis on media convergence and knowledge cultures, so you can only imagine my excitement that he was featured in our readings for the week.

Jenkins' investigates the film world in this paper, using Star Wars, one of the world's most famous fan films as the variable for comparison of filmmaking and media convergence. He highlights the corporate movement towards media convergence and the innovation of new tools and platforms that revolutionize media content:

"These fan films build on long-standing practices of the fan community but they also reflect the influence of this changed technological environment that has dramatically lowered the costs of film production and distribution.

What emerged are new strategies of content development and distribution designed to increase the "synergy" between the different divisions of the same company. Studios seek content that can move fluidly across media channels. "

He discusses the new media innovations that have revolutionized the film industry, how media convergence is changing the way us consumers, well...consume. With the abundant amount of media platforms for distribution, sharing, and more, it's even affecting the way we are fans: 

"Such an approach requires the constant development of media content that can provoke strong audience engagement and investment. For this synergy-based strategy to be successful, media audiences must not simply buy an isolated product or experience but rather must buy into a prolonged relationship with a particular narrative universe, which is rich enough and complex enough to sustain their interest over time and thus motivate a succession of consumer choices."

Jenkins uses Star Wars as an example of the effect of convergence and participatory culture, but I couldn't help but think of Harry Potter as an excellent example of a movie saga. Not only has the Harry Potter saga been developing alongside technological innovations, but it is an idea example of participatory culture, which Jenkins' explains: 

"Patterns of media consumption have been profoundly altered by a succession of new media technologies which enable average citizens to participate in the archiving, annotation, appropriation, transformation, and recirculation of media content. Participatory culture refers to the new style of consumerism that emerges in this environment." 

This photo was taken of a movie theater the night the 6th Harry Potter movie was released.

Harry Potter has created a subculture of fans that recreate, analyze, and discuss each and every book, movie, and concept of the story-line. From huge online group communities to book clubs, these fans have obsessed through various platforms. These are also the very fans that, like Star Wars, will camp out in front of the movie theater dressed in Harry Potter costumes waiting and discussing the film with one another. What's interesting is that the saga is not just for children, while the author may write a book about wizards, her writing is extremely sophisticated and with underlying meanings. This is the exact reason that J.K. Rowling's books have won over the hearts of both children and adult fans. 

Enter technology.

Add in new media platforms of communication and distribution of media content, and watch as media convergence revolutionizes participatory culture. We've seen the same effect of Star Wars and Harry Potter with Lost fans, Survivor Fans (discussed by Jenkins' in his book Convergence Culture), and most recently, the twi-hard "Twilight" fans. 

A Rape in Cyberspace

Loved this:

"Here on the brink of a future in which human life may find itself as tightly enveloped in digital environments as it is today in the architectural kind...

It asks us to shut our ears momentarily to the techno-utopian ecstasies of West Coast cyberhippies and look without illusion upon the present possibilities for building, in the on-line spaces of this world, societies more decent and free than those mapped onto dirt and concrete and capital. 

It asks us to behold the new bodies awaiting us in virtual space by their phantom powers, and to get to the crucial work of sorting out the socially meaningful undazzled differences between those bodies and our phsyical ones.

And most forthrightly, it asks us to wrap our late-modern ontologies, epistemologies, sexual ethics, and common sense around the curious notion of rape by voodoo doll - and to try not to warp them beyond recognition in the process."

Best Quote from The Social Network Movie

"I think if your clients want to sit on my shoulders and call themselves tall, they have the right to try - but there is no requirement that I enjoy sitting here listening to people lie.

You have part of my attention, the rest of my attention is back at the offices of Facebook, where my colleagues and I are doing things that no one in this room, including and especially your clients, are intellectually or creatively capable of doing.

If you guys were the inventors of Facebook...

then you'd have invented Facebook." 

~Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg: The Antithesis of all that is social

To add to the awesomeness of this class, our class took a field trip to watch the movie that epitomizes our social interactions for the past half decade: The Social Network.

