Finally some freedom to rant about what I think is important. I'll make my view short and sweet.
"Some play themselves to death. Last year, the deaths of at least seven people were attributed to excessive game- playing. In August, a 28-year-old man died after nearly 50 straight hours of playing online games. In December, a 38-year-old day worker collapsed and died at an Internet café; his logs showed that he had played for 417 hours in his last 20 days." - International Herald Tribune
Do you see something odd about this?
Virtual Worlds are ruining the real world.
There. I said it. I'm prepared to burn at the stake. I see no good that comes from virtual worlds. I cannot think of one redeeming factor of these terrible advances in technology that makes them acceptable. People should be living in the real world, holding real jobs, and interacting with real people. I do not support the cop-out tactic of living vicariously through a virtual avatar and ignoring problems that effect people in the reality.
Addiction to these massive multiplayer role playing games is on the rise probably won't stop until something is done to prevent it. There is no single person to blame for this epidemic. I tend to blame parents, unless the player is a legal adult and can make their own life decisions.
An article submitted to the website Planetpapers.com, and written by a user dubbed 'guardianbooya' reads, "computer games are addictive because they create challenges that can be overcome." What happened to overcoming challenges in real life in order to feel successful? Shit, if I get an A in a class I feel like successful. If I were to play one of these games for 20 hours straight in order to kill some monsters, I think I would feel the exact opposite. No offense to anyone out there who plays these games, but seriously, get off the computer and come back down to planet Earth. Do something good for yourself, those around you, or your community, and then I will understand your feeling of success. To me, it seems that one's life is the worst thing that someone could possibly waste away. Sitting in front of a computer screen playing a game might be the biggest waste of time I can think of.
Some say that people get addicted to these games because it helps them escape the real world, and let them forget about their personal problems. Everyone has problems. In my eyes, to be selfish enough to become addicted to a game to escape them is no different than getting hooked on heroin to escape real life problems. Sane people are now devoting time and effort into developing rehab-like programs to ease people off of video games. So, the way I see it, not only do we have millions of people hovered in front of a computer screen wasting time when they could be doing something positive for the world, now we have researchers devoting their time to the rehabilitation of these people. WINK News reports, "China is expected to become the first country in the world to officially classify Internet addiction as a mental disorder."
A mental disorder. Internet and game addiction is now about to be considered a mental disorder. Right next to schizophrenia, OCD, and post traumatic stress sits Internet addiction. That is unbelievable. How could we have done this to ourselves? At lease with these other diseases, it isn't the person's fault. Those who are addicted to the Internet have done this to themselves. Is it bad that I don't feel sorry for them?
Sources:
1) Virtal Addiction. Planet Papers. Accessed Dec 5 2008. http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4191.php
2) Sang-Hun, Choe. Hooked on the Virtual World. International Herald Tribune. Accessed Dec 5 2008. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/11/business/addside12.php
3) Are You Addicted?. WINK News. Accessed Dec 5 2008. http://www.winknews.com/news/local/35188749.html
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
I'd like to begin by saying that I am fully supportive of federal strides to increase government transparency. I think that it is a great idea to make the public more able to see what is going on within the federal government. There is a broad legislative effort being created in order to secure this increased accessibility. This act, more specifically the Transparency in Government Act, includes sections of the bill devoted to the transparency of government sects that include Congress, the Executive branch, and information about lobbyists. I think this is a big step in the right direction towards a more democratic nation. But, one problem I do see is the fact that this could potentially be completely overlooked by the public. We already have television networks like C-SPAN that produce 24-hour coverage of things like congressional sessions and the law making process. Save for my high-school government teacher, I have yet to meet anyone who fully takes advantage of this view into the inner-workings of the American government. What good is more government transparency if no one will take advantage of it? Transparency is a good idea if it can be promoted and pulled-off effectively.
I like President Elect Obama's innovative plan to broadcast his weekly addresses via Youtube. With his campaign relying so heavily on the internet, and the success that it has brought him, I feel like his decision to continue his affair with the web is a smart idea. At least in my age group, I know that many more people will watch his videos on Youtube than would ever sit by a radio and listen for his address. I am really impressed with Obama's willingness to embrace the internet, and more specifically Youtube. With plans to set up a White House video channel on the site to keep the public informed about recent events in Washington.
