Where are we headed?

[cohenmax93-deactivated20150804]

Google Glass is one of the latest examples in a long line of attempts at making devices to change how we perceive reality. Some might say this is bad, that it allows one to live in an unreal realm and thus robs you of your “realness”. Tech isn’t good or bad, the same way a stone isn’t good or bad,...

[katyiskelly]

Firms Control Web: Idea of User Power as an Illusion

Users controlling their experience with technology simply fails as an idea, due to firms’ control over the web as well as tech tools. “Tech isn’t good or bad, the same way a stone isn’t good or bad, it’s how it’s used that defines it” (Max Cohen). Blogger Max Cohen claims that the experience of tech fails to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ on its own; it’s simply in the hands of the user. However, whether tech tools are good or bad is actually in the hands of the firms in control.

Changing Reality: The Idea of Virtual Reality

Cohen expands on the idea that ads fail to portray real people, yet they still form reality for the public. This idea relates to technology as a whole. More and more, virtual reality takes up portions of everyday life. Pamela Lund, Internet celebrant, expands on the idea of change. She states that “the rise of social media and technology is at the core of this change” (Lund 3). For Cohen, change is the blending of virtual and physical reality.

Virtual worlds blend with real worlds, giving people control over both realities- that is if people don’t fear it. Cohen believes in this idea of control in virtual reality, that people can use tech for good since it’s in their hands. He states, “We can’t put too much faith in tech just as we can’t put too much fear in it. We, the users, must declare how tech will and won’t be used” (Cohen). Users can decide how much tech they can consume. But they cannot control tech while using it. Google Glass is a form of virtual reality that will use location services to warp reality into a world of facial recognition as well as advertising for the user.

Facebook bought out Oculus Rift, a huge virtual reality gaming device. There are numerous benefits to using a “detailed simulation,” such as trying possible scenarios without risking people’s lives (Cohen). However, with technology in the hands of firms, it gives the power to the firm, not the people using it.

Facebook strengthens capitalism, showing who actual has control over technology: the firms, not the people.

Corporations Control User Experience: Power in the Hands of Firms, Not People

Cohen chooses Oculus Rift to purport that tech can be used for good, which it can. However, this is an interesting case considering the controversy around it. Oculus Rift was started on KickStarter, a website where showcase their ideas and get donations from those that are interested. After the buyout, donators and celebrants of the gaming device were up in arms about Facebook buying it. The power was taken from the people and given to a social media giant. The power is once again in the hands of firms, not the people.

Capitalism allows for larger firms to buy up smaller firms. This gives firms such as Facebook the ability to raise prices, use ads on the screen, and control the experience of the technology. Robert W. McChesney, author of Digital Disconnect, states, “Given these giant firms’ enormous size and financial and political power, there may be some reshuffling of the deck, but..some version of these giant monopolies is likely here for the duration”(McChesney 141).

The costs far outweigh the benefits of Facebook buying this gaming device. Not only do users lose experience to possible ads and privacy concerns, but they give up the idea of smaller firms making it in the world of capitalism. It may improve the product, but it only shows that the whole tech world is out of the hands of the user. Donators and users alike had no say in the buyout.

The illusion that the experience of technology is in the hands of the user is a strong one. Clay Shirky, author of Cognitive Surplus, states “Bias in favor of existing systems is good, at least in times of technological stability…. However, that intellectual asset turns into a liability in times of revolution…. those deeply committed to old solutions cannot see how society would benefit from an approach incompatible with older models” (Shirky, 209-210). People stuck in an old mindset against tech tools will fail to assimilate to the model of the world there is now.

Shirky expands on the idea of change in relation to the cognitive surplus. With free time people can communicate over the web, using this two way communication tool as a means of connecting and advocating. Whereas this is a better use of time then the simple consumption of television, it still is simply self-advocating in a world controlled by social media giants.

Cohen expounds upon the idea that tech is changing quickly, and that a dated mindset will get people nowhere (Cohen). However, he also expands on the idea that people control their experience with technology and the Internet, which is simply a farce. Corporations and firms control the experience, which will happen with any new tech tool, including Google Glass.

