The Absentminded Philosopher

[generationdigital]

With new technology coming to the public, it is important to remember that the product is not just a device to be sold but rather an extraordinary leap into the future.

Bring on the Glass!

In Josh Lowensohn’s article, “Google Glass now on sale to all in US, but still in beta” the man talks...

[oliviavgauvin]

Capitalism: Google Glass just another Product Google glass is innovative, but it can never be more than a product in a capitalistic system.  Blogger optimistic about Google Glass future In her blog post about the new phase of testing of Google Glass, blogger generationdigital says that we should look as Glass as more than just a product.  It is, as she says, “our future” (generationdigital). Glass is certainly impressive.  Who wouldn’t want to experience augmented reality?  Glass would also allow people to scan QR codes, use social media, and take photographs, all with ease.  As technology guru Pamela Lund says, we not “have more power to change the world than ever before” with technologies like Glass(Lund 1).  Generationdigital is right to point out that the possibilities for Glass are limited only by our imaginations.  But I imagine something different for the future of Glass. Negative effects of new device I agree with generationdigital and Pamela Lund that owning Glass can improve one’s quality of life.  And this is the problem.  Glass is, as of right now only being sold in the US, and only to consumers who can afford its $1,500 price tag.  This means that not everyone can experience the fantasy that generationdigital describes Glass to be.  Actually, it seems that a very small proportion of the population will be able to afford Glass. Google profit-driven Generationdigital’s account of the new phase of Glass releases is positive.  But we can’t trade positivity for reality.  We live in a world where, as she notes “there is profit to be made from such a device” (generationdigital).  Obviously, Google will be making a huge profit from sales of Google glass, and the device will probably remain very expensive for a long time.  This means that generationdigital’s urging to see Glass as more than a product is unrealistic.  It is something that a major company will profit hugely from.  It is something that some people can afford, and others can’t.  In other words, it is a product.  Capitalism limits growth Products make profit.  And profit rules in a capitalistic society.  So, instead of creating what Clay Shirky calls “civic value” (172) by making Glass affordable to a variety of people with a variety of ideas to change the world for the better, Google put a high price tag on its newest product.  This means that Google Glass will not be a tool for creating civic value.  It will be a novelty for people with enough money to buy it.         I’m all for a positive outlook, but capitalism bars the kind of optimism that generationdigital has about Glass.  It is an innovative product that has a lot of potential and could be used for good.  Glass still a product

And in a capitalistic society, this aspect of Glass is what sticks out.  It is the factor that will decide whether it will be used to create civic value, or as a toy to help people improve their golf game and connect with their friends.  This is not an attack on Glass, but an attack on the system in which it was created and is being sold.  And this “attack,” as Robert McChesney points out, is not unwarranted.  "If capitalism is as great as its defenders claim, it can survive and even prosper by being subjected to criticism, examination, and open debate. And if it cannot triumph after a round in the hot seat, this becomes a conversation that was long overdue" (McChesney).  Works Cited Generationdigital. "Google Glass More than a Product, It Is the Future." Web log post. Tumblr. N.p., 14 May 2014. Web. 14 May 2014. Lund, Pamela. Massively Networked: How the Convergence of Social Media and Technology Is Changing Your Life. San Francisco: PLI Media, 2011. Print. McChesney, Robert W. Digital Disconnect. New York: New, 2013. Print. Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators. New York: Penguin, 2010. Print.

[oliviavgauvin]

Google Glass: dream or expensive nightmare?

Google Glass sounds like something out of a dream.  But it is not as “available” as it might seem to be, and is out of the question for most people.  Most people, that is, who could use technology to create civic value.  Google glass is cool, but we need technology that is more affordable and helpful.    Google Glass: a dream come true? The idea of Google glass sounds like something out of a dream, or a sci-fi movie. Picture this: you are walking down the street.   You need directions, and a map pops up, complete with directions to get to the nearest Starbucks.  You ask where your friend is, and his location shows up on your map.  You order your coffee, and can see the money coming out of your account.  And you take a picture of your drink, post it on social media, and can see the “likes” racking up.   You have access to virtually any application you want, literally before your eyes.  You don’t even need to move your hands.   Glass availability increasing According to Josh Lowensohn, more people will finally be able to live the dream of Google Glass.  Google has entered a new phase of beta testing in which it “wants to get the device in the hands of anyone who wants to buy it” (Lowensohn).   This comes after years of very limited availability.  For anyone who has been planning on buying Google Glass, but hasn’t been one of the just-over-10,000 people who could get their hands on the device, this is good news. Glass price unaffordable Even Lowensohn acknowledges that the availability of Google Glass is still limited.  He says that Google will sell their devices to the general public… “as long as it's got the units on hand” (Lowensohn).  But this is not the only way in which the dream of Google Glass is not available to everyone. Even with a more appealing design than the original and manufacturing of enough devices for a “a full-blown consumer launch” later this year, (Lowensohn) Google Glass still caters to a very limited customer base.   The device is only being sold to consumers in the United States.  The the prohibitively high $1,500 price tag makes it financially unavailable for the vast majority of Americans.   Civic Value: where is it? In this context, in which we have an innovative device that is available only to an elite few, it is no wonder that the most “interesting” services offered are golf helpers and translators (Lowensohn).   But from a company as powerful as Google, shouldn’t we expect more than interesting? Internet and technology expert Clay Shirky points out that, with the help of technology, individuals can move beyond creating personal and community value to creating public and civic value (172).  In other words, individual people can change the world.   A major corporation like Google should create its own civic value, by making its value-producing technology available to all who can use it productively.  And, according to Shirky, this is just about everyone.   In other words, Google should be able to give us something that is more than just cool and interesting.  And it should give it to the people who can use it to create positive change.  And this includes a lot of people who don’t have $1,500 to spare.   Glass blinds us to global issues Rebecca MacKinnon, in her Consent of the Networked, highlights Google when she talks about Siva Vaidhyanathan’s The Googalization of Everything.  Vaidhyanathan warns that Google “encourages a dangerously ‘blind faith in technology’ on the part of people who use Google services.  Such faith, he argues, blinds us to what companies might be doing differently, how their internal decisions affect our lives in ways we have never thought about, and whether our excitement with the new technologies lulls us into accepting risks that we do not see or understand” (MacKinnon 10). Now, it seems that more and more people are “[buying] into [Google’s] vision of the future” (Lowensohn).  But I’m not buying it.  And not only because I need to pay my rent and bills.  I don’t want to buy a pair of glasses that will make me blind.      In our excitement about Google glass, have we forgotten about global issues?  When Google makes a device that I can afford that will help me to combat poverty and hunger, I will be impressed.   Until then, technology for the sake of technology will be more of a nightmare than a dream. Works Cited Lowensohn, Josh. "Google Glass Now on Sale to All in US, but Still in Beta." The Verge. Vox Media, Inc., 13 May 2014. Web. 14 May 2014. MacKinnon, Rebecca. Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom. New York: Basic Books, 2012. Print. Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators. New York: Penguin, 2010. Print.

