What do you think is the next big thing in advertising/public relations? If you don't have a crystal ball or have a specific idea, talk about the general elements of the next trends in the field. What trends currently going on in ad/pr do you think are actually fads?
Advertising and PR are not my topics of expertise, so forgive me a bit if I take more of the advertised-to perspective.
Based on a lot of what we've read and considered about the impact of new media in our lives, and the trend towards personalization, interactivity and "the long tail" of things, I would venture a guess that all these same things will have a significant impact on advertising and PR.
If I look at advertising aimed at the public before I was born, I can get a sense that the advertisers were trying to convince people that their product was best, in the same way we still expect political candidates to engage us when seeking our support. Soon they started to have famous or important people tell us why they though the product was the best, in the hopes that we would follow along with those we so admired. Then it was about us, with faceless voices or simply embedded messages trying to convince us that WE could be better, faster, smarter than all the rest - if we used that product.
The common element to all these approaches is that we simply passively received the message from a single authoritative source, which controlled the shape and delivery and expereince of the advertising message. Surely, if new media is to have the same sort of impact on advertising and public relations as it has on seemingly everything else, these things will be the first to go. Vandermerwe's article seemed to understand this best by looking at the communication modes made available by new media.
You can already see this when you look at how successful technologies "advertise" themselves. There are no television ads, fliers in the mail or logos on sporting equipment for things like Flicker and Facebook yet we all know of them. Users themselves advertise the technologies, slapping logos like "Powered by Netscape" and "Support Web Standards: Use Firefox" on their own personal spaces of the Web. Users speak about, even advocate for, technologies like Tivo, becoming more ardent spokespersons than the companies that sell the products. We tend to find out about what we might like to use through people in our social sphere, or from people who have used similar products or who have similar tastes to us. My husband adds to our music collection every so often by listening to Pandora. And finally, we tend to have more personal investment in products and services we are able to contribute to. For example, users of YouTube contribute to the wealth of videos available on the service. They're far more invested in YouTube than any other video-sharing service because of this, and more likely to enagage in the kinds of activities that promote products and services in this new media enabled world.
I'm not sure how convinced I am that Immersive Ad Campaigns might be the key to the next big thing in advertising, partly because it's still such an orchestrated effort. Such things often do work, spectacularly well, once or twice before becoming "Tired". While we do gravitate towards playing the kinds of games that immersive campaigns can be, we also tire of them easily. Instead, I lean more towards Marken's simple message of effective email. It seems a bit pedestrian these days (is email old new media?) but it's an easy was to start the cascade effect of user supported advertising by keeping the message clear, simple and portable.
I also agree with the New York times article, "Madison Avenue's 30-second Spot Remover,", that technology is goign to wreak havoc on the agency business and that, despite the possibilities, that consumers are so swamped with pitches that they tune them out. I know I do.
In fact, several years ago I decided to make my home environment as advertising-free as possible, at least on the surface. I'd noticed that photos of dreamy, comforting and clearly restful rooms, gardens, spas and other physical spaces in lifestyle and home and garden magazines were often devoid of any advertising. So, I took to recycling the cereal box as soon as it came home from the grocery store (putting the contents in a glass jar). I tossed fliers and junk mail as soon as I took them out of the mailbox. Bathroom products whose labels I could not remove were relegated to baskets, boxes and drawers. The effect is startling and apparently noticeable to many who visit; I regularly get comments on how "restful" my home is.
This doesn't mean I'm an advertising agency's worst nightmare however. Not only am I still exposed to advertising in several traditional mediums, but I'm also a part of the effect of new media in helping others advertise. Several of my friends know of my knowledge for cooking techniques because of my online activity. Subsequently they came to me for advice on a brand of cookware. I might write of the same on a blog and provide a link to an electric tea kettle I recommend. And I quite deliberately peruse the smaller ads in my cooking magazines, visiting websites of specialty dinnerware. In other words, there are places where I can't escape advertising, places where I still seek it out, and new media arenas where I advocate for the products and services that I prefer. I'm just not going to allow it to passively surround me any longer.
The problem then, is in measuring the effectiveness of the message and the channels it is put through for any given product or service. Wu explores this a bit in the article, Conceptualizing and Measuring the Perceived Interactivity of Websites about measuring the interactivity of websites. But as we've seen before, this can be problematic, especially given the problems inherent in operationalizing "interactivity" (and quite possibly, "web site" now. But that's another essay.)
I envy them (ad and pr agencies) not the task.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Internet on Everyday Life? The Internet IS my Life!
For me the Internet is my teacher, my friend, my way of life. The internet is the gateway to all knowledge in the world. Poetry, war, music, animals, science, even the blueprints to how to make an atom bomb can all be found on the internet of today. It's like one big text book for every class you will ever take, and it's as portable as the nearest computer. I check my bank account, pay my taxes, buy movie tickets, and keep up to date with what is going on in the world all through the net. I can scarcely recall a world without the Internet. Before the internet came to be people had to drive or walk all around to different places in order to gather and send information to others. Businesses had to go to their suppliers, or at the very least haggle with them over the phone while constantly being put on hold, while they can now order all the parts and merchandise they need from their respective websites. Employers and employees can email each other news updates and questions in the comfort of their chairs instead of running all over the place and trying to track down that certain someone. Fliers are almost extinct, saving many trees in the process, as people are finding it easier to advertise on the web and via emails.
Families can equally stay in touch and communicate with each other with ease via email or programs like Skype Instant Messenger. Everyone has become linked closer together through the Internet as more and more users join every day. People can check the news and read about their favored politician or presidential candidate. Many people are using the web as their main source of information on candidates, much to the dislike of some campaigners. "Prominent commentators have expressed concern that growing use of the internet would be harmful to democratic deliberation. They worried that citizens would use the internet to seek information that reinforces their political preferences and avoid material that challenges their views." I can see the problem they are referring to if people just look at what they want to see, and not the whole picture, possibly resulting in poor judgment and the election of someone ill equiped for the job (though in my opinion that's been the case for the last decade or more).
Some people believe that the internet, while containing many advantages, might not be as good a thing as most believe it to be. I myself admit to being dependent on the Internet for nearly all of my academic work, as well as news and entertainment. I used to be a big online gamer, and still play from time to time. If I were to lose the internet for good I don't know what I'd do, besides freak out. Just the other day the internet was down in my apartment for about 4 hours and I was beside my self not being able to check emails and facebook or look at youtube. I'm sure I'm not the only one. If the Internet were to go down permenantly, I think many people would have a hard time coping. I would probably at the very least lose contact with half my friends and fail half my classes.
Families can equally stay in touch and communicate with each other with ease via email or programs like Skype Instant Messenger. Everyone has become linked closer together through the Internet as more and more users join every day. People can check the news and read about their favored politician or presidential candidate. Many people are using the web as their main source of information on candidates, much to the dislike of some campaigners. "Prominent commentators have expressed concern that growing use of the internet would be harmful to democratic deliberation. They worried that citizens would use the internet to seek information that reinforces their political preferences and avoid material that challenges their views." I can see the problem they are referring to if people just look at what they want to see, and not the whole picture, possibly resulting in poor judgment and the election of someone ill equiped for the job (though in my opinion that's been the case for the last decade or more).
Some people believe that the internet, while containing many advantages, might not be as good a thing as most believe it to be. I myself admit to being dependent on the Internet for nearly all of my academic work, as well as news and entertainment. I used to be a big online gamer, and still play from time to time. If I were to lose the internet for good I don't know what I'd do, besides freak out. Just the other day the internet was down in my apartment for about 4 hours and I was beside my self not being able to check emails and facebook or look at youtube. I'm sure I'm not the only one. If the Internet were to go down permenantly, I think many people would have a hard time coping. I would probably at the very least lose contact with half my friends and fail half my classes.
The Internet and Every Day
Every day the internet makes my life more bearable!! I work full time and I’m taking three classes this semester, so I’m seriously limited on time. The internet is a blessing for me. I can research projects for work and school; find information on topics that interest me; keep in-touch with family and friends through e-mail, instant messaging, and social networking; shop; and even take care of personal business like changing the address on my driver license, paying my bills, or registering to vote in a new county. Talk about convenience!! The internet is nothing but beneficial for me with my chaotic schedule because it makes my life easier.
Though there are disadvantages to all great things, the internet is no exception. Information obtained online cannot always be verified, time stamps aren’t always accurate, the excess of information sometimes makes searches for specific information difficult and time-consuming (though not as time-consuming as searching through documents in the library or other sources of paperwork), sites are not always current, documents may not load or download when needed, et cetera. For me, the advantages greatly outweigh the disadvantages.