Works Cited

Cohen, Max. “Augmented Reality Activism: Users Should Govern the Use of Google Glass.” Tumblr. 14 May, 2014. Web. 14 May, 2014.

Lund, Pamela. Massively Networked: How the Convergence of Social Media and Technology Is Changing Your Life. 1st ed. PLI Media, 2011. Web.

McChesney, Robert W. Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the InternetAgainst Democracy. The New Press, 2013. Print.

Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: Creativity And Generosity In A Connected Age. 1st ed. New York: The Penguin Press HC, 2010. Print.

[katyiskelly]

Selling Google Glass to the Populace: What Dreams May Come?

Glass impacts its user negatively. Josh Lowensohn simply describes the product in his article about Google Glass, restating that anyone can buy it but failing to pause and wonder: what dreams may come? He fails to pause and consider the negative aspects of the tech tool in relation to corporation control.  

Expanding Power: Corporations and Capitalism Infringe on Privacy

Google expands its global company to a device that has the ability for facial recognition, social media, GPS, and just about any app the consumer desires. Picture everyone wearing Google Glass, a tech tool that anyone can buy with 1,500 dollars on hand: a nightmare or a dream? This ever expanding media giant looks to sell it to anyone that can afford it. Lowensohn states, “Google says it's built up its stock again, and wants to get the device in the hands of anyone who wants to buy it — as long as it's got the units on hand” (Lowensohn).

Everyone recognizes you instantly while wearing Glass. This unsettling infringement on privacy is just the beginning. Robert W. McChesney, author of Digital Disconnect, shows that Google already holds almost 70 percent of the market for search engines. Google monopolizes this corner of the marker, even taking up 97 percent of search market on mobile (McChesney). This expanding company grows in size and strength rapidly. What then, will happen to consumers and citizens?

Losing privacy goes hand in hand with losing freedom, an alarming idea for citizens. With Google being a super power in the Internet realm, users lose their privacy. McChesney writes about social media site, Facebook, claiming, “It is monopoly power, for example, that makes it possible for Facebook to disregard its users’ concerns about privacy” (McChesney 141). This two way communication device, Facebook, disregards users’ concerns, simply because it can. What’s to stop Google from doing the same? Google takes tech out of the virtual and into the real world as well. The use of Google Glass imposes on the privacy of those around them.

Intruding on the privacy of non-wearers, and even wearers of Glass, comes with the deal of wearing this tech tool. The instant facial recognition pries into the life of those near the wearer. Google can even access location on the wearer of the tech, much like a cell phone. Even ads will be tailored to location, only benefiting in the growth of these media giants.

Ads Impose on Daily Life

Ads tailored to location physically and virtually will only give more power to these media giants. McChesney claims, “There is one important development for media, communication and the Interent that is triggered to a significant extent by the growth of monopoly in the economy: advertising” (McChesney 41). Ads already follow people in day to day life. Ads are tailored to the user while surfing the web or reading news on a site. Ads flash by on the subway during the morning commute. Billboards and store front windows show products that the consumer needs. But Glass brings it to a whole new level.

Ads follow the glass wearer wherever they go. Around lunch, ads can pop up for food in the wearer’s area. Ads will follow the wearer virtually and physically. Not only will there be ads for the sites the wearer visits, but the shops they enter in the real world. Ads are not just an annoyance, but a way for monopolies to grow and grow. Internet sites and firms make most of their revenue from ads. Having the user wearing glasses for a good chunk of the day, allows for even more profit.

Controlling the Web: Glass another Tool for Mastery

Glass becomes just another tool in the hands of firms to control people. Rebecca MacKinnon, author of Consent of the Networked, also worries about sovereignty in the hands of firms. She writes, “Google and Facebook are just two of the many companies whose products and services have created a new globally networked public sphere that is largely shaped, built, owned and operated by the private sector” (MacKinnon 9). This private sector allows for firms to have ultimate control over the people.

Firms control users through this private sector. Not only do these firms dictate the market, but personal relations as well. The idea of being human has been lost. Glass and social media taint relations that humans make, putting them in a virtual and lonely world.  So then, Glass impacts its users poorly.

So, what dreams may come? Glass controls the manner in which people see each other, themselves, and the world around them. In relation to advertising and privacy, their profits benefit from wearers. The 1,500 dollar price tag isn’t the only component bringing in profit. Users benefit the firms, becoming cogs in the machine of media giants.