[oliviavgauvin]

Net neutrality: loss of neutrality is loss of democracy

The FCC is effectively killing net neutrality.  When net neutrality dies, it brings civic value, freedom, and democracy with it to the grave. We can use the internet to create positive civic changes.  But only if our government saves net neutrality.    

Internet optimism On April 23rd, I tweeted: Mobile phones tool for combatting #illiteracy where books and computers are inaccessible. http://www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/2014/04/23/could-smartphones-save-millions-from-illiteracy/ … #e8s4 #UNESCO (Gauvin). In countries with high illiteracy, people can’t afford books.  But they have internet access through cell phones.  Mobile phones can serve as “a gateway to long-form text” (Guerrini). In other words, internet technology can solve major problems in the world.   Optimism hasty? Just the next day, Katy Kelly wasn’t so optimistic about the internet: Goodbye to #NetNeutrality ? Will the #FCC allow for companies to demand higher prices for higher speeds? #e8s4 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/23/net-neutrality_n_5201034.html?utm_hp_ref=technology … (Kelly). Brett McLeod was disturbed: #FCC threatens #NetNeutrality with new plans. Goodbye Freedom. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/23/306265434/reports-fcc-poised-for-about-face-on-net-neutrality … #e8s4 (McLeod).   These microbloggers were reacting to a draft of the FCC’s new net neutrality rules.   Net neutrality: what is it? According to internet expert Rebecca MacKinnon, net neutrality is the idea that “networks should be required by law to be ‘neutral’ in their handling of content” (MacKinnon 119).   Under the new rules, ISPs could charge for fast service.  This would give “preferential treatment” (Guarini) to websites owned by those who can afford it.  This means faster service for major corporations.   Hanna: Goodbye, net neutrality; hello, classism. 



The latest rules doesn’t kill net neutrality.  But the FCC is pushing it closer to its grave.  The consequences of losing net neutrality are huge.   Blogger Allison Hanna points out that the loss of net neutrality is essentially the condoning of classism (Hanna).    

Wealthy people often have desktop computers or laptops.  These devices access the internet through broadband.  Broadband may remain neutral (for now).   Poorer people are more likely to only have access to the internet through mobile devices.  They are more subject to surveillance and censorship than people who have broadband devices.  This is due to a “compromise” in which wireless internet providers were allowed to “manage and prioritize their traffic” (122).   “A lack of net neutrality makes censorship - whether by companies, government, or some mix of the two - much easier to implement and much less publicly visible, let alone accountable” (MacKinnon 121). Some people just can’t afford free access to the web. Literacy or Freedom?  My optimism over the potential for cell phones to combat illiteracy was premature.   It would be great for people in poor countries to learn to read.  But they will be reading censored material.  They will be watched by their governments. And they will be influenced by corporate interests.  



Neutrality: we all need it



Joshua DuBois highlights another way in which “the end of net neutrality could widen the gap between the rich and poor” (Hanna). 



DuBois tells a future story of a poor black male.  With aid from the programs to help “tech-savvy young minority students,” (DuBois) he is able to go to college.  He gets to the point of launching a “radical new video service” (DuBois) online.  But the young man can’t afford the startup price for the bandwidth that his service requires.  This high fee, payed to internet service providers, was allowed by the FCC in 2014.  



Under the new rules, the only people and companies who would be able to launch innovative new services would be those who are already worth millions of dollars.   And, let’s be honest.  Multi-million dollar corporations don’t exactly have the best track record of prioritizing the greater good.  



Civic value destroyed The proposed rules would effectively kill net neutrality.  Net neutrality is essential for the kind of freedom we claim to value in the US. Blogger Katy Kelly and internet expert Clay Shirky think that we can use the internet to come together and change the world.  Kelly says that the major hurdle to creating civic change online, and the reason for a pessimistic attitude about the internet, is a “perspective in solitude” (Kelly).  “Shifting perspective from individual to communal allows for the chance for social change” (Kelly).   Kelly and Shirky are optimistic about the internet’s potential for civic value.  