As for the readings, I don’t know why the numbers from PEW Internet Research studies always surprise me, but they do. I find it fascinating that internet users know more about political issues than the political candidates themselves. And that the majority of Americans still get their political news from television and newspapers, instead of the internet. Even when the internet has instant updates as new information becomes available and also provides a better opportunity for exposure to various sides of issues. Though I suppose how much exposure a user gets to various sides of an issue is dependent upon how much or how little information is sought by that user.
As far as the articles about Apple versus PC, I have my own preferences. My very first computer was a Commodore 64, which I used for assignments in the 4th grade. Back then, I was WAY ahead of the game using a personal PC for class work. But then, summer computer camps and middle school had only Macs, and I was required to take a programming class, too, so Macs were IT for me. Then, in high school, yearbook layout was done on PCs, so another switch. Gah!! My first round of college was PC-friendly, too. Now, for round two of college, it’s back to Macs. I’ve learned from personal experience that I prefer PC’s because they work best for my personal needs. But Macs, on the other hand, are my first choice for creative work when I need it. Not sure who will win the PC/Mac battle, but experience tells me it’ll always be a tug-of-war between the two.
I like how Rheingold refers to the internet as the WELL in his book. It’s a great analogy, really. If a user is thirsty, and keeps drilling for information, he’ll eventually reach the water’s surface. And the user just may be blessed with a bottomless well!
Though there are disadvantages to all great things, the internet is no exception. Information obtained online cannot always be verified, time stamps aren’t always accurate, the excess of information sometimes makes searches for specific information difficult and time-consuming (though not as time-consuming as searching through documents in the library or other sources of paperwork), sites are not always current, documents may not load or download when needed, et cetera. For me, the advantages greatly outweigh the disadvantages.
As for the readings, I don’t know why the numbers from PEW Internet Research studies always surprise me, but they do. I find it fascinating that internet users know more about political issues than the political candidates themselves. And that the majority of Americans still get their political news from television and newspapers, instead of the internet. Even when the internet has instant updates as new information becomes available and also provides a better opportunity for exposure to various sides of issues. Though I suppose how much exposure a user gets to various sides of an issue is dependent upon how much or how little information is sought by that user.
As far as the articles about Apple versus PC, I have my own preferences. My very first computer was a Commodore 64, which I used for assignments in the 4th grade. Back then, I was WAY ahead of the game using a personal PC for class work. But then, summer computer camps and middle school had only Macs, and I was required to take a programming class, too, so Macs were IT for me. Then, in high school, yearbook layout was done on PCs, so another switch. Gah!! My first round of college was PC-friendly, too. Now, for round two of college, it’s back to Macs. I’ve learned from personal experience that I prefer PC’s because they work best for my personal needs. But Macs, on the other hand, are my first choice for creative work when I need it. Not sure who will win the PC/Mac battle, but experience tells me it’ll always be a tug-of-war between the two.
I like how Rheingold refers to the internet as the WELL in his book. It’s a great analogy, really. If a user is thirsty, and keeps drilling for information, he’ll eventually reach the water’s surface. And the user just may be blessed with a bottomless well!
We Are All Married to the Net!
At this time, I feel almost redundant repeating how much I think the Internet is the Last Great Human Invention, so I would not exhaust or belabor this observation. I agree with the observations in the “Internet and Social Life” piece.
So on PCs and Macs first. Like most people, I was enslaved to the PC for so long until I was exposed to the Mac from Apple about a year ago, since then me and my Mac sleep together and are inseparable. Ok, may be that is too much, but I think one of the great things Apple has been able to accomplish over the years is to make its product aesthetically attractive to the eyes and very user-friendly. But what Apple does even better is to make products that converge together such as the iPod , iPhone and what ever iGadget that Steve Jobs and his engineers are cooking up. Also, does anyone notice that you don’t get a lot of viruses or piracy attacks when you use a Mac?
The Pew Research folks conduct such wonderful surveys that capture a wide range of what people are thinking and what they are doing. What the survey results shows to me is that the Internet is an indispensable tool. It does not control our lives, but we can use it to enhance and refine our lives and the activities we value. ( I think McKenna and Bargh made a similar point). People flock to the Internet for different reasons, Star War fans look for information on Star Wars collectibles and conventions, bikers look for information on biking, etc. It is then not surprising that political information seekers go beyond just information that they believe in or are already comfortable with and seek more and even varying views on all sorts of issues.
Like any other aspect of our lives, the Internet has come to change and define politics. It has brought a transparency that was not there. We all remember the Macaca moment of Sen. George Allen in 2006 thanks to YouTube. But beyond Youtube, it allows more people to be involved in politics, it allows not traditional constituents to donate little sums of money to their candidates (Howard Dean, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, etc). But the Internet is also a strong vehicle for bringing democracy to closed societies. Because of its open nature, amid attempts by governments such as China and North Korea, the internet remains still the most potent way to get information into an doubt of a closed society.
Personally, I would say that the Internet has had a positive effect on my life. I cannot imagine life without my laptop and being able to get online. Interestingly enough, outside of work, it is websites like the New York Times, Washington Post, the Economist, Wikipedia, CNN etc, that occupy my “online” time. If you like to devour information, you can get lost in the virtual world wide web. I am not going to admit to being addicted to the Internet, but sometimes (ok most times) when I am in front of the computer, I prefer people just IM me instead of calling me over the phone or trying to talk to me in person, IM is not as distracting!
So on PCs and Macs first. Like most people, I was enslaved to the PC for so long until I was exposed to the Mac from Apple about a year ago, since then me and my Mac sleep together and are inseparable. Ok, may be that is too much, but I think one of the great things Apple has been able to accomplish over the years is to make its product aesthetically attractive to the eyes and very user-friendly. But what Apple does even better is to make products that converge together such as the iPod , iPhone and what ever iGadget that Steve Jobs and his engineers are cooking up. Also, does anyone notice that you don’t get a lot of viruses or piracy attacks when you use a Mac?
The Pew Research folks conduct such wonderful surveys that capture a wide range of what people are thinking and what they are doing. What the survey results shows to me is that the Internet is an indispensable tool. It does not control our lives, but we can use it to enhance and refine our lives and the activities we value. ( I think McKenna and Bargh made a similar point). People flock to the Internet for different reasons, Star War fans look for information on Star Wars collectibles and conventions, bikers look for information on biking, etc. It is then not surprising that political information seekers go beyond just information that they believe in or are already comfortable with and seek more and even varying views on all sorts of issues.
Like any other aspect of our lives, the Internet has come to change and define politics. It has brought a transparency that was not there. We all remember the Macaca moment of Sen. George Allen in 2006 thanks to YouTube. But beyond Youtube, it allows more people to be involved in politics, it allows not traditional constituents to donate little sums of money to their candidates (Howard Dean, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, etc). But the Internet is also a strong vehicle for bringing democracy to closed societies. Because of its open nature, amid attempts by governments such as China and North Korea, the internet remains still the most potent way to get information into an doubt of a closed society.
Personally, I would say that the Internet has had a positive effect on my life. I cannot imagine life without my laptop and being able to get online. Interestingly enough, outside of work, it is websites like the New York Times, Washington Post, the Economist, Wikipedia, CNN etc, that occupy my “online” time. If you like to devour information, you can get lost in the virtual world wide web. I am not going to admit to being addicted to the Internet, but sometimes (ok most times) when I am in front of the computer, I prefer people just IM me instead of calling me over the phone or trying to talk to me in person, IM is not as distracting!
I heart me some Mac and I heart me some Double IPA.
I think that, obviously, the Internet has vastly
affected our daily life. It is weird that I cannot imagine going without the Internet today, but I can remember in high school when I would connect to my Juno mail once a week and download my messages. Mainly consisting a lame Ska bands’ newsletters and the weekly movie schedule from the theatre.
According to the PEW studies the Internet has an effect on our voting habits and how we stay informed politically. I can sort of see some of the “smart mob” techniques described by Rheingold being utilized in the current democratic candidate race.
When Obama spoke in Austin the first time a year ago, I remember getting several text messages informing me about it and then seeing bulletins on Myspace linking me to the live feed.
I felt that Bargh’s and McKenna’s section on community involvement is strongly supported by the Facebook model of digitizing an individual’s real life. I feel that my own experience with Obama’s 2007 speech is an example of the positive social effect being online can offer.
In my opinion, and based on my experience, I do feel the overall effects are positve.
Now to the Mac VS PC.
Being that I have been a Mac owner for the past four years and have been employed by Apple for a stint, I am unapologetically pro-Mac.
But, I am not one of those blindly follow-Jobs-off-a-cliff-Mac-beats-PC-at-everything guys.