Works Cited

Lowensohn, Josh. “Google Glass now on sale to all in US, but still in  Beta.” The Verge. 14 May,2014. Web. 13 May, 2014.

McChesney, Robert W. Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the InternetAgainst Democracy. The New Press, 2013. Print.

Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators. NewYork: Penguin, 2010. Print.

[katyiskelly]

Governments Control Internet: Determine Citizens’ Perspectives

Egypt, Burma, China- all these countries have thrown the switch on the web in times of strife, using drastic lock downs to control the data citizens receive. Even without total shutdown, control over the Internet happens all over the world: locking down communication, constraining activists, and oppressing the people.

Undermining Freedom: Russia, China, and Internet Regulation

Blogger Chris Webber raises concerns about Web control in his tweet, “Governments controlling what citizens view on the Internet ” (Webber). The tweet tags the US, Russia, and China. Webber links to an article about Russia and China’s desire for control over their citizens via the web.

At the world wide conference, NETMundial, officials met to discuss laws for running the Internet. However, “China and Russia are plainly preoccupied by how Internet governance could affect state authority”(Fung). What does this form of control mean for the people?

In another blog of mine, I describe communal outlook as a means of activism on the web. Simply, “Shifting that view from isolation to communal allows for a more beneficial and hopeful view of the world through the Internet” (Kelly). However, with countries like Russia, China, and even the US; this hopeful outlook pales in comparison to the horrific scenes painted by activists.

It will take a lot more than communal outlook to provide a hopeful view of the world through the web.

Regulating Data through Communication Control

It seems easy to point fingers at countries like Russia and China. Citizens of the US scoff at the control governments have over their people while reveling in their own freedom. However, The Bill of Rights fails to expand to cover the Internet.

The Patriot Act passed in 2001. The act helps seek out terrorists and protect the citizens of the US. It allows for wire tapping and obtaining of records without a warrant. The people are forced to give up part of their freedom in exchange for protection. Since then, numerous acts have been passed in favor of protecting the people, and often companies.

Do people see these acts as an abuse of power or a protection? Activists claim that citizens of the US don’t receive all the information they should.

Rebecca MacKinnon, author of Consent of the Network, states that “what we do know about the US government’s abuse of its power via private networks is largely thanks to whistle-blowers and leakers” (MacKinnon).

MacKinnon claims that the only way the people of the US know of the government’s “abuse of power” are leaks from other sources. This data has been regulated by government. Officicals decide what data will be readily available to the people.

Companies Censor

Apple, one of the largest tech producing corporations, decided to launch its products in China. By doing so, it had to agree to China’s censorship policies. It had come a long way since it’s ad about breaking down the barriers of the government in 1984.

MacKinnon writes, “Apple similarly censors apps for iPads sold in China... Fifteen years later, Apple seems quite willing to accomodate Big Brother’s demands for the sake of market access” (MacKinnon 115).

What does this example demonstrate about policy? What does it mean for the consumer?

It means that corporations coupled with government authority will censor when told to do so. Firms will put their profit first. They will do anything they can for market success, even if it means putting the people second. Along with “Big Brother” censoring people’s info, such as the Wiki leaks example in the previous section, corporations will do so as well.

MacKinnon describes computer code as a type of law. One that “shapes what people can do and sometimes directly censors what they can see” (MacKinnon 115).

With governments and powerful corporations on the same page, censorship is made easy.

Activists Constrained on the Internet

In my last blog I wrote about activism. I claimed, “What can we do with our free time and resources? Almost anything if people widen their narrow view to the communal, public, and civic” (Kelly). By joining a community and impacting the public sphere, anyone can cause civil change. Or so I claimed. When faced with constraint inflicted by the government, activists hands are tied.

The main resource activists use, the web, benefits them. At the same time, this resource is limited. MacKinnon states, “Howard’s research on technolgy and political change... shows that although the Internet and mobile technologies do not cause change, change is unlikely to happen without sufficient mobile and Internet penetration”(MacKinnon 53).