In a nutshell, the movie was more focused on the trials and tribulations of Harvard-genius and Facebook-founder, Mark Zuckerberg. The plot-line was filled with stories of betrayal and lawsuits between Zuckerberg and his best friend, Eduardo, as well as the Winklevoss twins who claimed that he had stole their idea. 

The best part of the movie was that every person walked out with a different view. I personally did not find Mark Zuckerberg at fault. I do believe that he lacked major social skills and loyalty to friends, but I don' t believe that he stole the idea. Mark Zuckerberg did exactly what he said he did: took an idea, and made it better. 

Ironically enough, the most socially awkward individual has epitomized social interaction. He was able to take real life social interactions and virtualize it on the internet, giving people the ability to meet, greet, and socialize with one another via this new media platform. Taking the idea of a "online friends" and the Winklevii's college dating site, Zuckerberg took college social interactions to a whole new level, and made it easier for socially awkward individuals like himself to interact. Hiding behind his computer screen, he began with his blog as a form of expression, followed by "Facemash.com" that was inspired by a break up and a few beers. His website gave men the opportunity to judge women virtually in ways that would deem completely inappropriate and sexist in real life. Then finally, he created "The Facebook", the simplest yet most revolutionary concept of our social lives...but on the internet. 

While I understand that the movie may not be completely accurate of real life events, seeing Mark Zuckerberg in interviews and in the media has confirmed his social awkwardness. The most fascinating bit of it all is that after the hours of coding, the friendships lost, the enemies made, and the millions...sorry, billions of dollars earned - it was all done simply for the social acceptance of a woman.  

Friend Requested: Waiting for Acceptance.

Hiding behind our computer screens

At the tap of a mouse and behind the screens of our computers lies a parallel universe where everything is fair game. A place where in knowing that their identity is protected, individuals find a bolder sense of self and ability to speak their mind; a place commonly known as the Internet. As the co-creator of an opinion-based blog, it wasn’t until recently that the subject of anonymity raised such curiosity as a vital issue in communication. The difference in context and attitudes changes drastically when authors find themselves able to hide behind a pseudonym and say things they would not otherwise say in person. Via the Internet, we find that it is easier to speak more boldly than if face-to-face with our audience. While the significance of this issue has an effect on the general genre of media, in light of modern times and the core subject of this class, I chose to focus on the effect of anonymity on behavior in online communication and journalism. In a nutshell, what makes writers more bold and brave in what they write when they know that their identity is protected? And more importantly, when is this privileged freedom of speech without responsibility taken too far?

This is how I began a paper I wrote last year for my journalism class about the effect of anonymity and identity on online journalism and communication. While the paper was geared towards the class topic of journalism, I emphasized how the veil of our computer screens has allowed people to express themselves in ways that may or may not be appropriate in the real world. By providing a virtual world and an opportunity to use a fake name, we have opened the door to endless possibilities of behavior, both negatively and positively.

As you can see, I couldn't have been more excited when approaching this subject this week...as geeky as that sounds, it's true. As a psychology minor in my undergraduate studies, I find myself fascinated with the way the mind works and the mediums that our outside world provide for it's manifestation. 

This week, we read Sherry Turkle's article on "Cyberspace and Identity", an article dubbed "outdated", yet in my view, is still applicable in respect to the subject. Her article focused on impact of the internet on identity and persona. Turkle discussed how the internet allows for role playing, multiple personas, and virtual lives. The word virtual life is now synonymous with the program "Second Life", a popular online program that allows people to literally live a second life in a virtual world. They build both physical avatars and personality features and engage with other users in work, personal relationships and friendships, and even sexual relationships. 

It has given people a second chance. 

And a third chance. 

And a fourth chance. 

And as many chances as a person wants for themselves in an endless virtual world that allows it and provides infinite possibilities. 