I have a friend who works in the videogame industry as a renderer. He owns a clocked up Dell machine.
It looks sort of like a speed boat knocked up a tup-a-ware container.
BUT, I know his machine is better than mine for what he does.
Mine is better than his for what I do…
Blog for class. And try to stay trendy and hip at coffee places.
As far as the reading goes, I think Gene Stienberg’s Mac VS PC tests were fair and balanced, although I wonder how the tests would end up today.
My switch from PC to Mac was not as clumsy as Fitzgerald described it. But, I did have a few friends with iBooks who let me play around on them a few times before I got mine.
And I disliked the Tweakheadz Lab article due to the fact that the author assumed that Mac users are also wine cooler drinkers. Not so.
internet...
The Internet is absolutely beneficial. At home and work, the Internet quickly is quickly replacing our traditional communication methods because of its efficiency. The Internet overcomes distances between A and B, so the role of information over the wire in a society becomes bigger and more important. Bargh and McKenna mentioned that the Internet is also a mass medium because it can reach over thousands people at the same time. Although some people worry about the increased usage of the Internet reduces face-to-face communications which may cause negative outcomes, such as loneliness. However, the interactivity of the Internet encourages meeting new people and networking the people who we have already known.
The authors of The Internet and democratic debate said the internet plays a huge role in people’s news gathering. Whether it is political and economical news, more and more people are exposed on the internet than any other media today. Internet also provides different views that “traditional” media don’t. I think that is the most unique advantage having the internet. Internet is able to affect somebody without direct meetings, and it has the power to change other people.
We talked about the bad sides of the internet addiction last week, such as anonymity. However, I think the internet works positively overall because it brings more chances that we can participate in. It supports the democracy from the bottom, offers more opportunities whatever the interests are, and lets to meet different people.
The authors of The Internet and democratic debate said the internet plays a huge role in people’s news gathering. Whether it is political and economical news, more and more people are exposed on the internet than any other media today. Internet also provides different views that “traditional” media don’t. I think that is the most unique advantage having the internet. Internet is able to affect somebody without direct meetings, and it has the power to change other people.
We talked about the bad sides of the internet addiction last week, such as anonymity. However, I think the internet works positively overall because it brings more chances that we can participate in. It supports the democracy from the bottom, offers more opportunities whatever the interests are, and lets to meet different people.
...With a Side of Responsibility, Please
Okay, these readings hit home because my research deals with how emergent technologies have created a new vehicle for collaboration within society. Much of the theory behind this aligns with these readings, so I'll just dig in.
Jenkin's work on convergence likely stuck with me the most because of how it relates to Jay Bolter's concept of remediation. Remediation is how we in the literati and print-based culture tend to view media evolution. Remediation describes how media tend to imitate one another as they adapt to a societal role: thus print and web design both mimic each at first as they fight out their respective roles in each other's presence. Convergence can be seen as the place where content overlaps in remediated media. This is important to me because convergence and remediation allow fragments to be joined more easily than in the past. Today you can join concepts from TV, music, and Joyce together on the Internet with a picture of your kids to create something new. This is part of the new collaborative culture: kinda like Evil Burt. We now all own access to once privileged fragments to do with what we want. The challenge now is for pedagogy, especially secondary schools, to catch up with teaching methods that promote responsible rhetoric and collaboration with this new power.
That's also the frightening aspect of this new collaboration. Mob rule historically isn't the sunshine and happiness revolution often preached. Responsible revolution generally develops through extensive argumentation and deliberation. The new powers of the digital mob and raw democracy discussed in both Poster and Rheingold threaten responsible discourse. I was pleased at how Rheingold looked at the darkside of the digital mob, because it's more worrisome than the benefits for now to everyday life. The anonymity of the Internet to hide dangerous elements has now given way to a method for those elements to physically manifest and act. It's a tough trade off because I do not want to sacrifice my non-virtual civil liberties due to a perceived need to protect society from these forces, but I also cannot deny the danger. What is needed is a means to effectively communicate and engage publicly in these forums with detailed debate, and not simple rumor mills and mob friendly sound bites. I wanted people engaged in their community, but not at the expensive of responsible deliberation.
I think how we train ourselves to collaborate with these technologies will affect daily life more than time restraints. I think some of the researchers overlook basic science in understanding why these technologies give me more personal and family time.
Time = Distance / Rate
If I collaborate across greater space at greater speed, I save considerable amounts of time. Since the Internet grants superior speed-to-distance ratios, this offers me more time to contribute however I wish: family, friends. personal reflection, or community interaction.
Whether working from home, ordering online, or researching online, I cut down on commute, searching, and waiting in line. This dramatically affects my daily life in a way not fully explored in the readings; though most touch on related topics.
However, the collaborative elements the readings discuss do present the more important ethical considerations of these new technologies to daily life. How we collaborate in mass, how we make decisions and deliberate with one another remains paramount. Social interaction on the web remains an emerging topic as Bargh and McKenna demonstrate. Though I wonder if we don't see the best in our partners online due to the fact that the current method of communication is so devoid of detail that we simply fill in that void with our own self. We do this in normal communication, but one wonders how much we amplify this online.
For random closing thoughts: I'm a Mac guy at heart, but I use both because IBM-PCs are cheap and I'm a student. The supremacy of platform gaming makes IBM-PCs nothing better than the cheapest option. I thought the articles did a great job talking hardware, but the lack of Linux references kinda lessens their weight from software platform POV.
I also want to say that the McMillian article ranks as the most useful piece I've read all year in any class. A great starting point for making some research choices on Internet sampling. Now I have to rework my paper again.
So, the good? Superior and more democratic collaboration and content production with more time to do so. The bad? Mob rule combined with anonymity granted to potentially harmful minority sects--in other words, a lack of regulation regarding the worst aspects of the most important elements within a functional democracy, freedom and minority protection.
Jenkin's work on convergence likely stuck with me the most because of how it relates to Jay Bolter's concept of remediation. Remediation is how we in the literati and print-based culture tend to view media evolution. Remediation describes how media tend to imitate one another as they adapt to a societal role: thus print and web design both mimic each at first as they fight out their respective roles in each other's presence. Convergence can be seen as the place where content overlaps in remediated media. This is important to me because convergence and remediation allow fragments to be joined more easily than in the past. Today you can join concepts from TV, music, and Joyce together on the Internet with a picture of your kids to create something new. This is part of the new collaborative culture: kinda like Evil Burt. We now all own access to once privileged fragments to do with what we want. The challenge now is for pedagogy, especially secondary schools, to catch up with teaching methods that promote responsible rhetoric and collaboration with this new power.
That's also the frightening aspect of this new collaboration. Mob rule historically isn't the sunshine and happiness revolution often preached. Responsible revolution generally develops through extensive argumentation and deliberation. The new powers of the digital mob and raw democracy discussed in both Poster and Rheingold threaten responsible discourse. I was pleased at how Rheingold looked at the darkside of the digital mob, because it's more worrisome than the benefits for now to everyday life. The anonymity of the Internet to hide dangerous elements has now given way to a method for those elements to physically manifest and act. It's a tough trade off because I do not want to sacrifice my non-virtual civil liberties due to a perceived need to protect society from these forces, but I also cannot deny the danger. What is needed is a means to effectively communicate and engage publicly in these forums with detailed debate, and not simple rumor mills and mob friendly sound bites. I wanted people engaged in their community, but not at the expensive of responsible deliberation.
I think how we train ourselves to collaborate with these technologies will affect daily life more than time restraints. I think some of the researchers overlook basic science in understanding why these technologies give me more personal and family time.
Time = Distance / Rate
If I collaborate across greater space at greater speed, I save considerable amounts of time. Since the Internet grants superior speed-to-distance ratios, this offers me more time to contribute however I wish: family, friends. personal reflection, or community interaction.
Whether working from home, ordering online, or researching online, I cut down on commute, searching, and waiting in line. This dramatically affects my daily life in a way not fully explored in the readings; though most touch on related topics.
However, the collaborative elements the readings discuss do present the more important ethical considerations of these new technologies to daily life. How we collaborate in mass, how we make decisions and deliberate with one another remains paramount. Social interaction on the web remains an emerging topic as Bargh and McKenna demonstrate. Though I wonder if we don't see the best in our partners online due to the fact that the current method of communication is so devoid of detail that we simply fill in that void with our own self. We do this in normal communication, but one wonders how much we amplify this online.
For random closing thoughts: I'm a Mac guy at heart, but I use both because IBM-PCs are cheap and I'm a student. The supremacy of platform gaming makes IBM-PCs nothing better than the cheapest option. I thought the articles did a great job talking hardware, but the lack of Linux references kinda lessens their weight from software platform POV.