But the death of net neutrality would severely diminish this potential. Democracy needs neutrality I’m not a pessimist.  We can use the internet to create civic value.  But we need net neutrality as a basic starting point.  As net neutrality proponents argue, “it is a prerequisite for Internet freedom, and ultimately as important as the First Amendment when it comes to ensuring  a free and democratic discourse” (MacKinnon 120).   The debate over the FCC’s proposed rules boils down to a debate over freedom.  The new rules would restrict internet access, for individuals and companies, based on how much freedom they can afford.  Why, in a democratic society in 2014, are we even having this debate? Works Cited DuBois, Joshua. “Killing Net Neutrality Kills the Dreams of Young Entrepreneurs.” The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 27 Apr. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. Gauvin, Olivia (oliviavgauvin). “Mobile phones tool for combatting #illiteracy where books and computers are inaccessible. http://www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/2014/04/23/could-smartphones-save-millions-from-illiteracy/ … #e8s4 #UNESCO.” 23 Apr 2014, 10:21 a.m. Tweet. Guarini, Drew. "Feds May Be Looking To Bail On Net Neutrality: WSJ." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 04 May 2014. Guerrini, Federico. "Could Mobile Phones Save Millions From Illiteracy?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 4 May 2014.

Hanna, Allison. “Goodbye, Net Neutrality. Hello, Censorship, Surveillance, and Classism.” Internet Communication & Culture. Tumblr, 25 Apr. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. Kelly, Katy (katyiskelly). “Goodbye to #NetNeutrality ? Will the #FCC allow for companies to demand higher prices for higher speeds? #e8s4 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/23/net-neutrality_n_5201034.html?utm_hp_ref=technology ….” 24 Apr 2014, 9:50 a.m. Tweet. Kelly, Katy. “Shifting Perspectives: Individual View to Communal Outlook.” Where Are We Headed?. Tumblr, 17 Apr. 2014. Web. 4 May. 2014. McLeod, Brett (bmcleodumd). “#FCC threatens #NetNeutrality with new plans. Goodbye Freedom. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/23/306265434/reports-fcc-poised-for-about-face-on-net-neutrality … #e8s4.” 24 Apr 2014, 10:01 a.m. Tweet.

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

[allisonhanna8]

Goodbye, Net Neutrality?

Drew Guarini ‘s “Feds May Be Looking To Bail On Net Neutrality” claims that the latest blow to net neutrality could be killer.

This attack comes from the FCC’s new set of rules. The FCC will allow service providers to give some websites faster traffic in exchange for...

[oliviavgauvin]

Net neutrality dies, takes freedom and civic value with it to the grave. The new proposed rules would effectively kill net neutrality.  Net neutrality is essential for the kind of freedom we claim to value in the US.  And for the civic value to uphold this freedom in a changing world.  Hanna: Goodbye, net neutrality; hello, classism. Blogger Allison Hanna correctly points out that the loss of net neutrality is essentially the condoning of classism (Hanna).  Wealthy people often have desktop computers or laptops, which access the internet through broadband.  In the latest blow to net neutrality, broadband may remain neutral (for now).  Poorer people are more likely to only have access to the internet through mobile devices.  This makes them more subject to surveillance and censorship than people who have broadband devices.  Basically, they can’t afford free access to the web.  DuBois: Mobile users aren’t the only ones hurt In his article for The Daily Beast, Joshua DuBois highlights another way in which “the end of net neutrality could widen the gap between the rich and poor” (Hanna).  In his article, DuBois tells a future story of a black male from the far west side of Detroit.  With help from the recent initiatives to help “tech-savvy young minority students,” (DuBois) he is able to go to college and get to the point of launching a “radical new video service” (DuBois) online.  He is unable, however, to afford the high startup price for the bandwidth that his service requires.  This exorbitant fee, payed to internet service providers, was allowed by the FCC in 2014.  “So it's off to an engineering job at big firm for this brilliant youngster, where he'll pour his ideas into an existing structure rather than creating something on his own—something that could have allowed his own family, and the community around him, to flourish” (DuBois). The web is great… if you can afford it. The debate over the FCC's proposed rules boils down to a debate over freedom and class.  The new rules would restrict internet access, for individuals and companies, based on how much freedom they can afford.  This, as Allison Hanna points out, is called classism.  Why, in 2014, are we even having this debate? Those who are not already disgusted should think about this:  the death of net neutrality would severely diminish the potential for what Clay Shirky calls civic value (Shirky 175).  In other words, the loss of net neutrality hurts rich people too.  Under the new rules, the only people and companies who would be able to launch innovative new services would be those who are already worth millions of dollars. 

And, let’s be honest: multi-million dollar corporations don’t exactly have the best track record of prioritizing the greater good.    Works Cited DuBois, Joshua. "Killing Net Neutrality Kills the Dreams of Young Entrepreneurs." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 27 Apr. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. Hanna, Allison. “Goodbye, Net Neutrality. Hello, Censorship, Surveillance, and Classism.” Internet Communication & Culture. Tumblr, 25 Apr. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators. New York: Penguin, 2010. Print.

[oliviavgauvin]

Digital Shadow: Dramatization of Quantified Self

The quantified self is neither the dream that Pamela Lund makes it out to be, nor the nightmare that “Digital Shadow” does.   Lund’s dream of the quantified self Pamela Lund dreams about the quantified self.  She thinks that it would be helpful to represent human existence numerically and graphically.  But she doesn’t address the reality that we are not the only ones with access to our quantified selves.   “Digital Shadow” creates fear     A marketing stunt for a new videogame called “Watch Dogs” goes over the top in alerting users to the potential dangers of participating in social media.  The app, called “Digital Shadow,” allows Facebook users to find out just how much Facebook “knows” about them.  It does so in the most alarming way possible.    According to the app, humans are not individuals, but data clusters (“Gauvin”).  The commercial for the video game says “anyone could be your enemy, and anyone could be watching when you least expect it” (Watch).   So what does Facebook know about me? When you log into the app through your facebook account, you see the phrase “infiltrating target” instead of “loading.”  Once the app has loaded, you see your personal Facebook file.  Most of the information is related to ways to harm you.   The first section, for example, is a list of Facebook friends labeled as “collateral damage”:   

The people who you interact with most are listed as “pawns” who “can be used against you.”  