Turkle noted that "some feel an uncomfortable sense of fragmentation, some a sense of relief. Some sense the possibilities for self-discovery." Through community forums, knowledge cultures, blogging, chatting, etc. individuals are free to express themselves, change themselves, re-build themselves, or even "'act out' unresolved conflicts" in their identity on the internet, as explained by Turkle. 

Online, an introverted individual can become an extrovert and the most popular character, or even find more comfort in expressing themselves and engaging in conversation with others (as used in dating websites). In contrast, an extrovert can find solace in being alone as they surf the net and navigate through the virtual world, or utilize blogging as an online diary of sort to share deeper characteristics. Physical images can be changed with an avatar. Everything that you like or dislike in the real world can be changed with a touch of a button.

My paper argued that the use of anonymity on the internet provides a vehicle of emotions and expressions that they would shy away from in real life, either due to their personality or whether or not is culturally acceptable. The invention of the Internet gave human nature a shield to all that is unacceptable in real life, it gave them the opportunity to speak their mind and even change their personality without fear of retribution or judgement. Protected identity provides the liberation to speak freely without fear of consequences; a concept Turkle agrees with in her explanation of persona experimentation in a consequence-free environment. 

But is it really consequence-free?

Do our actions in the virtual world have any reflections in the real world? Of course. We discussed before how social networks have drastically changed our lives. As Clay Shirky said in his book, Here Comes Everybody, "When we change the way we communicate, we change society" ...and not just online.

From a personal level to political levels, our actions behind our computer screens resonate in the real world. Bloggers have been tried for political treason, even those with pseudonyms. Relationships are make and break online using dating websites, social networks, and even Second Life. There have been reports of divorces caused by adultery on Second Life, but infidelity on Facebook, etc. Our friendships are changed in real life with the click of a "de-friend" button. 

I could go on forever about the topic of the psychological effects of the internet on human personalities. As technology grows more and more a part of our lives, the way we communicate and function as a society changes as well. 

The internet has allowed us to live parallel lives, what is important to consider is how we utilize the tools it gives us and how it changes us as individuals, and as societies. 

Obama in 140 characters

How is social networking changing the world?

Well, for starters, our President is on Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace now.

The 2008 Presidential elections were famous for more than just the first African-American and first woman candidates, but for their communication strategies. President Obama's campaign manager was extremely recognized for his push for the use of social networking to get to voters. As a voter, I was personally impressed at the amount of blogging, tweeting and Facebooking that the Obama campaign used, which is why I'm not surprised that the White House is now blogging.

As our own nation changes it's form of communicating, will that change society like Clay Shirky claimed in his book, Here Comes Everybody? How will the government's use of social networking change our nation?

The use of these platforms will also provide multiple platforms for citizens to communicate back to their government - both positively and negatively. With Twitter feeds updating at the speed of light these days, it will be fascinating to see how citizens and well as the government will utilize these platforms to regulate feedback.

Perhaps our State of the Union will soon be limited to 140 characters on Twitter?

"Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough, and I will move the world."

This week, we were assigned to read Clay Shirky's book, Here Comes Everybody, which really put into perspective how social media has revolutionized organizations. 

The book began with a story and a few quotes that really resonated with me:

"Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough, and I will move the world." 

Knowing the story makes that quote that much more powerful. The story that Shirky began with was that of Ivanna, Evan, Sascha, and a phone. As many of us have done or will at one point in our lives, Ivanna forgetfully left her phone in a taxi. Having a friend that works in computer programming, she called on Evan to help try to track her Sidekick phone. Eventually, Evan and Ivanna located the phone in the possession of a teenager that through inappropriate responses, refused to return the phone to its owner. Frustrated, Evan took to his computer and the power of the virtual world. To make a long story short, through the power of social media and networking, as well as a well-versed and persistent friend: websites were crashing with debates on theft, the army was notified of a military officer's behavior, the police was pressured to change a report, and a teenage girl was arrested. 

"When we change the way we communicate, we change society." 