I also want to say that the McMillian article ranks as the most useful piece I've read all year in any class. A great starting point for making some research choices on Internet sampling. Now I have to rework my paper again.
So, the good? Superior and more democratic collaboration and content production with more time to do so. The bad? Mob rule combined with anonymity granted to potentially harmful minority sects--in other words, a lack of regulation regarding the worst aspects of the most important elements within a functional democracy, freedom and minority protection.
The Internet...daily
Howard Rheingold's discussion of computer-linked communities, particularly the WELL, in The Virtual Community showed a more optimistic side of how the Internet can be used to connect with others and create new relationships. Rheingold describes the people he met and how they helped one another through illness and fund raising. However, he also mentions some of the darker aspects of the community such as Blair Newman, who was addicted to the WELL and eventually committed suicide for apparently various reasons.
Those are the two poles of the web. It would be difficult to say whether the effects of the Internet on everyday life are negative or positive, because it depends on the person and how they are using it. The Internet has a positive effect in that it democratizes information. Anyone who has access can retrieve information on just about anything they need to know. However, there are those who feel they cannot remove themselves from the Internet or feel the need to be malicious. It would probably be safe to say the majority of users fall in the middle.
Mark Poster's essay on Internet and the public sphere take a different point of view on the usefulness of the Web as a tool for democratic discussion. He criticizes it by challenging the meaning of "public" on the Web and states it may not be democratic forum for expression and discussion. However, the study, The Internet and Democratic Debate, from the Pew Center found Internet users do not search out political messages or new reports solely focused on their personal points of view. The Web maybe more democratic than some are willing to give it credit for.
The Internet has proven to be a great tool for politicians as we have seen so far this election season. YouTube has helped popularize videos from political fanatics who otherwise would not have their voices heard or their issues addressed. Blogging has left no news unturned or embarrassing moments unremarked.
The Internet has changed the way we communicate with one another and how we spread information. Whether it is negative or positive is up to the user. However, I would contend arguments saying communication has been negatively affected by the Internet may not know how to use the technology.
Those are the two poles of the web. It would be difficult to say whether the effects of the Internet on everyday life are negative or positive, because it depends on the person and how they are using it. The Internet has a positive effect in that it democratizes information. Anyone who has access can retrieve information on just about anything they need to know. However, there are those who feel they cannot remove themselves from the Internet or feel the need to be malicious. It would probably be safe to say the majority of users fall in the middle.
Mark Poster's essay on Internet and the public sphere take a different point of view on the usefulness of the Web as a tool for democratic discussion. He criticizes it by challenging the meaning of "public" on the Web and states it may not be democratic forum for expression and discussion. However, the study, The Internet and Democratic Debate, from the Pew Center found Internet users do not search out political messages or new reports solely focused on their personal points of view. The Web maybe more democratic than some are willing to give it credit for.
The Internet has proven to be a great tool for politicians as we have seen so far this election season. YouTube has helped popularize videos from political fanatics who otherwise would not have their voices heard or their issues addressed. Blogging has left no news unturned or embarrassing moments unremarked.
The Internet has changed the way we communicate with one another and how we spread information. Whether it is negative or positive is up to the user. However, I would contend arguments saying communication has been negatively affected by the Internet may not know how to use the technology.
Convergence Culture: Making the internet a part of our everyday lives
Today we live in a world of a fast paced, technology driven socitey, where new media are becoming a part of our culture. Because of its diversity of web design, the internet is convergence. The internet is all of our old media combined into one. The web looks like the newspapers, the televsion, the movies, It takes on all forms of media that have been used in the past, and only makes them bigger and better because of the strech of hyperlinks. As media consumers we take in all we can get, through radio, television, newspapers, telephones, and especially the internet. We use all of these media combined on a daily basis. In this day and age, choosing a Mac or a PC is a big deal, because whichever we choose will be the interface that we interact with on a daily basis. After reading all of the material today, many questions come to mind. How does the internet effect our day to day lives? Are families being distanced because of the generational digital divide, or are they closer than ever because of the many ways that they can stay connected through the internet? Are communities being torn apart because of the internet's anti-social design or does the internet's interactivity help us to get to know our neighbors in a new way? Do we look on the internet for our favorite candidate and get one sided information from a single sorce, or do we check out every candidate's page because of the availablity of information on the internet? In my opinion, the effects of the internet on socitey are mostly positive. With the internet we are expanding ourselves to reach new dimensions that we could never reach before with older technologies. We are becomming more aware of our surroundings with just a click of a button. We are more involved with politics and get a better more diverse vantage point of the candidtates and their issues. Communites are growing stronger by the day with social networking sites that help you to get o know your neighbors. We are more connected with our families in new ways that help us to communicate faster on a daily basis. The internet is a beneficial part of our everyday life.
Life and the Internet
I think that overall, the internet has definitely made an impact on most Americans' lives. Last semester I studied (in Dr. Subervi's class) the ways the 2008 presidential candidates are trying to reach potential voters by websites. I believe that the internet has helped spread messages so quickly, and especially political messages. One picture posted on the internet can then be spread to other media sources, such as TV. or newspapers.
The Pew article states, "Internet use is not the only factor associated with exposure to a wide range of political arguments. Education levels, interest in the campaign, and age are among the other factors tied to the number of points of view people encounter."
I also think that community involvement can also be boosted by the internet. My neighbor has a sign posted on his fence that promotes Obama and gives an email address to connect with other supporters in our same zip code.
On one hand, I think that the growing importance of the internet in our daily lives can be a positive thing. The Internet & Social Life article states that the main reason people use the internet is for email. The internet allows for people to send a quick hello or picture to family members and friends all over the world.
The negative side of this is that communication can become less personal feeling when it is done over the internet. I'll admit, I've ignored a phone call then responded to a voicemail by email just so I wouldn't have to talk to the person. And how many of you have IM'd your roommate while you're in the same room? I think that it provides a can also false sense of connection. Well, people are connected, but they may not be doing that much actual communication on the internet.
Also, I think the ability to invent a new life for yourself is kind of scary. The CyberDemocracy article states, "Individuals invent themselves and do so repeatedly and differentially in the course of conversing or messaging electronically.” I know that one of my friends has two Myspace profiles. One profile he is "Nathan" (his real name), but on the other he is "Jody" (made up). In his real profile he is in a relationship, but is listed as single on the other profile. Even his hobbies are different. Just that one example leads me to believe that really nothing can be trusted online. If a close friend of mine can manipulate hundreds of people to believe he is someone he's not, then no telling what else is made up or incorrect. While I was doing the readings today, there was a guest on Dr. Phil who was taken for $5,500 by her boyfriend whom she had never met in person, only online. This is when I think the internet becomes just another way for bad people to do bad things and take advantage of those that aren't so smart.
But, I'm not like an internet hater or anything. I love being online. I just think you have to be smart about it, and sort of treat it like everything else...in moderation.
The Pew article states, "Internet use is not the only factor associated with exposure to a wide range of political arguments. Education levels, interest in the campaign, and age are among the other factors tied to the number of points of view people encounter."
I also think that community involvement can also be boosted by the internet. My neighbor has a sign posted on his fence that promotes Obama and gives an email address to connect with other supporters in our same zip code.
On one hand, I think that the growing importance of the internet in our daily lives can be a positive thing. The Internet & Social Life article states that the main reason people use the internet is for email. The internet allows for people to send a quick hello or picture to family members and friends all over the world.
The negative side of this is that communication can become less personal feeling when it is done over the internet. I'll admit, I've ignored a phone call then responded to a voicemail by email just so I wouldn't have to talk to the person. And how many of you have IM'd your roommate while you're in the same room? I think that it provides a can also false sense of connection. Well, people are connected, but they may not be doing that much actual communication on the internet.
Also, I think the ability to invent a new life for yourself is kind of scary. The CyberDemocracy article states, "Individuals invent themselves and do so repeatedly and differentially in the course of conversing or messaging electronically.” I know that one of my friends has two Myspace profiles. One profile he is "Nathan" (his real name), but on the other he is "Jody" (made up). In his real profile he is in a relationship, but is listed as single on the other profile. Even his hobbies are different. Just that one example leads me to believe that really nothing can be trusted online. If a close friend of mine can manipulate hundreds of people to believe he is someone he's not, then no telling what else is made up or incorrect. While I was doing the readings today, there was a guest on Dr. Phil who was taken for $5,500 by her boyfriend whom she had never met in person, only online. This is when I think the internet becomes just another way for bad people to do bad things and take advantage of those that aren't so smart.
But, I'm not like an internet hater or anything. I love being online. I just think you have to be smart about it, and sort of treat it like everything else...in moderation.