People who look at your profile a lot are considered “Stalkers.”  These are people who “can be mined for further information about you.”  

“Liabilities” are contacts who “consistently tag you in posts and photos, exposing your data.  They can be used to weaken you.”

“Obsessions” are people who “do not reciprocate your interaction and can be potentially hostile.”  These are “people who can be tapped as allies in an attack against you.”

“Scapegoats” are people who you don’t talk to very often.  They are people who you “will sacrifice for self-preservation.”  

Another section analyzes your posts and labels you as “neurotic,” “depressive,” “deviant,” “volatile,” or “submissive.”  Yet another area of the file goes through your data and generates possible passwords that you might use.    At the very end of your file, you can even see an estimate of how much money your “digital shadow” is worth, should someone want to buy your identity.     Digital Shadow accurate? The information that Digital Shadow showed me about myself was only somewhat accurate.  One major flaw is that it seemed to weigh my activity from four years ago just as heavily as my activity from last week.   In addition, Digital Shadow reassured me that I don’t live my life on social media. For example, only three out of my six “pawns” were actually people who “could be used against me,” one of whom was my brother.  The rest were casual friends.  People who I am closer with, I don’t really interact with as much on Facebook.  I text them, call them, or talk to them in person.   Consider the source Digital Shadow makes us think about how much information we put out on social media.  It reminds us that this information could be used against us.   Facebook does have access to a lot of information about its users.  As Rebecca MacKinnon notes, this means that the government also has access to this information if they pressure Facebook for it.  Anyone who hacks into Facebook can also see this information. But it is important to remember that Digital Shadow is a marketing stunt and a dramatization.   Digital Shadow wasn’t really made to make a statement about privacy or social media.  It was made to sell a video game.   No need to fear, just to think Digital Shadow is for entertainment and marketing.  But the idea that we are data clusters is important.  The quantified self is becoming a reality.  We don’t need to fear the quantified self and see those around us as enemies.  But we should think about the implications of companies, governments, and others knowing more information about us than we know about ourselves.   Works Cited "Gauvin, Olivia." Watch Dogs - Digital Shadow. Ubisoft Entertainment, 24 Apr. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2014. Lund, Pamela. Massively Networked: How the Convergence of Social Media and Technology Is Changing Your Life. San Francisco: PLI Media, 2011. Print. MacKinnon, Rebecca. Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom. New York: Basic Books, 2012. Print. Watch Dogs. "Watch_Dogs: Welcome To Chicago." Online video clip.
YouTube. YouTube, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.

[bmcleodumd]

Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD) involved obsession with one’s own body, and their appearance. It leads to crippling a crippling level of self-consciousness. Researchers are beginning to believe “selfies,” the act of taking a picture of yourself, has become a sign of BDD.

Selfie-Syndrome

They are...

[oliviavgauvin]