Activists use the web to further their causes, whether it be for fundraising for or rebelling against authoritative powers. Since officials can determine how activists use the resource, it becomes limited. It makes it difficult for activists to succeed in their cause.

In 2009 a “Twitter revolution” began to occur in Iran. By using social media sites, the people could complain and bring attnention to their poor conditions. Social media sites and the web became a tool for activists to fight against “Big Brother.” (MacKinnon 54). These tools became a valued resource to the people.

However, these resources can also be used to control activists and communities. MacKinnon states that “in 2009, news reports emerged that the technology used to track down activists had been sold to two Iranian mobile phone operators...”(MacKinnon 56). This technology is sold so that police can track criminals. The definition of crime seems to have become a broad term, creating a bleak outlook for Internet activists.

Overcoming Oppression

These forms of oppression are everywhere. Using the web as a tool of oppression s is an overwhelming idea. In my previous blog I describe moving passed the personal into the communal. “These communal discourses carry the potential to move into public collaboration. Public collaboration causes social change, impacting civic duties.(Shirky)” (Kelly).

Clay Shirky, author of Cognitive Surplus, describes community as a means to overcoming obstacles. Then how do these communities of activists avoid oppression?

From the inside out. Rebecca MacKinnon claims that the Internet should become Netizen-centric (that is, net-citizen centric). MacKinnon wants the people to take matters into their own hands and structure an Internet based off of them. Oppression can be fought. MacKinnon states, “The future of freedom in the Internet age depends on whether people can be bothered to take responsibility for the future and act”(MacKinnon 222).

To find peace in the Internet age is to balance new communities with the existing ones, both online and off. The first step in reaching this goal is to raise awareness and move from passive observers and “start acting like citizens of the Internet- as ‘netizens.”(Mackinnon 223).

Works Cited

Fung, Brian. How China and Russia are trying to undermine the Internet, again. 23 Apr 2014. Web. 3 May 2014.

Kelly, Kaitlyn. Shifting Perspectives: Individual View to Communal Outlook. Tumblr. 17 Mar 2014. Web. 17 Mar 2014

MacKinnon, Rebecca. Consent of the Networked: The World-wide Struggle for Internet Freedom. New York: Basic, 2012. Print.

Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators. New York: Penguin, 2010. Print.

Webber, Chris. Twitter. 23 Apr2014. Web. 1 May 2014.

[biiakko-deactivated20240612]

from Spirited Away

[ceyyyhun]

[ladystilts]

same

[lieutenantpanda]

The Legend of Zelda - Skyward Sword by uniqueLegend

[bagon-in-flight]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[shannonenl368]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is looking to change net neutrality rules in order to allow internet providers to charge websites more to connect with users.

Net Neutrality

According to this article by the Huffington Post, the FCC may be gearing up to change net neutrality....

[katyiskelly]

The War on Net Neutrality

Drew Guarini writes about the FCC’s recent decision on net neutrality. The FCC leans towards rules that would favor companies buying faster speeds on the internet. This means ISPs can pay more for faster internet speeds. What does that mean for Internet users?

Fear for Internet Activists

Guarini writes, “According to the WSJ's sources, the FCC's plan would restructure the rules that govern online traffic by granting Internet service providers the ability to give some websites "preferential treatment" -- i.e. faster traffic -- in exchange for money”(Guarini).

Allowing firms to essentially buy up Internet speeds isn’t good news for consumers. Popular sites that take up large amounts of bandwidth will be affected. These kinds of sites will be forced to pay more for internet speed, in the interest of larger firms staying on top. Sites like Netflix will be affected, which could mean higher prices for users.

In Favor of Capitalism or Free Resource?

Allowing these laws to be changed in favor of big business changes the Internet. The largest resource becomes more accessible for those with more money. It puts the big firms even higher up, leaving little guys to pay more money.

 “Net neutrality originally said that internet providers could not stifle lawful sites. Each site would have equal opportunity for users, granting much more freedom”(Jordan). Blogger Shannon Jordan points out that equality for users would mean freedom.

However it seems that larger companies, like Comcast, will be allowed to make even more money off of users. The problem with this is that, unlike cable, the Internet is a two way form of communication. Instead of simply consuming, like TV, users are communicating, discussing, and learning.