The story of Ivanna's phone was all a result of the power of how communication has changed. Shirky further discusses how much of the influence of the phone case was due to the formation of groups and collective opinion on the internet. He looks at social activity on the internet and how technological innovations have revolutionized those activities, opening up an entire new world of possibilities. 

How can we deny that? Let's face it, forming groups has become much easier. Looking at Facebook alone, each one of us is probably a member of 10-20 groups of things we like and dislike. Between Facebook, Twitter, and the hundreds of thousands of forums, the internet has made it easier for individuals to associate themselves with a number of groups. 

While reading this, I couldn't help but remember a book that we read in CCTP 505 (our program's introductory course), Henry Jenkin's Convergence Culture. In his book, Jenkins discusses the importance of collective intelligence or "knowledge cultures" in groups, by using examples of forum groups for reality TV shows such as "Lost" and "Survivor". The internet has facilitated the vehicles of group interests and collective opinion, behavior, and actions. While some groups come together in forums to discuss the next "Survivor", others come together to protest political campaigns, marketing campaigns, and now even teenagers with lost phones. Regarding the issue of the lost phone, Shirky highlighted that Evan's followers were people that had experienced a similar situation and/or sympathized with lost and stolen property, as well as had strong support for justice to be served. Jenkins' acknowledged this sense of emotion in his book: "Emerging knowledge cultures are voluntary, temporary, and tactical affiliations. People only remain in affinity groups as long as they meet the emotional and intellectual needs of the individual" (Jenkins 57).

Via technology, Sascha's arrest was an indirect result of group actions. Whether or not it was a harsh punishment or not, Evan provided another opportunity for individuals to come to together as a group and influence action. 

Good news for our soldiers!

Good news for the Army - the social media ban has been lifted!

Turns out that the Army had previously enforced a social media ban, meaning soldier had no access to Facebook, Twitter, etc. And while I waste most of my day on these social networks and probably shouldn't be trusted to fight for my country as long as Facebook is accessible to me, I would still love to see Tweets from our soldiers in action. I would really love to hear first-hand accounts of the human side of war, which is one of the reasons I'm super excited for the Al Jazeera event "Reporting from the frontlines" tomorrow evening. Hearing the accounts from the people in action themselves humanizes a subject we only hear embellished through whatever biased media source we utilize for our daily news and information.

This reminds me of a previous debate: can social media facilitate social change? How could the use of these networks help soldiers connect with citizens in the US and all over the world for that matter? How would it change the way that the media portrays war?

Of course, blogging or tweeting from Iraq, Afghanistan or any war site for that matter may be dangerous in terms of top security issues, but when approaching it from a source of media information, it could change how we view war altogether.

Just for the sake of humor, the following picture depicts what it would be like if historical events were documented via Facebook statuses:

Is Social Networking Killing Search Engines?

Would you rather trust a friend or a search engine? It's a question I never really considered until reading this article on BlogWorld.com: Is Social Networking Killing Search Engines?

The article discusses whether or not search engines are in danger due to the comforting factor in asking your friends via social networking. Basically, the reliable vs the intimate - which one would you trust?

Let's say you're looking for a Thai restaurant in DC (the article uses a restaurant in New Mexico, but let's keep it local), who would you ask?

Let's say you Google or Bing it, it'll tell you the most local/most searched for restaurants in your area that you must filter through. On the other hand, your friends have experience and opinions that can tell you what the best one is....but are your friends always online? Let's say it's 3 am and you want the best Thai restaurant in DC...unless you want to wake up your friends or can guarantee FB or Twitter responses, a search engine is probably your best bet. Plus, although they might not be our friends, with websites such as Yelp and Foursquare, you have the ability to browse recommendations and critiques of places.

So which is better, the intimate or the reliable?? The article brings a good argument into perspective. What I want to know is - why can't you have both? With two clicks, you can search and ask your friends with a Facebook/Twitter status...and voila!