Selfie-hate, self-love, and a few other things Selfies have a bad reputation for being vain and narcissistic.  But self-portraiture can be a form of self-love. Okay, I’ll admit it  People with body dysmorphia do take a lot of selfies. So I haven’t been officially diagnosed with BDD.  But I have been through the spectrum of eating disorder diagnoses.  Body dysmorphia is pretty much assumed in an eating disorder.  People with accurate ideas about their bodies don’t starve themselves, binge and purge, overexercise, or otherwise abuse their earthly vessels.  What body dysmorphia is (and isn’t) Body dysmorphia isn’t noticing that your body has flaws or feeling less-than-perfect.  It is letting these flaws push you to action against yourself.  It is when one pound can ruin your week.  It isn’t thinking you’re ugly and disgusting 100% of the time.  It is thinking that you have to be beautiful and perfect 100% of the time.  People with distorted views of their bodies can have “good body image days.”  These are selfie days.  So Brett McLeod is right to point out that people with serious body image issues and distortion take more selfies (McLeod) than people who are concerned with their bodies in a more normal way.  As someone who has spent a lot of time with people with body distortion (and follow these people on social media), I’m not surprised. Filtered views People with BDD don’t take selfies like the average person.  I wouldn’t post a photo  where I didn’t look great.  We add filters to bring photos from “good” to “flawless.”  We post the photos on social media and wait for the likes to roll in.  Likes mean that other people think that our looks are acceptable.  The problem is that we still tell ourselves otherwise.  I was wearing a lot of makeup.  I didn’t eat very much that day.  I was tanner then than I am now.  I added a filter.  In real life, I don’t look like I do in my selfies.  This is where Allison Hanna’s message of empowerment comes in.  Seriously, read it. An upside to the selfie craze?  Hanna disagrees with McLeod’s assertion that “selfies need to stop” (McLeod). She sees self-portraiture as a way to defy mainstream media’s unrealistic and homogenous image of beauty.  Taking a photo of oneself can be a part of self and body acceptance.  “Selfies offer the radical opportunity to represent and celebrate our bodies on our own terms” (Hanna). What’s a selfie addict to do? For me, a truly radical act would be to take and post a selfie where I don’t look good.  No re-takes, no filters, maybe even no makeup.  No waiting for likes, because my beauty is not dependent on others’ validation and acknowledgement of it.  I can look at it, next to my filtered, “unreal” selfies, and remind myself that these are photos of the same person, with the same worth.  As Hanna says, “body acceptance is not narcissistic” (Hanna).  Body-hatred is much more vain and self-indulgent.  Selfies don’t need to stop.  Self-hatred does.   And when I have a better, more loving relationship with my body, I might still post a selfie every once in a while.  With and without makeup.  With and without a filter.  Is it really so bad for someone to like how they look? And just a few other, somewhat related, things: Misleading photographs Blogger Dylan Fagundes contributes to this conversation with his post on SkinneePix, a new app that allows users to edit their photos so that they look thinner (Fagundes).  This app brings the magic of Photoshop to the average insecure teenage girl for only $1.99. In a response to this, Caitlin Krim points out that the unrealistic images of bodies portrayed in mainstream media are often photoshopped (Krim).  The goal is for companies to make us feel inadequate, and to convince us that their product will help. Diet and exercise ads often use “before and after” pictures.  The Australian fitness blogger behind “MelVFitness” debunks these transformation photos with two photos of herself, taken 15 minutes apart, that could pass as a before and after series.  Her point? “Don't be deceived by what you see in magazines & on Instagram.. You never see the dozens of other pics they took that wernt (sic) as flattering” (Melvfitness). The blog post can be accessed here: http://melvfitness.blogspot.com/2013/08/transformation-or-few-simple-tweeks.html Feminism and Body Image   On a related topic, I highly recommend Claire Mysko’s “Feminists Have Food and Body Image Issues, Too: 5 Ways to Get Over the Shame,” which can be accessed here: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/feminists-have-body-issues-too/  Works Cited Fagundes, Dylan. “New app sheds weight.”  Forethought of an (un)healthy mind. Tumblr, 19 Apr. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. Hanna, Allison. “Crying Out: Selfie-Help.” Internet Communication & Culture. Tumblr, 17 Apr. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. Krim, Caitlin. “Virtual Appearance: Getting Us Picture Perfect.” Tumblr, 19 Apr. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. McLeod, Brett. "Crying Out: Selfie-Help." Brett McLeod UMD. Tumblr, 17 Apr. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. Melvfitness. “The hidden truths behind a transformation pic!.” Blogspot. 2 Aug. 2013. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. Mysko, Claire. "Feminists Have Food and Body Image Issues, Too: 5 Ways to Get Over the Shame." Everyday Feminism. Everyday Feminism, 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.

[oliviavgauvin]

Chinese censorship legal, but still not okay

Censorship by non-democratic governments is, by democratic standards, legal.  

US District Judge Jesse Furman dismissed a case against Chinese search engine Baidu.  Advocates for democracy said that Baidu blocked their content.  Under demands from China, Baidu prevented US users from seeing texts with democratic leanings. Censorship a reality The Chinese government does censor.  Baidu users can’t see content that favors democracy.  When you type “democracy” into Baidu, the only suggestion is “is overrated” (Dougherty).  Try it.  It works.   Few question whether censorship happens.  But what kind of problem is it? Censorship legal in U.S.    Furman ruled that it’s not a legal problem.  He said that "the First Amendment protects Baidu's right to advocate for systems of government other than democracy… just as… it protects plaintiffs' rights to advocate for democracy” (Stempel). He may be right.  But he can only address the legality of censorship in the US. Free speech and free access to information are presupposed.   Information inaccessible in China This access does not exist in China.  Some Chinese don’t even know the extent of censorship.  They are blocked from views that contradict what China wants them to think. The judge said that “to hold Baidu liable for its editorial judgments... would contravene the principles upon which our political system and cultural life rest: That each person should decide for himself… the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration and adherence" (Stempel). We can’t take the judgement out of this context.  In the US, people are not limited by Baidu.  They can get information that favors democracy in China.  They can use other search engines.  They can publish their own content.  This content can be accessed by other search engines. What is Furman saying? Judge Furman is not saying censorship is okay.  But its less of a problem where information is available from other sources. In the US, we have free speech and access. Taken out of this context,  Judge Furman’s ruling does not hold.  The Chinese political system and cultural life make up a very different context.  They do not rest on the principle that “each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration and adherence.”     Censorship in China is a problem.   And the laws of a democracy can’t address it.  Censorship by Baidu is legal in the US, but it is still a human rights issue in China.      Works Cited Dougherty, Sarah. "Can China's Baidu search engine censor results in America? Sure, says a US court." GlobalPost. GlobalPost, 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. Stempel, Jonathan. "China's Baidu Defeats U.S. Lawsuit over Censored Search Results." GlobalPost. GlobalPost, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.

[thenickmurrayblog]

Civic Tweetivism

Activism is not just for Birkenstock clad, weed smoking, tree hugging hippies. A new era of tech-savvy, civic minded folks can now join the fight for free and without sacrificing everything, using social media like Twitter.

"The dramatically reduced cost of public address,"...

[allisonhanna8]

With smartphones in hand, we are always plugged into the digital media network. Our actions shape the future. We can engage as helpless individuals, or as powerful participants who create civic value.

Escape marketing media’s domination

Sometimes it feels like the media dominates our lives....

[katyiskelly]

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...

[oliviavgauvin]

Humanitarian journalism: advocacy is biased... and valuable

Unbiased journalism gives access to news we need to make informed decisions.  “Journalism” by special-interest humanitarian groups is biased and may not count as journalism.  It is advocacy.  Advocacy creates public and civic value by promoting human rights issues of the internet age.  The ability to publish online gives us all the chance to be advocates.         