I'm very down with the fact that I will be able to listen to President Elect Obama's messages via Youtube when I actually have time to do so. The public will no longer be bound by schedules of important announcements and addresses that they could potentially miss when they are broadcasted on television or radio. Also I think the posting of these videos on Youtube is a great opportunity for feedback from the public. There is an inherent general forum involved with people commenting on Youtube videos. I believe that with the ability to directly comment on, and discuss thoughts about Obama's planned videos, Youtube might turn into the new town-hall meeting place. Based on the recently ended election season, it is already heading in that direction. The possibilities are endless for this newly recognized media outlet. People from all over the country, and globe for that matter, will be able to respond to an important address or a simple weekly update instantly. Political discussions will run rampant across the site. Exciting stuff.
Now, obviously I'm all for Obama's plans for expanding his Youtube political empire. But, I am weary about the rest of the government's ability to break into the internet's ability to create a more transparent government. I would love to watch a five minute clip of Obama talking about issues within the federal government, or watch him shoot the shit about college football, but I don't know how thrilled anyone would be about watching boring stuff about Congress. Sad but true. I think it's good that that sort of information will be at Joe Public's disposal, but I doubt the American public is politically motivated enough to fully take advantage of it.
In this last election season, America saw a huge increase in voter turn out and political awareness within it's citizens. I hope this trend continues and Americans don't fall off the bandwagon that has had a tirade through the country over the past few months. If all of these plans do go through, and Obama does set up a internet-video-based national address system, I feel as though it might prolong the life of political interest that has been a breath of fresh air for the country. I hope people do not get lazy and resort back to not giving a crap about American politics and the federal government. I'd like to think that the new measures towards transparency will work, but I am not fully convinced.
I like President Elect Obama's innovative plan to broadcast his weekly addresses via Youtube. With his campaign relying so heavily on the internet, and the success that it has brought him, I feel like his decision to continue his affair with the web is a smart idea. At least in my age group, I know that many more people will watch his videos on Youtube than would ever sit by a radio and listen for his address. I am really impressed with Obama's willingness to embrace the internet, and more specifically Youtube. With plans to set up a White House video channel on the site to keep the public informed about recent events in Washington.
I'm very down with the fact that I will be able to listen to President Elect Obama's messages via Youtube when I actually have time to do so. The public will no longer be bound by schedules of important announcements and addresses that they could potentially miss when they are broadcasted on television or radio. Also I think the posting of these videos on Youtube is a great opportunity for feedback from the public. There is an inherent general forum involved with people commenting on Youtube videos. I believe that with the ability to directly comment on, and discuss thoughts about Obama's planned videos, Youtube might turn into the new town-hall meeting place. Based on the recently ended election season, it is already heading in that direction. The possibilities are endless for this newly recognized media outlet. People from all over the country, and globe for that matter, will be able to respond to an important address or a simple weekly update instantly. Political discussions will run rampant across the site. Exciting stuff.
Now, obviously I'm all for Obama's plans for expanding his Youtube political empire. But, I am weary about the rest of the government's ability to break into the internet's ability to create a more transparent government. I would love to watch a five minute clip of Obama talking about issues within the federal government, or watch him shoot the shit about college football, but I don't know how thrilled anyone would be about watching boring stuff about Congress. Sad but true. I think it's good that that sort of information will be at Joe Public's disposal, but I doubt the American public is politically motivated enough to fully take advantage of it.
In this last election season, America saw a huge increase in voter turn out and political awareness within it's citizens. I hope this trend continues and Americans don't fall off the bandwagon that has had a tirade through the country over the past few months. If all of these plans do go through, and Obama does set up a internet-video-based national address system, I feel as though it might prolong the life of political interest that has been a breath of fresh air for the country. I hope people do not get lazy and resort back to not giving a crap about American politics and the federal government. I'd like to think that the new measures towards transparency will work, but I am not fully convinced.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Writing Assignment 12: Net Neutrality
In recent years, the concept of net neutrality, and the highly debated controversy surrounding it, has made a lot of news in the United States. Simply put, net neutrality is the principle that protects a free and open internet. There are a great amount of people who are staunchly for keeping the internet open for all users, while there is also a rising opposition to this ideal. Those who oppose net neutrality, most notably are some large telecommunication companies, seem to want to take as much money as they can from consumers by proposing extra fees in order to provide them with currently free services. These services might include the bandwidth of a website or how fast a website can be loaded on your computer. Personally, my main concern with this issue is the fact that it is an issue. This should not be happening. A legal retraction of net neutrality would be absolutely terrible for everyone who wasn't reaping the fiscal benefits.