Effects of the Internet
The Internet has profound effects on everyday life. We are constantly being thrown websites all over most of the media, the only contacts people sometimes have are their e-mail addresses, and important information is being exchanged over facebook messages or on myspace walls. I have been told several times to "facebook" someone for information instead of meeting up or calling them (maybe they just don't like me and it's a fake account?). Aside from that, people can look up any information they need at the touch of a keyboard, and with broadband, they can do so quite instantaneously. That's why "wired Americans hear more points of view about candidates and key issues than other citizens" (PEW).
While people use the internet to search for information they support or are already knowledgeable in, they use it to search for information they oppose (like certain presidential candidates) or want to learn more about. This is interesting to read, especially as the Texas primaries are nearing and I catch myself constantly looking up older debates between candidates on youtube.com or appearances on the Tonight Show. However, those who look for this information do so in conjunction with television, or their main source of news. I find it interesting that the internet has not replaced traditional media (yet) in peoples' endeavors to get their regular news, but they are instead verifying or replaying this information via an online forum. Of course, I still watch CNN on TV (and I prefer to do so) but I watch replays or clips I wasn't able to view realtime on the Web.
Most essentially for America, I think the Internet provides an open forum for democracy. The PEW report suggested that people are "not using the internet to screen out ideas with which they disagree." I think this is mainly because people can look up information they want on their own time instead of ever feeling like it is being shoved in their faces. If someone wants to learn about a different point of view, they can do so at their leisure, such as the issue of gay marriage being sent to their e-mail account. They can open it any time they want, as opposed to a television commercial or show that has to be watch in realtime. Of course, this information would not be possible in the first place in mainstream media. The controversial topics or unpopular choices have a home on the internet and can easily be found in their most raw form without scrutiny from large corporations, advertisers, or conglomerates.
While these may be some political effects of the internet on life, it is absolutely affecting interpersonal relationships in more influential ways. The "Internet and Social Life" article had a lot to say about this. While being a personal media tool, the internet is also used as a mass medium. Here, we can see an intertwining of intimate material in a communal forum. This type of communication forces members to reevaluate their trust boundaries on a different platform. Those who move to their relationships online almost have to create a new sense of how large or small their "personal bubble" will be. Information you want some people to know may not extend to others who you want to remain acquaintances with, and vice versa.
It seems by the readings that those who move their relationships online tend to increase contact with their social networks and feel more socially extroverted than those who are not online. For instance, according to the Internet and Social Life article, "the more hours the average respondent spent on the Internet, the more time he or she also spent face-to-face with family and friends." Also, it was interesting to see how internet users are more able to find groups and support for any kind of stigmatized illness or special fringe interest or identity. I understand how it may be difficult to find others that share the same kind of impediment to meet any other way, and an online forum provides an unobtrusive, open place to do so.
I think the options the internet provides are hands-down positive. Just being able to access this information is incredibly helpful, and its effects seem to be overwhelmingly positive. It seems like while there are few fringe studies that show negative effects, I think you can make the argument that eating a banana or jumping rope has its ill effects as well. Most people have become more knowledgeable in many areas of study, more social, more apt to discuss topics, and more influenced by the internet than by any other media. We not only use the internet for information and entertainment, but we rely on it to exchange important, personal communication with one another.
it's an Inet life
What is the Internet's contribution to Global Warming? How do solar flares and/or sun spots effect my computer's performance? Well, these smart ass unanswerable questions are my responses when I can't quite explain what going on beneath these plastic keys.
Professionally in my everyday life, I have been working in the newspaper industry for the past 4-5 years, and I simply can't imagine how a newspaper was published (for hundreds of years) without the aid of the Internet. The efficiency the Inet and new technology provides is unheralded. In the article Smart Mobs: The Power of the Mobile Many, we see this efficiency in action. The ability for the Manila citizens to organize and coordinate by text messages to topple the reigning President Estrada is a testament to the nature of modern technology. And not surprisingly we see this technomenon again and again: The 1999 "Battle of Seattle, The 2000 up rise against gas prices in Britain, The 2000 political demonstration in Toronto, The 1992 bicycle rally in San Fran, and do i need to even mention the success of Ron Paul and how he raised more money in one day than any other candidate in history. This Smart Mob generation is merely tipping the glass of what it foreshadows.
Politically, (Sunday you'll love this!) Technology has made the democratic process so efficient that one day I predict voting will be completely unnecessary - click the link below: If it doesn't work well i will blame sun spots or solar flares.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks?utm_source=EMTF_Onion
Ok - all kidding aside, this new age of cyberdemocracy is upon us and the impacts new media has on the political sphere is yet to be fully maximized. Again, i point the impact Ron Paul and his cyberturf-roots movement has had on the 2008 republican nomination. Another example of how democracy is becoming decentralized is the YouTube debates. and how this gives the people a chance and a voice to ask the candidates questions they otherwise would have been silent or voiceless. The ability to fund raise and utilize Inet social networks allows grassroots movements a louder voice on the national platform. Mark Poster in his article, CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere claims that we will need a new term for democracy that defines how leaders and followers are mediated in cyberspace and constituted in the relation to the evolving mobile identities. Here he reiterates this decentralized theme of cyberdemocracy. In the Pew findings: The Internet and democratic debate - they discovered that the Internet contributes to a wider awareness of political arguments, and that the Internet news is mostly used as a complement to more traditional media. And the most surprising statistic they found is that most Americans prefer their news media sources to have no obvious bias. Yet, many others prefer news sources that either confirm their own views or challenge them.
Socially, the Internet and new technology has shaped our culture in a variety of ways. And as I might hate to admit it, American Idol has shaped how Americans can communicate. Similarly, to the smart mob concept - millions of Americans text their vote and for the best pop idol. and now we are texting our vote for the best superbowl commercial, best slam dunk, and only god knows what else. In the article, Buying into American Idol: How we are being Sold on Reality Television, it analyzed how these online communities pool together their votes and determine the outcome of the show. The article also explains that as cyberspace broadens the spere of our social interaction, it becomes even more important to be able to talk about people we share in common via the media that people from our local community who will not be known by all the participants in an online conversation.
Another social impact the Inet is having on us is the new label of Internet Addict. Although in Chou (et al) research, A Review of the Research on Internet Addiction they determine that a person is not addicted to the Internet but to various applications within the Internet, for me this is a moot point. It is like arguing that an alcoholic is not addicted to drugs but to alcohol only.
Professionally in my everyday life, I have been working in the newspaper industry for the past 4-5 years, and I simply can't imagine how a newspaper was published (for hundreds of years) without the aid of the Internet. The efficiency the Inet and new technology provides is unheralded. In the article Smart Mobs: The Power of the Mobile Many, we see this efficiency in action. The ability for the Manila citizens to organize and coordinate by text messages to topple the reigning President Estrada is a testament to the nature of modern technology. And not surprisingly we see this technomenon again and again: The 1999 "Battle of Seattle, The 2000 up rise against gas prices in Britain, The 2000 political demonstration in Toronto, The 1992 bicycle rally in San Fran, and do i need to even mention the success of Ron Paul and how he raised more money in one day than any other candidate in history. This Smart Mob generation is merely tipping the glass of what it foreshadows.
Politically, (Sunday you'll love this!) Technology has made the democratic process so efficient that one day I predict voting will be completely unnecessary - click the link below: If it doesn't work well i will blame sun spots or solar flares.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks?utm_source=EMTF_Onion
Ok - all kidding aside, this new age of cyberdemocracy is upon us and the impacts new media has on the political sphere is yet to be fully maximized. Again, i point the impact Ron Paul and his cyberturf-roots movement has had on the 2008 republican nomination. Another example of how democracy is becoming decentralized is the YouTube debates. and how this gives the people a chance and a voice to ask the candidates questions they otherwise would have been silent or voiceless. The ability to fund raise and utilize Inet social networks allows grassroots movements a louder voice on the national platform. Mark Poster in his article, CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere claims that we will need a new term for democracy that defines how leaders and followers are mediated in cyberspace and constituted in the relation to the evolving mobile identities. Here he reiterates this decentralized theme of cyberdemocracy. In the Pew findings: The Internet and democratic debate - they discovered that the Internet contributes to a wider awareness of political arguments, and that the Internet news is mostly used as a complement to more traditional media. And the most surprising statistic they found is that most Americans prefer their news media sources to have no obvious bias. Yet, many others prefer news sources that either confirm their own views or challenge them.