Social Media & The Masses: Can developing media enhance social change?

This week, we discussed the influence of media on the masses. We read the works of Hans Magnus Enzenberger "Constituents of a Theory of the Media" as well as Jean Baudrillard's "Requiem for the Media" that served as our platform for debate.

Enzensberger highlighted the ideas of Marxism and Capitalism in his work, emphasizing his belief in changing media technology as a form of emancipation through the production of their own messages and meaning. On the other hand, Baudrillard held a more pessimistic view, believing that the modern communication theory of producer(transmitter)-message-sender(receiver) will not allow for social change, due to the everlasting "class struggle".

Mind you, both authors spoke of a different time. A time without Twitter feeds and FB statuses, a time before Iran utilized social media as a revolutionary tool. A time before the President of the United States used social media to win an election. Would they feel the same now?

As social media continues to change on a daily basis, we can't help but notice the effect it's having on social participation. Ironically, the advanced technological platforms of social media and it's produced chaos is what leads to the very change. Examples: The last US Presidential election, Iran, the scheduled burning of the Koran, and the most recent TwitChange (a Twitter auction held to build homes in Haiti). For each of these events, the use of social media platforms is what enabled the citizens to make a difference, whether to initiate physical protest outside of the internet or utilize technological influence to put pressure on party leaders or news media to speak up.



While Facebook has always been an influential factor in social change, I genuinely believe that Twitter is the platform for social change for the new generation. Whether it was Iran's revolution or Haiti's earthquake, Twitter allows users all over the world to tweet and retweet in milliseconds, reaching one another quicker than their mouse clicks. Eva Longoria recently launched a Twitter auction that so far has raised over a million dollars using celebrity tweets to help build homes in Haiti. Ashton Kutcher challenged CNN in a Twitter "race" to see who could reach a million followers, promising charitable rewards. Finally, the previous attempt of "International Burn the Koran Day" by infamous Pastor Terry Jones was bombarded with condemnation and discontent worldwide through the internet and social media. Actually, I used social media myself to make a difference. I began tweeting celebrities, people in which through any other medium I would never be able to reach, and asked them to use their influence to stand against religious injustice. Within minutes, I received tweets from Eva Longoria, Pink, Paulo Coelho, and more. While I am not foolish enough to believe that I made a huge difference on my own, my attempts in combination with a million others around the world led to a uniting voice speaking against his actions.


Can social media cause change?


Looking at the events and reactions of the past few years, I sure as heck think so.

Theorizing the Medium

When beginning this course, I couldn't help but think - where do we start from? New media is changing everyday and it seems like everything is blending together to form this new world network, that again is updated before you can learn yesterday's applications.

This week's readings were an excellent introduction to the course of new media, a more abstract look, you could say. Marshall McLuhan analysis, "Medium is the Message", as well as Raymond Williams' analysis on "The Technology and the Society" were abstract eye-openers into the world of new media and its' effect on society and communication as a whole.

McLuhan argued that 'the medium is the message', highlighting that the medium of communication itself can be the actual processes, regardless of the classic assumption that it lacks content. However, McLuhan points out that the medium itself possesses the process of thought that results in the communication. Example: A speech: The content = the words, the actual speech is the medium of communication. Speech is "an actual process of thought, which is in itself nonverbal" (McLuhan, 18).

A point well made when you step back from the itty gritty details of social media and technology and look at it from afar. This class intends to focus on the transformation of communication using new media, but can we focus on just the content? Impossible. To be able to fully analyze and understand this subject, we should begin by taking a step back and looking at new media from all sides: the various mediums, the thought processes behind them, the content they produce, etc etc.

Williams focuses his study on the way that technology has changed modern society, emphasizing the role of television. He raises vital issues that I hope we address in this course, such as: If the technology is a cause, can we at best modify or seek to control its effects? Or if the technology, as used, is an effect, to what other kinds of cause, and other kinds of action should we refer and relate our experience of its uses?