Journalism dying?



Robert McChesney fears that journalism is dying. News media are owned by profit-seeking firms.  They publish whatever “news” will make the most money.  Professional journalism is a thing of the past.  But what about a new kind of journalism?

Publishing “a button”  



As media expert Clay Shirky notes, publishing is now “a button.”  People using online media don’t have to go through a rigorous process to get their work out there.  Anyone can publish anything, with the click of a button.



New news-writers



In his article for Gigaom, Mathew Ingram says groups like Human Rights Watch and the ACLU are now writing news stories.  Their goal is to bring awareness and credibility to topics like human rights.  


Non-profit groups include people around the world.  These people work on campaigns that they care about.  The works that they publish might get readers involved in worthy, global causes.  Or at least get people to care about the issues they address.  



“Real” journalism: we still need it



The publishing button allows people to spread the word about important issues. But the “journalism” that advocacy groups do is inherently biased, because they need support and awareness to accomplish their humanitarian goals.   

The journalism that reports on facts, the loss of which McChesney mourns, isn’t meant to sway opinions in any certain way.  We still need “the by-the-numbers, “objective” coverage” (Ingram). 

Journalistic writing by advocacy groups is advocacy

Should we just call writing published by advocacy groups something other than “journalism”?  We can’t just write it off as too biased to be helpful.  

The word “advocacy” comes from the Latin advocare.  Advocare is a mix of ad (“to, towards, at”) and vocare (“to call, to summon”).  To advocate for human rights is to call to others to support human rights.  

This is what non-profit groups do when they publish journalistic writing.   

Ingram warns that non-profits “have to be careful that they don’t damage their ability to fulfill their mandate, which of course isn’t to commit acts of journalism but to help those in need” (Ingram).  But doing journalism is a way of helping those in need.  It is advocacy.

Advocate bloggers

The internet that brings the publish button also brings problems. Many of these new issues are human rights issues.  

Blogger Jenny Lee Paiva warns that exposing children to targeted advertising through technology is child abuse (Justbeacyjenny).  On Twitter, Jessica Ferreira tweets that “online targeting is becoming increasingly invasive” (Ferreira).  

Brett McLeod is worried that loss of privacy online makes us products of the internet (bmcleodumd).  I go so far as to say that “the commodification of the internet has led to a commodification of the right to privacy,” making our rights subject to market forces (oliviavgauvin).

These bloggers, like Human Rights Watch or the ACLU, are advocates.  The issues they are concerned about are human rights issues of the digital age.

Public, civic value

Advocates can create public value.  The publish button widens and diversifies their audience.  Their blogs can be read by the public, newcomers and outsiders alike (Shirky 174).

Advocates can also create civic value, with the goal of improving society (175) by raising awareness of its problems.  

Public and civic value are hard to create.  Not every advocate will reach a wide audience or inspire change.  But pressing the publish button opens possibilities for doing so.  

We have human rights issues.  And we have the internet, a tool that can help us to address these issues.  I want to know the facts.  But I also want people to be swayed to support groups that work on important issues. We need to hear views that are biased in favor of making positive changes.  

Works Cited

Bmcleodumd [Brett McLeod]. “Privacy Expired.” Tumblr. 27 Mar 2014. Web. 16 Apr 2014.

Ferreira, Jessica (jess_ferreira14). Online targeting is becoming increasingly invasive. We are being watched... http://abcnews.go.com/Business/google-facebook-watching-online-behavioral-tracking-regulated/story?id=14623510 … #e8s4.” 31 Mar 2014, 12:38 p.m. Tweet.

Ingram, Mathew. “Brands Aren’t the Only Ones Becoming Publishers and Doing Journalism - Advocacy Groups Are Too.” Gigaom. Gigaom, Inc., 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2014.

Justbeachyjenny [Jenny Lee Paiva]. “Modern Marketing: Child Abuse.” Tumblr. 27 Mar 2014. Web. 16 Apr 2014.

McChesney, Robert W. Digital Disconnect. New York: New, 2013. Print.

Oliviavgauvin [Olivia Gauvin]. “Internet surveillance, capitalism commodify human rights.” Tumblr. 27 Mar 2014. Web. 16 Apr 2014.

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

[thenickmurrayblog]

Triggerstreet.com

Triggerstreet.com, is a creation of Kevin Spacey, which enables professional and amateur writers and film makers to help each other to get published, to get their films made, or just to engage with other artists.

The website offers a community that leads into the kind of...

[oliviavgauvin]

Social Media: what are you getting out of your social network?