Socially, the Internet and new technology has shaped our culture in a variety of ways. And as I might hate to admit it, American Idol has shaped how Americans can communicate. Similarly, to the smart mob concept - millions of Americans text their vote and for the best pop idol. and now we are texting our vote for the best superbowl commercial, best slam dunk, and only god knows what else. In the article, Buying into American Idol: How we are being Sold on Reality Television, it analyzed how these online communities pool together their votes and determine the outcome of the show. The article also explains that as cyberspace broadens the spere of our social interaction, it becomes even more important to be able to talk about people we share in common via the media that people from our local community who will not be known by all the participants in an online conversation.
Another social impact the Inet is having on us is the new label of Internet Addict. Although in Chou (et al) research, A Review of the Research on Internet Addiction they determine that a person is not addicted to the Internet but to various applications within the Internet, for me this is a moot point. It is like arguing that an alcoholic is not addicted to drugs but to alcohol only.
Internet and Everyday Life
I agree with Manasian (as cited in The Internet and Social Life) that the Internet is changing every aspect of our lives. I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t use the Internet everyday for not only seeking out information but for keeping in touch with family and friends, even if it is just through email. I think it is working to bring together a very large audience by putting in contact people who would probably never meet otherwise. I think the argument over whether the Internet will affect society positively or negatively is one that can’t be resolved in one direction. Everything we do has positive and negative outcomes, it just depends on how you use the Internet that will make it a good or bad thing in your life. People who do become depressed and lonely with only CMC in their lives are the ones that are not seeking out a balance with face-to-face relationships.
I actually feel a bit sorry for Rheingold’s wife and daughter he spoke of because the man was obsessed with his relationships on the WELL. I do think the virtual community did wonderful things for each other, not only online, but definitely in RL. However, I do think he was spending way more than 2 hours a day on that thing and I’m sure his family felt pretty neglected. That’s just an assumption though. I was waiting for the section on Addiction in that book chapter and was pretty disappointed that he discussed Blair’s choosing of virtual community addiction over cocaine addiction instead of talking about the amount of time spent staring, typing, and reading on the Internet when compared to the time he spent away from it. I was hoping for a realization there…didn’t get it!
I do think it aids in community involvement. Pew states that political information seekers are not only looking for reinforcement, but they are looking to be well informed from all sides. I think that’s great, and in the case this year of Ron Paul, the Internet has carried the man. If it weren’t for the online communities that have rallied to form offline communities for Ron Paul, I don’t think anyone would really know the man’s name. In Smart Mobs, Rheingold talks about how the formation of these groups isn’t always about protesting issues; it’s about group dynamics and finding other people around the world with similar interests. Technology has provided these groups with a means to congregate quickly and easily and sometimes they are for just hanging out and others are for protesting a cause they do not believe in. In one case, they overthrew the President of the Philippines – but hey – to each their own in this case. The interpersonal relationship devices used in Tokyo and Japan are really cool if you ask me. I actually think about the concept of the ImaHima sometimes. I wonder when I am sitting at a coffee shop or at the mall by myself if any of my friends are close and have some time to grab something to eat or hang out. What a great idea.
As far as democracy goes – the Internet is bringing that term to mean more than it ever has before and it definitely has some of the politicians and scholars freaking out. Poster’s essay, although way confusing in the way he writes, is just basically talking about how the nature of the Internet is decentralized, so there is more of a dialogue occurring than a hierarchical structure. Since people are getting ideas from other people who are getting ideas from other people, a richer democracy is occurring because there are tons more voices in the mix.
Overall, I see the Internet as a positive influence in my life. It makes my day easier, my workload easier to manage, helps with my time management and gives me access to any information I can possibly seek. But I also do not spend all day and all night on it, I don’t get the shakes if I don’t have it for a day, and I still nurture every personal face-to-face relationship I have in other ways. There are always going to be people who don’t do the right thing or abuse the things they have. That’s just life.
Oh, and P.S. I am Apple ALL THE WAY!! Tell me a PC is faster or plays music better, whatever! All I know is my desktop PC crashed at least twice a year and I lost hundreds of documents, photos, and music. I have had a desktop Mac and now a MacBook for almost two years and I haven’t had one bad thing happen to me yet. Faster is a perception as far as I’m concerned ;)
I actually feel a bit sorry for Rheingold’s wife and daughter he spoke of because the man was obsessed with his relationships on the WELL. I do think the virtual community did wonderful things for each other, not only online, but definitely in RL. However, I do think he was spending way more than 2 hours a day on that thing and I’m sure his family felt pretty neglected. That’s just an assumption though. I was waiting for the section on Addiction in that book chapter and was pretty disappointed that he discussed Blair’s choosing of virtual community addiction over cocaine addiction instead of talking about the amount of time spent staring, typing, and reading on the Internet when compared to the time he spent away from it. I was hoping for a realization there…didn’t get it!
I do think it aids in community involvement. Pew states that political information seekers are not only looking for reinforcement, but they are looking to be well informed from all sides. I think that’s great, and in the case this year of Ron Paul, the Internet has carried the man. If it weren’t for the online communities that have rallied to form offline communities for Ron Paul, I don’t think anyone would really know the man’s name. In Smart Mobs, Rheingold talks about how the formation of these groups isn’t always about protesting issues; it’s about group dynamics and finding other people around the world with similar interests. Technology has provided these groups with a means to congregate quickly and easily and sometimes they are for just hanging out and others are for protesting a cause they do not believe in. In one case, they overthrew the President of the Philippines – but hey – to each their own in this case. The interpersonal relationship devices used in Tokyo and Japan are really cool if you ask me. I actually think about the concept of the ImaHima sometimes. I wonder when I am sitting at a coffee shop or at the mall by myself if any of my friends are close and have some time to grab something to eat or hang out. What a great idea.
As far as democracy goes – the Internet is bringing that term to mean more than it ever has before and it definitely has some of the politicians and scholars freaking out. Poster’s essay, although way confusing in the way he writes, is just basically talking about how the nature of the Internet is decentralized, so there is more of a dialogue occurring than a hierarchical structure. Since people are getting ideas from other people who are getting ideas from other people, a richer democracy is occurring because there are tons more voices in the mix.
Overall, I see the Internet as a positive influence in my life. It makes my day easier, my workload easier to manage, helps with my time management and gives me access to any information I can possibly seek. But I also do not spend all day and all night on it, I don’t get the shakes if I don’t have it for a day, and I still nurture every personal face-to-face relationship I have in other ways. There are always going to be people who don’t do the right thing or abuse the things they have. That’s just life.
Oh, and P.S. I am Apple ALL THE WAY!! Tell me a PC is faster or plays music better, whatever! All I know is my desktop PC crashed at least twice a year and I lost hundreds of documents, photos, and music. I have had a desktop Mac and now a MacBook for almost two years and I haven’t had one bad thing happen to me yet. Faster is a perception as far as I’m concerned ;)
Life and the Internet
The internet is beneficial to humanity. This is of course a subjective statement but when thinking of pros and cons of the internet, the pro category always wins (at least in my book). Communication, technology, information, research, and business; in our current day these would be greatly restricted without the internet. It can be argued that our society has grown dependent on it, but with something so helpful, it is not hard to do.
When talking about the internet and social relationships, it is easy to assume that it does nothing but damage interpersonal relations. The article The Internet and Social Life from Bargh and McKenna states, “Despite past media headlines to the contrary, the internet does not make its users depressed or lonely, and it does not seem to be a threat to community life.” The article also states in its conclusion that the internet allows communication that keep ties close. Relationships with family and friends that do not live near are made easier with internet communication. It also talks of the formation of new relationships due to similar interests and values. There are countless groups and sites for certain types of people and they build relationships with each other on a level they feel comfortable with. A downside of the internet in the article is “it already plays a significant role in crime and terrorism by enabling private communication across any distance without being detected.” This is a given as we have been hearing about incidents for years that were made possible with little trouble thanks to the internet. While the internet is used as a negative tool by some, I still believe that it benefits more than it damages.
The Jenkins article Worship at the Altar of Convergence was interesting with its concept of the participatory culture. It states that “rather then talking about media producers and consumers as occupying separate roles, we might now see them as participants who interact with each other according to a new set of rules that none of us fully understands.” The flow of media content and communication is ultimately decided by the users and their participation. The internet allows us to write, interact, and brainstorm with other users and even companies to express opinions and develop ideas. Relationships are built online through this participatory culture along with collective intelligence. The article says that “none of us can know everything; each of us knows something; and we can put the pieces together if we pool our resources and combine our skills.”