Supporters of keeping net neutrality want to keep the internet open and accessible to everyone. A group made up of several bands and musicians called "Rock The Net" is in full support of the conservation of net neutrality for everyone. Their platform for this issue is composed of three distinct points that they discuss on their website. Their first demand is that internet service providers should provide everyone with equal access to all websites and services that they may provide. This group argues that people who pay more should not get preferential treatment based on the fact that they have the spare change to fund their internet usage. Their second idea in their platform on the issue points out that net neutrality encourages innovation in many areas. Claiming that unequal access to the internet can hurt the growth and innovation in the areas of creativity, technology, and the economy. The final idea that the Rock The Net organization advocates is the basic right that all people should be free to see websites in spite of the content or controversy surrounding a particular issue (Rock The Net).
Many people fear the fact that if net neutrality was no longer around, ISP's would favor the websites of constituents who pay the most money. To me, the fact that ISP's could potentially give priority to some data over the rest based on commercial advertising money is very scary. And this is something that is actually going on, not just a theory of what could possibly happen. Other advocations include the protection of consumers, small businesses, and the integrity of the internet and it's standards (Wikipedia).
Those against the concept of net neutrality have their own reasons for their attitudes towards the issue. From what I can gather from the confusing arguements and lingo thrown around in countless forums and websites that I have perused is that large telecommunication companies like AT&T, for example, want to impose themselves as gatekeepers between the internet and consumers. For a price, one can expect full priority of websites and services, while others who do not pay the price set by these companies must deal with slow connections, blocked sites, and little attention from these companies. This power would let these companies impose their own views and services while blocking the sites that might be competing against them.
Personally, I think this is a terrible example of greed of internet service conglomerations who are high on their own power to control consumers. I am for the preservation of net neutrality because I am for personal freedom that doesn't have a monetary price tag attached to it. I do not agree with these big companies imposing their will on citizens by spending millions of dollars lobbying congress for their own personal gain.
Sources:
1) Rock the Net website. Accessed 11/14/08. http://www.futureofmusic.org/rockthenet/index.cfm.
2) Net Neutrality. Wikipedia Article. Accessed 11/14/08
Supporters of keeping net neutrality want to keep the internet open and accessible to everyone. A group made up of several bands and musicians called "Rock The Net" is in full support of the conservation of net neutrality for everyone. Their platform for this issue is composed of three distinct points that they discuss on their website. Their first demand is that internet service providers should provide everyone with equal access to all websites and services that they may provide. This group argues that people who pay more should not get preferential treatment based on the fact that they have the spare change to fund their internet usage. Their second idea in their platform on the issue points out that net neutrality encourages innovation in many areas. Claiming that unequal access to the internet can hurt the growth and innovation in the areas of creativity, technology, and the economy. The final idea that the Rock The Net organization advocates is the basic right that all people should be free to see websites in spite of the content or controversy surrounding a particular issue (Rock The Net).
Many people fear the fact that if net neutrality was no longer around, ISP's would favor the websites of constituents who pay the most money. To me, the fact that ISP's could potentially give priority to some data over the rest based on commercial advertising money is very scary. And this is something that is actually going on, not just a theory of what could possibly happen. Other advocations include the protection of consumers, small businesses, and the integrity of the internet and it's standards (Wikipedia).
Those against the concept of net neutrality have their own reasons for their attitudes towards the issue. From what I can gather from the confusing arguements and lingo thrown around in countless forums and websites that I have perused is that large telecommunication companies like AT&T, for example, want to impose themselves as gatekeepers between the internet and consumers. For a price, one can expect full priority of websites and services, while others who do not pay the price set by these companies must deal with slow connections, blocked sites, and little attention from these companies. This power would let these companies impose their own views and services while blocking the sites that might be competing against them.
Personally, I think this is a terrible example of greed of internet service conglomerations who are high on their own power to control consumers. I am for the preservation of net neutrality because I am for personal freedom that doesn't have a monetary price tag attached to it. I do not agree with these big companies imposing their will on citizens by spending millions of dollars lobbying congress for their own personal gain.