Social media can be a huge waste of time. But it can also be used to create value above and beyond your group of online friends.  The social media time drain Many of the ways that we use social media are a waste of time: stalking exes or people we don’t even know, scrolling through pictures, or obsessively re-checking that special person’s “best friends” list.  I don’t really care what someone I went to high school with had for breakfast, and I don’t need to see anyone’s filtered selfies.  But “checking” social  networks is still one of the first things I do every day.  Clay Shirky says that social media doesn’t have to be just a time drain.  We can use social networks to create personal, community, public, and civic value (Shirky 172). Trigger Street Labs is a productive social network. It is reciprocal.  In the “to have a friend, you have to be a friend” line of reasoning, Trigger Street requires users to review others’ work in order to submit their own work for review ("Trigger Street Labs").  If you give helpful, constructive feedback, you are more likely to get the same in return.  It allows for networking and building relationships that would otherwise be physically impossible.  Drafts are shared all over the world.  When I submit a draft or review someone else's work, I am digitally “meeting” friends with shared interests and potential future collaborators. It is free, because the motives for running it and using it are built in.   Trigger Street Labs is an offshoot of Trigger Street Productions, the entertainment company behind House of Cards, Captain Phillips, and The Social Network ("Trigger Street Productions").  Trigger Street Labs is a place where its parent company can access great ideas for its next project.  And the people with these ideas have a chance of having their work noticed and funded.  Both parties benefit, and both parties participate willingly.   It creates personal and community value, with the potential for public and civic value.  Those who use Trigger Street Labs can increase their skills and better their work, while engaging with others.  The work that is really good will naturally rise to the top, and become available outside of Trigger Street, in the general public.  Depending on the content, projects that become public may also become civic, spreading a political or humanitarian message.  How do you use social media? Trigger Street Labs is just one example of a constructive social network, serving a specific community.  The idea of a social network facilitating the creation public and civic value is eye-opening.  It is not the social network itself that can create the value.  It is how we use social media.      Next time you are scrolling through self-pitying tweets or you reach the end of someone’s photos, think about what you really want from a social network.  Social media companies make money off of their users.  Shouldn’t we be using them for something other than killing our time?

Works Cited

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

"Trigger Street Productions." Trigger Street Productions. Trigger Street Productions, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.

"Trigger Street Labs." Trigger Street Labs. Trigger Street Labs, 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.

[oliviavgauvin]

Journalism by Advocacy Groups Really Journalism?

Journalism by advocacy groups is a step toward reviving journalism.  But we need unbiased, professional journalism.  Access to the information we need to make informed decisions is crucial to democracy.    The death of journalism? Robert McChesney fears that journalism as we know it is headed for its demise.  And for good reason.  News media are owned by profit-seeking firms.  They publish whatever “news” will make the most money.  Professional journalism is a thing of the past.  But what about a new kind of journalism? A new kind of news In his article for Gigaom, Mathew Ingram says that groups like Human Rights Watch, the ACLU and the Cato Institute are now writing news storied.  Their goal is to to bring awareness and credibility to topics like human rights and climate change.   Publishing now “a button”   As media theorist Clay Shirky notes, publishing is now “a button.”  People using online media don’t have to go through a rigorous process to get their work out there.  Anyone can publish anything, with the click of a button. Negative side to publishing by advocacy groups? Ingram notes the benefits and disadvantages of journalism by non-profit groups. Advocacy groups include various kinds of people, around the world.  These people work on campaigns that they care about.  The works that they publish might get readers involved in worthy, global causes.  Or at least get people to care about the issues they address.   Ingram also says that these organizations “have to be careful that they don’t damage their ability to fulfill their mandate, which of course isn’t to commit acts of journalism but to help those in need” (Ingram).   We still need journalism I am all for spreading the word about issues like human rights and climate change.  I want people to be swayed to support groups that work on these issues.  We need people to write about them.  And some people need to hear views that are biased in favor of making positive changes.   But maybe we should call this kind of writing something other than journalism.  The kind of journalism that is crucial to democracy, the loss of which McChesney mourns, is unbiased reporting of facts.  It is not intended to sway peoples‘ opinions in any particular direction.    It is liberating and democratic that anyone can publish anything.  I’m sure that the quantity of published works has increased hugely since publishing became “a button.”  But quantity is no substitute for quality in true journalism.  We still need “the by-the-numbers, “objective” coverage” (Ingram). 

Works Cited

Ingram, Mathew. "Brands Aren’t the Only Ones Becoming Publishers and Doing Journalism - Advocacy Groups Are Too." Gigaom. Gigaom, Inc., 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2014.

McChesney, Robert W. Digital Disconnect. New York: New, 2013. Print.

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

[generationdigital]

In an article released earlier today, “Instagram users complained about the social media site on Wednesday afternoon when they noticed photos from five days ago” (Vultaggio).This is all fine and dandy but was there really a need for these complaints?

According to a poll, 96% of people...

[oliviavgauvin]

Instagram glitch causes panic on other social networks.

Instagram had some technical difficulties Wednesday, but maybe it’s not such a bad thing for us to be reminded not to count on technology.

 

Instagram glitch causes serious problems.



Wednesday night, I was scrolling along on my Instagram app, “liking” the kinds of posts that I would usually like, without a care in the world.  After liking one particular photo, however, I noticed that it had been posted five days ago.  What’s worse that that?  It was a selfie.  



Great.  Now I’m officially a creep. 



I continued scrolling, and noticed that all of the photos in my feed, except for the first few, were from five days ago.  Clearly there was a problem with Instagram.  I wondered whether other people were having the same issue.  



They were.   



Problem with social media? Complain about it on social media.  



On Twitter on Wednesday afternoon, “Why is Instagram” and “My Instagram” were two of the top 10 most discussed topics (“Instagram”).  People used one social network to complain, and ask and answer questions about another social network.  Pamela Lund, who seems to think that being “Massively Networked” is a good thing, would be thrilled.  



As of noon on Thursday, the problem seemed to be fixed… for me at least.  Thank goodness.



Blessing in disguise?



People were obviously angered by the temporary glitch.  But, as generationdigital asks, did this really merit the level of complaints it caused?  



We often forget that the technology we use, including social media apps, are there mostly for entertainment purposes.  They don’t fulfill any actual needs.  Life goes on when they don’t work properly.  



Annoying? Yes.  Inconvenient? Sure.  An actual problem that affects peoples’ lives?  Not really.  And if Instagram’s malfunctioning causes problems other than slight embarrassment or annoyance, a technical glitch is the least of your worries.  



The more technology you use, the more you notice when it doesn’t work.