There shouldn’t be a higher price for a resource that provides news, communication, research, and just about anything else. Putting a price on Internet speed reduces the freedom that the Internet creates.

Works Cited

Guarini, Drew. “Feds May Be Looking To Bail On Net Neutrality: WSJ.” Huffington Post. N. p., 4–23 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.

[katyiskelly]

Unreasonable Searching of Cells: Push for Warrantless Searching

As of yesterday, the Justice Department fights for the right to warrantlessly search suspect’s cells on the spot. The feds wish to obtain data quickly and efficiently, serving as a means to incriminate suspects. Andy Greenberg writes, “rather than risk letting the suspect or his associates lock or remotely wipe the phone before it can be searched.”

Warrantless Searching: Should data be protected?

The Justice Department argues that since cells are equipped with a kill switch, a warrant shouldn’t be needed to search a cell on sight. However, law enforcement initially asked for this “kill switch” in order to protect the people from cell phone thieves. These forms of technology allow for users to wipe their phones to protect themselves.

“You have this weird scenario where law enforcement has demanded remote wiping be deployed,” says ACLU principal technologist Chris Soghoian, “and now they’re using that to also justify warrantless searches.”(Greenberg).

There was a push in February to have all cells require kill switches, protecting owners from thieves. However, now it is a means of pushing warrantless searching.

Does this mean that feds are looking for a simple means to freely search cells? Is this just another infringement on our personal lives and data?

Waiting on a Warrant

Greenberg details that there are other options, “He points out that it’s easier–and potentially less unconstitutional–to simply remove the phone’s battery, turn it off… wait for a judge to sign a warrant”(Greenberg). So why the need for no warrant?

Searching a cell without a warrant is equally unjustified as searching a car or a purse. What’s different about protecting your data?

Works Cited

Greenberg, Andy. Wired. "Feds Beg Supreme Court to Let Them Search Phones Without a Warrant." 23 Apr 2014. Web. 24 Apr 2014.

[katyiskelly]

Protecting the Internet

“It’s Time to Encrypt the Entire Internet” (Klint Finley)

Underneath the title of Finley’s article is a picture of a lock, it’s structure made of mazes, superimposed over a pink backdrop. The idea is to encrypt the entire Internet.

Heartbleed Bug

After the recent vulnerability of software was discovered, the Internet cries for security. The Heartbleed bug is a weakness “in the popular OpenSSL cryptographic software library”(Codenomicon). What can happen from this bug? User names, passwords, and important data can all be stolen through web sites and servers.

What does this mean? Finley writes, “Many security experts — including Google’s in-house search guru, Matt Cutts — think it’s time to bring this style of encryption to the entire web. That means secure connections to everything from your bank site to Wired.com to the online menu at your local pizza parlor”(Finley). The entire web should be encrypted to keep info safe.

Finley, among others, thinks info should be coded. He urges for sites to switch from SSL/TSL to an alternative form of software. He states, “When you use HTTPS, the data is coded so that, in theory, only you and the server you’re communicating with read the contents of the messages passing back and forth between your computer and the server”(Finley).

In the light of this bug, Internet users and servers alike have a lot to think about. How much privacy is there actually on the web? One of the largest resources there is seems anything but private. But, data should be safe. Finley urges for web sites to be coded differently, providing safety.

Why is this important?

Internet users use websites all the time with personal info. People do online payments, use credit cards, shop eBay; they make themselves susceptible.

Is it time to encrypt the entire Internet?

Works Cited

Finley, Klint. "It's Time to Encrypt the Internet." 17 Apr 2014. Web. 17 Apr 2014. 

Codenomicon. "Heartbleed Bug." Heartbleed. Apr 2014. Web. 17 Apr 2014. 

[shannonenl368]

Tons of web devices are being used to get students actively engaged in scholarly pursuits. Whether it’s online talks or smart blogging, high schools and colleges alike are latching onto these methods to get students involved.

But what effect does this process have on schooling and the web as a...

[mattdacosta]

In an age where people are coming together online to collaborate on projects, a new religion has emerged: Googlism. Google is the closest thing to an actual god the human race will ever see. There is proof.

Personal & Communal

Clay Shirky, in his Digitial Disconnect, argues membership...