Sources:
1) Rock the Net website. Accessed 11/14/08. http://www.futureofmusic.org/rockthenet/index.cfm.
2) Net Neutrality. Wikipedia Article. Accessed 11/14/08
Friday, October 31, 2008
Writing Assignment 10: Journalism
With one of the biggest and most important presidential elections coming to fruition in a matter of days, each candidate is nearing the end of a seemingly endless string of months on the campaign trail. It is really no secret that news organizations and periodicals usually tend to lean one way politically, with the conservative spin of Fox News network, or the liberal powerhouses that include magazines like Rolling Stone. Although trying their hardest to keep the title of an unbiased, moderate news source, it is usually pretty obvious as to which way a television network or news periodical tends to support. Barack Obama has graced the cover of Rolling Stone three times since March, while only a scathing political cartoon of John McCain as a bratty baby has been published. For this a
ssignment, I've taken a look at two articles about Barack Obama. One from the Fox News website, and one that is featured in the most current Rolling Stone magazine.Rolling Stone's article is actually an interview by Eric Bates called "Obama's Moment". This article is about 5 pages long, including multiple pictures showing Barack Obama in ways that most people are now familiar with...smiling, teaching, etc. After reading the interview, it is apparent that Obama is very positive. Even discussions about the tough issues like foreign affairs, the failing economy, and is opponent John McCain, show Obama as a very positive person. I think the interviewer did a great job of asking questions that cleared up some confusion that I'm sure many undecided voters had. Direct questions were met with direct, decisive answers of how things will actually get done.
There is some negativity, although it is mostly directed to the failed policies of President Bush. When asked about John McCain's mudslinging tactics in the past few months, Obama responded by saying that "I just think he wants to win" (Bates 2008). It seems as though Obama was comfortable answering all of the questions...like he wasn't backed into a corner or something.
But, upon further research, I have found that I have been fooled by this positivity! Jeffery Beeson writes that 68% of Barack Obama's ads are negative, while only 62% of McCain's are (Beeson 2008). Oh, the humanity! Woe is me!
I also read an article off of the Fox News website about John McCain's feelings toward Barack Obama. It is blatantly stated that John McCain does not think that Barack Obama will be able to protect the United States like he will be able to. He is quoted talking about the economy, and how Barack Obama's plan will raise all of our taxes to the point where the economy will get even worse. There is talk about a few of his plans...but only the hopeful result of them...not how they will actually be achieved. Other than that this whole article seems negative. Like an attack on Barack Obama and is plans for America (McCain 2008).
As opposed to the Rolling Stone Obama article, the article on Fox New's website does not have any pictures, although it does have a comment section where people can instantly reply and discuss their feelings about the article, or the subject matter. In looking at these comments, there are two that are anti-McCain, and one that is pro. I found this interesting based on the fact that I was looking at an article that was based in conservative ideals, within a news source that has known to skew information to the right. I was expecting to see a bunch of pro-McCain comments.
Next week we will have a new president. There will never be an agreement of who should have the job. It's absolutely ludicrous to think that we are a unified nation. We are not, and this election year has proved it to me. McCain is currently down in the polls, but he vows to get back up towards Barack Obama's numbers (GMA 2008). Either way, I'd like to hope for the best, and hope that whoever wins realizes the dire need for a selfless leader who will do the right thing for the country and not themselves or their constituents.
Sources:
1) Bates, Eric. "Obama's Moment". Rolling Stone. 30 October 2008. Issue 1064, Pgs 74-81.
2) "McCain Doubts Obama Has 'What it Takes' to Protect America". Accessed via Foxnews.com. Accessed on 31 October 2008. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/29/mccain-doubts-obama-takes-protect-america/.
3) Beeson, Jeffery. "Presidential Candidates' Television Ads Most Negative In History". Published 30 October 2008. Accessed via Eurekalert.org. Accessed on 31 October 2008. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/uom-pct103008.php.
4) "McCain Promises to Overtake Obama Lead." Publised 31 October 2008. Accessed via Gmanews.tv. Accessed on 31 October 2008.http://www.gmanews.tv/story/130701/McCain-promises-to-overcome-Obama-lead.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Com 125 Assignment #8: Web Application Review
The web application that I decided to review is an internet radio station called Pandora. Found on the web at pandora.com, this site creates radio stations for it's users based on music preferences that the user provides.
And it's FREE.