This is possibly best demonstrated in the article by Castells called The Culture of the Internet. Collective intelligence is seen with the hacker group and their interesting culture. The article almost reads like a cultural researcher watching a distinct group from afar. To be honest, I did not know there was a difference between crackers and hackers. Knowledge is power. The hackers use the concept of collective intelligence to accomplish tasks and build relationships in the process. The idea of the cracker is of course a negative aspect to the internet and does nothing but cause trouble. The article stated that hackers and those of other means have “a shared belief in the power of computer networking, and a determination to keep this technological power as a common good.” The hackers, and even crackers, are building relationships while doing something they are interested in. In the process they have built their own culture with “professional” relationships.
Even when thinking of the articles about Mac vs. PC, you can argue that relationships and cultures have been built around the “epic battle.” People like to have friends with similar likes and dislikes, the internet provides that for them (even though it can be considered impersonal because it is not face-to-face). The internet is a valuable social tool in this sense because some people who may not have many friends are allowed to find some with their beliefs and values. This may be seen as positive because friends are a large part of one’s development and they need to be found somehow. It may be seen as weird by some but soon it may be completely normal.
Community involvement and politics are made easier through the internet as well. Events and resources are more accessible to all that want to attend and help. People can become familiar with each other through internet groups and sites for political causes, candidates, or community service events. Relationships can be built through the internet, relationships that can even be beneficial on a community level. The PEW report shows how our voters are much more informed and knowledgeable on the issues when they go to vote. The internet allows users to gather information that will help make their important democratic decision.
In conclusion, the internet is a positive force on mankind as it allows for us to be informed, have easier communication (even across long distances), corroborate with peers we have never physically met and accomplish tasks, and build new relationships that may possibly benefit everyone. Negative aspects of any situation are going to stand out more than the positive. In the case of the internet though, the positive aspects are much more in number.
Everyday Life+ Web 2.0
The Internet has changed everything from the way we communicate to the ways we shop and conduct business. It is an all-encompassing interactive “medium” that has drastically changed the way society thinks and acts. Everyday life has been changed quite significantly because of the Internet. Communication between people has been become much more easier and efficient through email. MySpace, Facebook, and the other social networking sites have been crucial towards the interaction of people across time zones.
This quote from the article “The Internet and Social Life” does a great job explaining just how the Internet effects everyday life:
“…will change almost every aspect of our lives- private, social, cultural, economic, and political…because (they) deal with the very essence of human society: communication between people. Earlier technologies, from printing to the telegraph…have wrought big changes over time. But the social changes over the coming decades are likely to be much more extensive, and to happen much faster, than any in the past, because the technologies driving them are continuing to develop at a breakneck pace. More importantly, they look as if together they will be as pervasive and ubiquitous as electricity.”
The PEW reports show that the Internet has also affected democracy. Issues are easier to access on the Internet, which has helped people become educated about the issues before going to vote. I have no clue how people did it before, other than the traditional speaking campaign. It is refreshing that know that EVERYONE is able to get this information on the Internet.
Community involvement, according to Bargh and McKenna, is helped through the Internet. Participating is greatly helped through the Internet in that it gathers everyone towards a common goal or interest. I know some organizations that are much more easily accessible over the Internet then through traditional methods.
I laughed at Rheingold’s “Virtual Community” piece in that he would experience all of these emotions on the Internet. He wrote, “My flesh-and-blood family long ago grew accustomed to the way I sit I my home office early in the morning and late at night, chuckling and cursing, sometimes crying, about words I read on the computer screen. It might have looked to my daughter as if I were alone at my desk the night she caught me chortling online, but from my point of view I was in living contact with old and new friends, strangers and colleagues.” This reminds me of my old roommate IM’ng everyone he knew and actually crying, laughing, etc.
In my opinion, the effects the Internet has had on everyday life has been overall positive. From finding your long lost best friend from your old high school to emailing your relatives, it has helped us in every way imaginable socially. Sure, there can be drawbacks, but the pros outweight the cons in my opinion.
This quote from the article “The Internet and Social Life” does a great job explaining just how the Internet effects everyday life:
“…will change almost every aspect of our lives- private, social, cultural, economic, and political…because (they) deal with the very essence of human society: communication between people. Earlier technologies, from printing to the telegraph…have wrought big changes over time. But the social changes over the coming decades are likely to be much more extensive, and to happen much faster, than any in the past, because the technologies driving them are continuing to develop at a breakneck pace. More importantly, they look as if together they will be as pervasive and ubiquitous as electricity.”
The PEW reports show that the Internet has also affected democracy. Issues are easier to access on the Internet, which has helped people become educated about the issues before going to vote. I have no clue how people did it before, other than the traditional speaking campaign. It is refreshing that know that EVERYONE is able to get this information on the Internet.
Community involvement, according to Bargh and McKenna, is helped through the Internet. Participating is greatly helped through the Internet in that it gathers everyone towards a common goal or interest. I know some organizations that are much more easily accessible over the Internet then through traditional methods.
I laughed at Rheingold’s “Virtual Community” piece in that he would experience all of these emotions on the Internet. He wrote, “My flesh-and-blood family long ago grew accustomed to the way I sit I my home office early in the morning and late at night, chuckling and cursing, sometimes crying, about words I read on the computer screen. It might have looked to my daughter as if I were alone at my desk the night she caught me chortling online, but from my point of view I was in living contact with old and new friends, strangers and colleagues.” This reminds me of my old roommate IM’ng everyone he knew and actually crying, laughing, etc.
In my opinion, the effects the Internet has had on everyday life has been overall positive. From finding your long lost best friend from your old high school to emailing your relatives, it has helped us in every way imaginable socially. Sure, there can be drawbacks, but the pros outweight the cons in my opinion.
Internet ILU BB.
According to McKenna and Bargh, the main reason people use the internet is to communicate over distances with their loved ones and to maintain these relationships. I have to say that I always roll my eyes whenever I read about how the internet is to blame for the way it has negatively impacted people’s manners and sense of social decorum. It’s people that do this, they become lazy and they use the internet so feverishly that they lose all sense of common decency. So don’t go blaming my beautiful wonderful internet. It is not the cause, it is merely our latest scapegoat. You can obviously take anything and put in the hands of certain people, no matter what it is, the result will have the potential to be immensely negative. So please forgive me if I do not indulge any more authors in this tired old view. (I’m referring again to McKenna and Bargh’s mentions of deteriorating community ties etc. etc, even though they later go on to represent the findings of studies that contradict this view). In my opinion and in my life, the internet has done nothing but significantly improve my interpersonal relationships and family life. You don’t always have to sit around the table with your family while eating dinner to get quality conversations going…in fact, in my family, we’ve eaten in our den so many times, each of us on our laptops, surfing, eating, and talking to each other while doing so, and the quality of these conversations has always been much higher than sitting at the boring old dinner table, that’s for sure. Not to mention that meanwhile, we’ve learned something. I will always fight this side of the battle for my lovely friend, the internet, because I am an immigrant and my family lives overseas. If it was not for all the tools we have access to because of the internet, I don’t know if I could have survived. As far as democracy goes, I think the best thing the internet can do is keep people informed. According to the PEW research, it is doing that and I think if the internet is eroding apathy, then it’s a hugely positive thing. Of course we read about how governments are attempting to censor the internet and yes that is horrifying and depressing to think about, but on the whole, this level of access to the breadth of knowledge out there is a plus in my book. I was also very interested in the portion of the reading that discussed the internet as a support function for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals because this is something we are currently researching in an independent study with Dr. Kate Peirce(By we I mean Kerri and I). This also ties into Fazia’s thesis and I’d definitely be very interested in reading about your findings for your women’s newsgroup when you are finished Fazia. :)
Back to the readings. It seemed an almost obvious conclusion when McKenna and Bargh realized that ‘Oh my gosh! The internet is not effecting us, but we are actually shaping its effects ourselves!” The power of the sun in the palm of your hand. Do I seem bitter? Okay I think I do and I’m not sure why. I’ll stop now and talk a bit about Henry Jenkins.