[katyiskelly]

Shifting Perspectives: Individual View to Communal Outlook

Brisk growth of technology creates a narrow and fearful view of the world we live in because of personal outlooks. Shifting that view from isolation to communal allows for a more beneficial and hopeful view of the world through the Internet.

Optimism Begins Communally

One of my last blogs details a bleak outlook on corporation take over. It outlines the demise of humanity and freedom at the hands of major firms. I describe the fear that comes with the realization that one person fails to stand up against a social media giant. What can one person do anyways?

A perspective in solitude generates this hopeless view. However, people can come together to change the world they live in, using one of the largest tools there is- the Internet.

Clay Shirky, writer, and analyst of Internet tech, describes the potential behind the Internet as a two way form of media. People move all the way from the personal level- to the communal- to the public- and then to the civic.

What does this mean? Internet users come together to discuss, question, and discover. These communal discourses carry the potential to move into public collaboration.  Public collaboration causes social change, impacting civic duties.(Shirky). Then why the bleak outlook?

Distractions Impact Children, even Students

What about the children?

Articles all over the web depict endless distractions the Internet creates:

Apps

Silly memes

Games

Discussion boards

Ads that target and market users

These diversions not only influence adults, but students, and even children. Readings like this create a bleak outlook from the individual view.

Jenny Lee Paiva, blogger, writes, “...kids want what they see in ads on their screens. Innocent kids are programmed victims of marketing abuse.” Ads pop up on screens while children play with their parents’ iPads. Kids fall victim to ad campaigns while playing online learning games. Ads influences their desires, as well as their needs. How do we protect them?

Paiva laments that parents fail to do much in the world of advertising. Individuals fail to influence ad firms; they fail to create a change in the world.Will parents succumb to their children’s demands? She writes, “Parents can control how much their kids consume”(Paiva).

Parents can control how much media their children consume. This is only one option: singularly  fighting against advertising, a named media monster.

This option limits the largest learning resource we have, making it counterproductive. Shirky writes, “Flexible, cheap, and inclusive media now offers us opportunities to do all sorts of things we once didn’t do”(Shirky 63). Why banish this resource when using it addresses, and often fixes, issues?

Internet technology should be seen as an opportunity. Shirky claims, “All of us have intrinsic motivations, desires to do things because we enjoy them in and of themselves. We now have tools for communicating and sharing, new means for indulging ourselves in those motivations”(Shirky 96).

If parents have the intrinsic motivation to protect their children from the dangers of the Internet, then they have the opportunity to address these issues.

The Internet is extremely useful as a communication tool. Shifting perspective from individual to communal allows for the chance for social change. Parents have the ability to take to discussion boards and discuss, perhaps demand, safer programs for their kids. They’ll find others with the same motivation. They can unite and discuss, even plan for, future action.

Scholars Spend Time Wisely

The rapidly expanding age of technology distracts students now more than ever.

Shannon Jordan, blogger on Twitter, posts, “#Students distracted by technology, impacting post-secondary education #e8s4 fftimes.com/node/268293”(Jordan). The link brings the reader to an article detailing a young college man that dropped out due to overuse of video games.

It’s hard to feel sympathetic for a student that chooses hours of gaming over homework.

So what can college students do with their free time besides skipping classes to guzzle soda and bingeon video games for three days straight? The internet may provide distractions. But it also creates a multitude of tools to write, learn, read, discover- anything they can put their minds to.

Think Big: Think Change

What can these students do? Well, basically anything.

Anyone can use their time and resources effectively. This cognitive surplus of time allows for people to use a two way form of media to communicate. Instead of media, like TV, where the users simply consume, they react. People blog, plan, and attempt to impact the world around them.

Shirky writes about two key components about this resource. He claims, “…the buildup of well over a trillion hours of free time each year on the part of the world’s educated population, and the invention and spread of public media that enable ordinary citizens…to pool that free time in pursuit of activities they like or care about”(Shirky 27).

This form of media allows people to communicate. It allows people to create community, collaborate, even cause social change. Shirky describes how a group of preteen girls, came together on a discussion board to cause social change. They protested their government’s acceptance of being sold low quality meat. They came together on a site for a boy band,  created a community, and decided to publicly protest until they could change their world.