I hadn't used my older account in a few years, so I created a new one when faced with this assignment. To sign up, one must provide an email address (which will be used as a user name), a password of their choice, and information such as age, gender, and zip code. I went into the FAQ section, which turns out to be quite extensive, to find out why I needed to provide those last three items. It turns out, I must be older than 13 to register for this service, hence the inquiry about my birth year. In addition, Pandora asks about your gender so they can provide advertising on your personal page that will be aimed more towards your chosen sex. They ask for you zip code because this service is only available to residents within the United States. After the registration process, one is able to delve into the endless music the Pandora provides.
To begin you type in the name of an artist or band that you like to create a station based off of them. For an example, I typed in the Beatles as my station. The first song comes up, Let it Be, and plays through. Now here's the cool part...the next song that plays is by a related artist based on the musical style, genre, or even instruments used by the band that is noted as my station. One can make as many stations as they desire. If you like a song that comes up, you can give it a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' for your station's future reference. You can also buy any of the songs that you hear. You can skip a song you do not like, but you cannot rewind a song due to the licenseing agreements. The FAQs on the site go through many of the concerns that one may have about the site. Its a wonderful tool for those who don't have iTunes or a personal music collection. Also, it can be accessed at any computer to be listened to at school or work. Although I have found that it runs a bit slower on the school computers than it does my house. It is a great tool for finding out about new artists who are similar to your current favorites. I cannot tell you how many new, awesome bands I have found out about through Pandora.
The set-up of the website is rather plain, but that in no way takes away from the functionality of the website. There are large advertisements that periodically pop up, but that really doesn't bother me too much either. When I use this site, I put on a station that I know I will enjoy, minimize the browser that Pandora is on, and basically forget about it and let the music play. The layout of the site is pretty straightforward and I don't think there is any way to be confused about how to control the music player or other features.
There isn't a tremendous amount of social interaction on the site. But, you can share your playlists or listen to someone else's. There is a profile section where you can view your bookmarked artists, favorite songs, etc.
I think this site is a great application for music lovers or even music likers. It is very convenient that Pandora can be accessed from any computer, and your playlists will be there when you sign in. Also, I find it much better than radio because there is literally no commercials, and you can pick and choose what you actually want to hear. I think it is very interesting how the creators of Pandora have made this database of information about each artist or song and have connected them to others. Known as the Music Genome Project, this system gives the listener what he or she wants to hear, and can turn them on to new music that they have not heard.
And its FREE!
And it's FREE.
I hadn't used my older account in a few years, so I created a new one when faced with this assignment. To sign up, one must provide an email address (which will be used as a user name), a password of their choice, and information such as age, gender, and zip code. I went into the FAQ section, which turns out to be quite extensive, to find out why I needed to provide those last three items. It turns out, I must be older than 13 to register for this service, hence the inquiry about my birth year. In addition, Pandora asks about your gender so they can provide advertising on your personal page that will be aimed more towards your chosen sex. They ask for you zip code because this service is only available to residents within the United States. After the registration process, one is able to delve into the endless music the Pandora provides.
To begin you type in the name of an artist or band that you like to create a station based off of them. For an example, I typed in the Beatles as my station. The first song comes up, Let it Be, and plays through. Now here's the cool part...the next song that plays is by a related artist based on the musical style, genre, or even instruments used by the band that is noted as my station. One can make as many stations as they desire. If you like a song that comes up, you can give it a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' for your station's future reference. You can also buy any of the songs that you hear. You can skip a song you do not like, but you cannot rewind a song due to the licenseing agreements. The FAQs on the site go through many of the concerns that one may have about the site. Its a wonderful tool for those who don't have iTunes or a personal music collection. Also, it can be accessed at any computer to be listened to at school or work. Although I have found that it runs a bit slower on the school computers than it does my house. It is a great tool for finding out about new artists who are similar to your current favorites. I cannot tell you how many new, awesome bands I have found out about through Pandora.
The set-up of the website is rather plain, but that in no way takes away from the functionality of the website. There are large advertisements that periodically pop up, but that really doesn't bother me too much either. When I use this site, I put on a station that I know I will enjoy, minimize the browser that Pandora is on, and basically forget about it and let the music play. The layout of the site is pretty straightforward and I don't think there is any way to be confused about how to control the music player or other features.