Instagram has 200 million users who share an average of 60 million photos per day (“Instagram”).  We should expect the Facebook-owned network to run into problems every now and then, just as most forms of technology do.



Despite my minor faux pas of liking an almost-week-old selfie, I'm not concerned when social networks run into problems.  As generationdigital notes, perhaps this is a reminder for us to put our phones down every once in a while.  



Besides, do I really need or even want to see everything that people post on Instagram?  If the hiding of recent photos spared me from seeing peoples’ #aftersex selfies (Boone), then I’m okay with it. 



Works Cited



Boone, John. “#AfterSex Selfies Are a Horrible New Instagram Trend (That Needs to Be Stopped Immediately).” E! Online. Entertainment Television, LLC, 2 Apr. 2014. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.



"Instagram Bug Hides Recent Photos." ABC News. ABC News Network, 3 Apr. 2014. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.



Lund, Pamela. Massively Networked: How the Convergence of Social Media and Technology Is Changing Your Life. San Francisco: PLI Media, 2011. Print.

[oliviavgauvin]

University researchers resist social media, at what cost?

Sharing research through social media (SM) can create four kinds of value that Prof. Clay Shirkey lists.  These are personal, community, public and civic value (Shirkey 172). But elitism precludes the benefits of sharing and collaboration. Social media not used to share findings. According to C. Greenhow, social media isn’t used often to share research.  “A minority of [researchers] are using… [SM] to get their results and… insights out and into the hands of the public.”  This is true “even though the mission of public universities is to create knowledge that makes a difference in people’s lives” (“Ivory”). “There’s not much tweeting from the ivory tower” (“Ivory”).   Only 15 percent of researchers use Twitter for professional reasons.  Twenty-eight percent use YouTube.  And 39 percent use Facebook (“Beyond”).  These scholars are missing out.  SM allows for sharing, collaborating, brainstorming, and creating (“Beyond”). Why not use SM? Should social and academic lives be separate?  This would make SM off limits for professional use.   This separation is neither ideal nor needed.  Some parts of social life should be kept out of professional life.  But sharing on SM need not be one of them.  We can enhance our professional and personal lives by finding where they overlap.  Technology makes this easy.   A more likely explanation is academic elitism.  Many researchers may be set in the “old” ways of conducting and sharing research.  They are snobby about how their findings should be shared publicized and reviewed.  Or simply unwilling to learn new ways.  The less positive, and perhaps more likely, analysis is that these researchers want to prevent their findings from being available to the general public of uneducated “laypeople.”   God forbid serious academic findings are put to use in ways that would help the general public, by the general public.     More sharing in future? Of researchers who use SM, most do so “to find collaborators and [pass on] their work and the work of others” (“Ivory”).  They have the right idea. The uses of SM in business and journalism are clear. But sharing of scholarly findings can also have huge benefits.  For sharers, readers, and society.    Works Cited Henlon, Andy, and Christine Greenhow. "Beyond Bieber: Twitter Improves Student Learning." MSUToday. Michigan State University Board of Trustees, 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 Apr. 2014. Henlon, Andy, and Christine Greenhow. "‘Ivory Tower’ Bucking Social Media." MSUToday. Michigan State University Board of Trustees, 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2014. Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators. New York: Penguin, 2010. Print.

[ckoala19]

Google has purchased Nest, a technological company that, “…has been developing a line of smart smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, as well as thermostats that adjust to household activity in order to increase energy efficiency.” (Dragani). Google is using this as a way to get into household...

[oliviavgauvin]

Google wants in on the Internet of Things… but I don’t It seems like every day we learn that Google or Facebook have bought out another tech company.  It’s no surprise, then, that Google is getting in on the Internet of Things with its acquisition of Nest.  Nest’s best-seller is the Nest Learning Thermostat, which “learns” by tracking the habits of its users and, eventually, adjusting itself based on this data. Purchase of Nest not just about heating and cooling. Although Nest is best known for the Nest Learning Thermostat, smart heating and cooling systems are only one part of the movement toward smart homes.  Soon, we will have refrigerators that can tell us when to buy more milk and doors that only open for the home’s owners.  And we will be buying these services from Google.  Invasion of privacy? The idea of a smart house is scary for people who don’t want to feel like their privacy is being invaded inside their own homes.  The truth, however, is that we are already in a system where virtually everything about us is stored in a database somewhere.  I don’t care whether Google knows hot warm I like my house or what time I go to bed at night.  The problem is that, once again, a monopoly is profiting by invading our privacy and filling artificial needs.  It doesn’t matter whether it is time, money, energy, or privacy: Google is making money off of my loss of something that I should be able to take for granted.  And, let’s be real.  Google doesn’t really care how warm you like your house.  “The $3.2 billion purchase wasn’t… to gather data on consumers. The company… is betting on [the Internet of Things] with this purchase” (Hendricks). Convenience… at a price. Of course it would be convenient to live in a smart home, and the Internet of Things promises a life of ease and order.  The services that are likely to be available in the near future will make us more efficient and productive.  But, as I always say, are ease, order, convenience, efficiency, and productivity what we really want?  For me, the end game is to be happy, and securing profits for Google while I become lazier and needier is not what will make me happy.  Besides, is it really that hard to adjust a thermostat?  Works Cited Hendricks, Drew. "What Does Google's Purchase Of Nest Mean For The Internet Of Things?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 20 Jan. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

[allisonhanna8]

Tech fans always seem to be at the cutting edge. But in fact, many don’t know about the political problems backing their fancy gadgets.

Capitalism drives the tech world down the wrong path. We should not let the industry crash on auto-pilot. Instead, we need to demand tech that is both...