What can we do with our free time and resources? Almost anything if people widen their narrow view to the communal, public, and civic.

Works Cited

Jordan, Shannon. “#Students Distracted by Technology Impacting Post-Secondary Education.” Twitter. 3 Apr 2014. Web. 3 Apr 2014.

Paiva, Jenny.  “Modern Marketing: Child Abuse.” Tumblr. 27 Mar 2014. Web.16 Apr 2014.

Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators. New York: Penguin, 2010. Print.

[oliviapepe2]

Using social media is a part of almost every 20 something’s day to day life. We have always been told that using these sites can hurt us when we are searching for jobs. A recent article by Franklin Morris from TheNextWeb.com begs to differ. “Technology can make us look more human” (Morris).

...

[katyiskelly]

Everything on the Web

We’ve always been warned about what we post on Facebook and the Internet. Whatever you write, whichever photos are uploaded, your comments- they’re all there for the world to see. We’ve always been told to proceed with caution.

However, the world Frank Morrison describes in his article, “5 Ways Technology has Changed Recruiting Forever,” is a lot less bleak. Not only can companies research on their possible employees, but vice versa.

Morrison states, “If you’re a candidate checking out a company you can go to Glassdoor to find out what that company pays and how happy their employees are. That sort of x-ray vision…is a brand new superpower”(Morrison). Using a technology, such as Glassdoor, allows for the job candidate to research the company as well. It allows for future employees to decipher if the job is right for them.

It’s Not What You Know, it’s Who!

Or so the saying goes. However, social media sites like Linkedin and BranchOut make it easier to network and connect in the job finding world. These websites make it easier to form connections, chat, and secure a professional network.

Seamlessly connecting with those on your path to a career is important in the continuously changing world of technology. Writers, engineers, anyone searching for a job need to understand and use technology properly. Social media sites, even Facebook, provide a network of support and people that can vouch for you.

Using Technology to Your Advantage

“There’s a strange irony at play here: as recruiting begins to shift toward a more data-driven model, the entire process of recruiting is beginning to feel more authentic, transparent, and human” (Morrison).

By using technologies to create resumes, build networks, check out companies, and build data is becoming seamless. Companies are receiving data more easily. Employees are creating a network of people through the web.

Works Cited

Morris, Franklin. “5 Ways Technology Has Changed Recruiting Forever.”TheNextWeb.com. N. p., 7 Apr. 2014.

[katyiskelly]

Reddit Offers Public Space for Interaction

The ad on the sidebar of the website, Reddit, caught my eye this morning. Unlike typical websites, Reddit’s ads primarily consist of promoting the website itself; Reddit gifts, Radio Reddit, things of that nature. The one that caught my eye reads, “Tell the government to get a warrant- the fourth ammendment applies online too.”

Using the Web for Social Interaction

There’s a picture of a man dressed brightly behind a computer screen, with the shrouded black figures behind him, all with a bright blue back drop. The quote above is at the top of the image. It’s eye-catching. Maybe even provocative. It grabs attention on it’s site from it’s continuously scrolling reader.

This one ad poses a statement while highlighting a controversial question about the government and privacy concerns. It poses the question, “why do we let the government search and seize our information?” Seemingly alluding to the NSA and the scandal after Edward Snowden spoke out about surveillance issues in the U.S.  It makes a statement: we’re being watched.

What does the ad do about it? It’s not merely offering a statement against the NSA. It goes beyond the personal sphere of reflection and provides a public sphere for redditors to discuss the issue (not to say that the conversation on threads are always golden). But the provision is there nonetheless.

Bridging to Community

The potential to create a community and generate a real conversation is there. Reddit provides that as a forum with threads on all kinds of issues. Some threads are personal, some are more serious. As an open website of information it has an agenda to post an ad like that: keep the internet free and open for information. Just by having an ad that poses this statement portrays the desire to move it to communal, and maybe even into something more. 

The name of the thread is “Protect your Rights,” ( http://www.reddit.com/r/ads/comments/1z36qg/protect_your_rights/?already_submitted=true ). Although not much conversation may be occurring right now, it has the potential to. A community board such as this also has the potential to move from community conversations to social changes. 