There isn't a tremendous amount of social interaction on the site. But, you can share your playlists or listen to someone else's. There is a profile section where you can view your bookmarked artists, favorite songs, etc.
I think this site is a great application for music lovers or even music likers. It is very convenient that Pandora can be accessed from any computer, and your playlists will be there when you sign in. Also, I find it much better than radio because there is literally no commercials, and you can pick and choose what you actually want to hear. I think it is very interesting how the creators of Pandora have made this database of information about each artist or song and have connected them to others. Known as the Music Genome Project, this system gives the listener what he or she wants to hear, and can turn them on to new music that they have not heard.
And its FREE!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Com 125 Assignment #7: Community
Personally, I would define the term 'community' as a group of people who share a common attribute. This could involve ethnicity, location, interests, etc. Since the internet was originally developed to connect people who were far from each other, the concept of a virtual community was inevitable. Today, there are countless ways to be apart of one of these online communities. Personally, I am actively involved in a few of these communities including Facebook, Myspace, and assorted message boards. The one that I find most interesting, however, is Myspace.
I used to constantly update my personal Myspace page with pictures, comments, moods, blah, blah, blah. Now, I really only use the website to promote my band on our music page. I believe that the Myspace Music is one of the best things to happen to unknown bands in a long time, but that's a different story. I think there is a big distinction between a music Myspace and a personal Myspace. Based on content of the page alone, while personal pages are attempting to sell the attributes of the creator, band pages are focused on spreading creativity and the message of the music. I know that sounds a bit cliche, but think about it. Personally, I would much more readily accept a stranger's friend request on my music page than my personal page.
Myspace seemed to start out as a place for friends. Thats even their motto. Which brings up the million dollar question...what makes a friend a friend? I could click a button, and a complete stranger could be, according to Myspace, just as much as a friend as some kid I grew up with. This turns out to be a difficult question to answer. Danah Boyd writes that, "a friend is a relationship that involves some degree of mutual love or admiration (Boyd 2006)." I don't have mutual love or admiration for SeXiGuRl45...but I do appreciate the fact that she digs my band. People all over these social network sites have tousands of these 'friends'. But that's not what they are at all. In a few cases, maybe...there may also be a bunch of people that you have met once at a party or something. These people with the ungodly amount of people that they consider their friends are lying to themselves and are probably not that interesting or as awesome as they think they are. Tila Tequila has over a million friends (Boyd 2006). Case and point.
So is there any sort of relationships or actual friendships that can be derived from these crazy social network sites? I would say yes. In spite of all of the bad press and their many flaws, I would conclude that there is some meaningful relationships that can be etched from these websites. Wellman and Gulia write,
"If the Net were solely a means of information exchange, then virtual communities played out over the Net would mostly contain only narrow, specialized relationships. However, information is only one of the many social resources exchanged on the Net. Many Net members get help in electronic support groups for social, pysical, and mental problems along with information about treatments, practitioners, and other resources (Wellman, Gulia 1997)."
As much as people are beginning to love to hate these websites, they do provide some good. Relationships are created and the people involved ultimately benefit. Myspace and Facebook are prime examples of online communities because they bind people from all over the world who share common interests. I believe that this connection, and the ease at which it can be obtained, is very important in today's world that is so divided.
Souorces:
1) Boyd, Danah. Friends, friendsters, and top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, volume 11, number 12 (December 2006), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/index.html
2) Wellman, Barry and Gulia, Melina. Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. August 1997. http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/netsurfers/netsurfers.pdf.
I used to constantly update my personal Myspace page with pictures, comments, moods, blah, blah, blah. Now, I really only use the website to promote my band on our music page. I believe that the Myspace Music is one of the best things to happen to unknown bands in a long time, but that's a different story. I think there is a big distinction between a music Myspace and a personal Myspace. Based on content of the page alone, while personal pages are attempting to sell the attributes of the creator, band pages are focused on spreading creativity and the message of the music. I know that sounds a bit cliche, but think about it. Personally, I would much more readily accept a stranger's friend request on my music page than my personal page.