A free and open forum that provides a community with ongoing conversation allows for people to interact and plan, maybe even cause social change.

Works Cited

“Protecting Your Rights.” Reddit. User: Snowboi. 27 February 2014. Web. 10 March 2014.

[awkwardwalker]

I made some photos from my narrative assignment into animated gifs. They’ll end up as triptychs when I print for critique. 

[cohenmax93-deactivated20150804]

“One source of television’s negative effects has been the reduction in the amount of human contact…” (Shirky, 7)

Clay Shirky, author of Cognitive Surplus is overblowing the negative effects of television. Television is an escape much like books or movies, and it gives people a base on which they...

[katyiskelly]

We don’t need TV

There’s no physical need for TV. There’s several other ways people can unwind than tuning in and tuning the world around them out. Reading, physical activity, meeting up with friends to chat, just about anything then zoning out during a program. 

But we do derive enjoyment from it. We fall in love with characters, cry for vengeance when they die, feel for them when they hurt. We discuss it with our friends, either on social media sites or in person. 

But can’t we connect over other things as well? That crazy theory we read about on the internet earlier in the day, what we learned in class, our favorite book. Anything with any sort of worthwhile weight attached to it. But we don’t always. And we still like our shows.  

Social Media and the Internet Provide Interactivity

“In recent years especially not only has the quality of programming increased, but the interactivity as well” (Cohen).

Shows may provide content to discuss, but Social Media and other forums provide the means to connect with one another. Not television. The one way communication that TV provides (for the moment, who knows what the future holds), doesn’t allow for viewers to respond through that mean. 

The Future of TV

Shirky states, “One source of television’s negative effects has been the reduction in the amount of human contact…” (Shirky 7). But who knows what the future holds? Maybe one day we can become a part of our shows, get the sensation of being in that reality. 

TV shows can allow for an escape. But that escape and time of unwinding is generally in unplugging from those around you. A reduction in human contact to be with the characters of a fictional reality.

Works Cited

Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers Into Collaborators. Penguin Books. Print.

[katyiskelly]

Looking for Love in all the Wrong Places

Too pudgy. Too blonde. Just look at that unibrow. Is that a chipped tooth? I don’t know why but I just don’t like the way that one looks.

Swiping for Love or Lust?

This. This is what “dating” has become. The app Tinder allows for people to breeze easily through hoards of matches based on location and “common likes” on Facebook.

The easy swiping mechanism allows for the person seeking a date to slide to the right to “like” them, left to pass. Let’s be honest. Since they’re only seeing this person’s photo, along with the easy swiping feature, they’re not fishing for personality. People using this app are doing it on a shallow basis. He’s gross. She’s got a double chin, for Christ’s sake!

What’re They Looking For?

Tayler Willay, student writer, writes about her friends experience with the app, “We texted for a while after, but he was only interested in a cheap hook up and nothing more.”(Willay). This may not be the case for everyone, but it seems pretty common.

The same situation happened to my friend after a date with a girl he met from Tinder. He took her out, and never heard from her again. Are people just looking for a fast connection and “cheap hookup?” Is this actually considered dating?

Choosing someone solely based on their physical appearance, isn’t this a timeless lesson? What happens when you judge a book by it’s cover? C’mon kids, this isn’t dating. What satisfaction can be derived from these cheap and meaningless connections?

It seems like the app is more a source of entertainment, or a way to kill time. Swipe, swipe, swipe. Eh, he’s kind of cute, I’ll like him. This egocentric society we live in grows more narcissistic with each app like this that is created.

Created Personas

Willay writes, “It calls to attention though, that online people can carefully plan their every word, picture, post. We construct an identity for ourselves that is a fallacy of our true self”(Willay).

Carefully constructed personas create a fake identity for this interconnectedness we have online. These communities are built off of nothing but false personas. People posting what they want to post about themselves, becoming whatever they wish to be. This pertains to Facebook. Am I going to post a horrible picture of myself, even if that’s what I sometimes look like. Hell no.

So why create a dating app off of these thin facades of who we are? What kind of world is that?

Works Cited

Willay, Tayler. Huffington Post. “What’s a Tinder?” 3 Apr 2014. Web. 2 Apr 2014.