Myspace seemed to start out as a place for friends. Thats even their motto. Which brings up the million dollar question...what makes a friend a friend? I could click a button, and a complete stranger could be, according to Myspace, just as much as a friend as some kid I grew up with. This turns out to be a difficult question to answer. Danah Boyd writes that, "a friend is a relationship that involves some degree of mutual love or admiration (Boyd 2006)." I don't have mutual love or admiration for SeXiGuRl45...but I do appreciate the fact that she digs my band. People all over these social network sites have tousands of these 'friends'. But that's not what they are at all. In a few cases, maybe...there may also be a bunch of people that you have met once at a party or something. These people with the ungodly amount of people that they consider their friends are lying to themselves and are probably not that interesting or as awesome as they think they are. Tila Tequila has over a million friends (Boyd 2006). Case and point.
So is there any sort of relationships or actual friendships that can be derived from these crazy social network sites? I would say yes. In spite of all of the bad press and their many flaws, I would conclude that there is some meaningful relationships that can be etched from these websites. Wellman and Gulia write,
"If the Net were solely a means of information exchange, then virtual communities played out over the Net would mostly contain only narrow, specialized relationships. However, information is only one of the many social resources exchanged on the Net. Many Net members get help in electronic support groups for social, pysical, and mental problems along with information about treatments, practitioners, and other resources (Wellman, Gulia 1997)."
As much as people are beginning to love to hate these websites, they do provide some good. Relationships are created and the people involved ultimately benefit. Myspace and Facebook are prime examples of online communities because they bind people from all over the world who share common interests. I believe that this connection, and the ease at which it can be obtained, is very important in today's world that is so divided.
Souorces:
1) Boyd, Danah. Friends, friendsters, and top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, volume 11, number 12 (December 2006), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/index.html
2) Wellman, Barry and Gulia, Melina. Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. August 1997. http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/netsurfers/netsurfers.pdf.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Com 125 Assignment #6: Identity
Nothing is sacred on the internet. Although it is a wonderfully convenient technology that I could not really imagine living without (I have panic attacks when the Verizon network loses its connection) it is also one of the most dangerous places that everyone has access to. Assuming an identity is commonplace on the internet. I have assumed identities on sites like Facebook, Myspace, Instant Messenger, etc. although I like to believe that they are honest representations of who I am in person. The problem arises when these virtual identities are corrupted for any number of reasons or situations.
People can look on my Facebook page and get a good idea of who I am. Like just about everyone I know I list my favorite music, movies, books, and other interests. I allow pictures of me to be posted by my friends, although I try to scan through them as soon as they're uploaded, just in case. My friends, family, and absolute strangers who happen to be in my network can look at this information that I supply and get a good understanding of who I am. This really doesn't bother or phase me.
But, I recently found out that one of my friends who I used to go to school with at Geneseo had created a false Facebook based on a kid that he simply made up. Assuming this identity, he added me and many more of my friends that go to Geneseo as friends. Apparently he took pictures from some random kid from Canada's page, and posted them on his own. So of course I accepted the friend request and thought nothing of it, for I have a terrible memory for people and faces, and I figured that I had just met him at a party or in passing. So this was about a month ago, and I just found out last weekend that it was actually my friend behind this madness. Totally not cool. As it turns out, the innocent dude that had his pictures stolen somehow found out about this identity theft and contacted my friend, obviously very irate and probably scared shitless.
This is one example of identity theft that my (ridiculously oblivious) friend thought was harmless and apparently funny. However, I could not imagine being the Canadian boy who found my pictures strewn around Facebook under someone else's name. However, as more and more adolescents, and even kids now, put ourselves out on the internet in a freer manner, this is the type of things that could possibly affect us personally. In her article, "Identity and Deception in the Virtual World", Judith S. Donath discusses how people create identities on the web and the possible problems that could arise from the deception that could be enacted. When discussing how to stop people from being deceptive on the web, she writes,
" The spread of deception can be limited. In particular, imposing a cost to being caught deceiving - that is, punishing deception - is a deterrent...By imposing high costs on deception a social system can make conventional signals more reliable," (Donath 1996).
This almost obvious statement refers to how the government has dealt with this growing problem on the internet. And she wrote this in 1996! What insight! Honestly though, when we are talking to people on the internet, or looking at someone's Facebook or Myspace, unless we really know them, we really have no idea who is on the other end of the connection. This is not to say that I'm going to ask my friend a question only he would know before I start a conversation every time I IM him. That's a bit rash. But, I would like to think that I and everyone else should be careful and more aware of what we are doing, posting, and talking about online. Just in case.
Sources
1) Donath, Judith S. "Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community." MIT Media Lab. 1996.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)