In ‘Convergence Culture’, Jenkins’ quote ‘”In the world of media convergence, every important story gets told, every brand gets sold and every consumer gets courted across multiple media platforms’ is a statement that will forever hold true. Now with everything happening with social networking online and with companies like Pluck doing what they do for their clients, there’s nowhere for us to hide. Of course the advertising upside in this is that we’ll get messages we might actually need. I’ve clicked on a link or two here and there lately, whereas before I would completely ignore any sort of promotion. Reaching us in newer, trendier ways is becoming increasingly important to advertisers and its becoming harder for us to resist. In this way, yes I feel the internet has negatively impacted me in everyday life. But, if I was an ad exec, I’d feel differently. I don’t want to be bombarded with messages on my Facebook account anymore. Why do they always want me to tell you guys what I am renting on my Netflix or Blockbuster queue? Yes I understand that I can opt out, but that’s one more thing I have to concern myself with online and I’m becoming increasingly paranoid. I really liked how Convergence Culture looked at the development of ‘delivery technologies’ as separate from the evolution of media. This is an important distinction and one I don’t think we make in everyday conversation and goes back to how Jenkins talks about us taking technology and therefore media, into our own hands. We are not so mindless anymore, are we? Jenkins’ readings and emphasis on pop culture made me evaluate the way a certain number of my friends and I are about the Tv show LOST. Delivery technologies and media awareness has us twittering theories to each other, sending long emails, contributing to online wikis based around the show’s mysteries and purchasing video games that yes, mimic the events that took place after Oceanic flight 815 crashed into the south pacific. Call it crazy. I would do. But its not because of the ease with which we can be fanatics. And all this media usage has me as an advertising target for numerous things. And not only in an Amazon-recommendation type of way (Dee likes Lost? She’ll also like this…) but also because the world of Lost is intertwined with so many other worlds (ie. Stephen King) that I am a potential subscriber/buyer to a multitude of things. All this is convergence. In my mind. I didn’t think Jenkins’ point on it being mental connections instead of media connections applied to me until I looked at how LOSTified my life has become of late. That’s why I loved Henry Jenkins, he hammers you over the head with his views in a way that you actually ask for the hammering.
So in conclusion, the internet has a far-reaching impact on our lives, this much is obvious. And while there are some scary big brother issues and privacy concerns out there, in general, the internet has positively impacted our lives. We just have to be smart and stay informed and have got to figure out ways to build community involvement online to deal with issues such as breaches of our personal privacy. How can we do this? I have no idea. But at least we’re all online and talking.
Back to the readings. It seemed an almost obvious conclusion when McKenna and Bargh realized that ‘Oh my gosh! The internet is not effecting us, but we are actually shaping its effects ourselves!” The power of the sun in the palm of your hand. Do I seem bitter? Okay I think I do and I’m not sure why. I’ll stop now and talk a bit about Henry Jenkins.
In ‘Convergence Culture’, Jenkins’ quote ‘”In the world of media convergence, every important story gets told, every brand gets sold and every consumer gets courted across multiple media platforms’ is a statement that will forever hold true. Now with everything happening with social networking online and with companies like Pluck doing what they do for their clients, there’s nowhere for us to hide. Of course the advertising upside in this is that we’ll get messages we might actually need. I’ve clicked on a link or two here and there lately, whereas before I would completely ignore any sort of promotion. Reaching us in newer, trendier ways is becoming increasingly important to advertisers and its becoming harder for us to resist. In this way, yes I feel the internet has negatively impacted me in everyday life. But, if I was an ad exec, I’d feel differently. I don’t want to be bombarded with messages on my Facebook account anymore. Why do they always want me to tell you guys what I am renting on my Netflix or Blockbuster queue? Yes I understand that I can opt out, but that’s one more thing I have to concern myself with online and I’m becoming increasingly paranoid. I really liked how Convergence Culture looked at the development of ‘delivery technologies’ as separate from the evolution of media. This is an important distinction and one I don’t think we make in everyday conversation and goes back to how Jenkins talks about us taking technology and therefore media, into our own hands. We are not so mindless anymore, are we? Jenkins’ readings and emphasis on pop culture made me evaluate the way a certain number of my friends and I are about the Tv show LOST. Delivery technologies and media awareness has us twittering theories to each other, sending long emails, contributing to online wikis based around the show’s mysteries and purchasing video games that yes, mimic the events that took place after Oceanic flight 815 crashed into the south pacific. Call it crazy. I would do. But its not because of the ease with which we can be fanatics. And all this media usage has me as an advertising target for numerous things. And not only in an Amazon-recommendation type of way (Dee likes Lost? She’ll also like this…) but also because the world of Lost is intertwined with so many other worlds (ie. Stephen King) that I am a potential subscriber/buyer to a multitude of things. All this is convergence. In my mind. I didn’t think Jenkins’ point on it being mental connections instead of media connections applied to me until I looked at how LOSTified my life has become of late. That’s why I loved Henry Jenkins, he hammers you over the head with his views in a way that you actually ask for the hammering.
So in conclusion, the internet has a far-reaching impact on our lives, this much is obvious. And while there are some scary big brother issues and privacy concerns out there, in general, the internet has positively impacted our lives. We just have to be smart and stay informed and have got to figure out ways to build community involvement online to deal with issues such as breaches of our personal privacy. How can we do this? I have no idea. But at least we’re all online and talking.
The Internet in our Everyday Lives
The Internet has basically changed the way the world works, and will work in the future. From personal communications to business communications, the Internet, e-mail and all of the capabilities that come with it have forever changed the way we live our lives.
As Mark Poster says in “CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere”, the Internet “opens new positions of speech, empowering previously excluded groups and enabling new aspects of social life to become part of the political process.” Basically, those without a voice, now have one because of the Internet. It gives people a place to speak their mind, voice their opinions, and receive feedback on those feelings. In this way, peoples everyday lives have become more of a public domain, it gives them a gateway to reach everyone, everywhere. The PEW reports also show that people are using the Internet to become more informed in every aspect of life. As with politics, it shows that people who use the Internet know more about candidates, issues and even more about subjects that are the opposite of what they believe. It gives citizens a greater knowledge of all things.
To me personally, the biggest effect the Internet has had on society is through creating and keeping relationships. This includes friends, family, co-workers and other relationships. The Internet “bridges great distances” (The Internet and Social Life). In this article I didn’t find it surprising at all that the final conclusions they came to were that the Internet actually created connections with both family and friends and that it really does not deviate from the one-on-one contact that people have with each other. The Internet to me just provides another portal or means of communications with them. It also doesn’t surprise me that they found that Internet users are more involved in the community. The Internet is useful in finding organizations to be in, and then also keeping in contact with the members of these organizations.
I believe the overall effects of the Internet are very positive. It allows everyone to have access to a great deal of information as well as gives them a portal to express their opinions and gain the opinions of other people. It keeps people in contact through both short and long distances and allows people to be more open and social with the world around them.
As Mark Poster says in “CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere”, the Internet “opens new positions of speech, empowering previously excluded groups and enabling new aspects of social life to become part of the political process.” Basically, those without a voice, now have one because of the Internet. It gives people a place to speak their mind, voice their opinions, and receive feedback on those feelings. In this way, peoples everyday lives have become more of a public domain, it gives them a gateway to reach everyone, everywhere. The PEW reports also show that people are using the Internet to become more informed in every aspect of life. As with politics, it shows that people who use the Internet know more about candidates, issues and even more about subjects that are the opposite of what they believe. It gives citizens a greater knowledge of all things.
To me personally, the biggest effect the Internet has had on society is through creating and keeping relationships. This includes friends, family, co-workers and other relationships. The Internet “bridges great distances” (The Internet and Social Life). In this article I didn’t find it surprising at all that the final conclusions they came to were that the Internet actually created connections with both family and friends and that it really does not deviate from the one-on-one contact that people have with each other. The Internet to me just provides another portal or means of communications with them. It also doesn’t surprise me that they found that Internet users are more involved in the community. The Internet is useful in finding organizations to be in, and then also keeping in contact with the members of these organizations.
I believe the overall effects of the Internet are very positive. It allows everyone to have access to a great deal of information as well as gives them a portal to express their opinions and gain the opinions of other people. It keeps people in contact through both short and long distances and allows people to be more open and social with the world around them.
Living the iLife
The Internet has allowed people's interpersonal relationships to benefit from more connected forms of communication. Text messaging, instant messaging, camera phones, digital cameras, email, and social networking have all contributed to people's ability to remain in communication despite barriers of time and space that may have existed in the past prior to the development of these technologies. MUDs, message boards, usenet groups, IRC, newsgroups, and most recently sns have allowed people to develop interpersonal relationships with people they would have never been able to previously. Bargh and McKenna state that "others believe the Internet affords a new and different avenue of social interaction that enables groups and relationships to form that otherwise would not be able to, thereby increasing and enhancing social connectivity. These technologies have increased social capital as well. SNS combines the features of almost all of these aspects of Internet communication into one architecture. This helps in facilitating the creation and longevity of interpersonal communication. As Bargh and McKenna state, "the main reason people use the Internet is to communicate with other people...and the principal reason why people send email messages to others is to maintain interpersonal relationships. The article on convergence concurred that "Our lives, relationships, memories, fantasies, desires also flow across media channels. Being a lover or a mommy or a teacher occurs on multiple platforms. Sometimes we tuck our children into bed at night and other times we instant message them from the other side of the globe." Bargh and McKenna further state that "the Internet has unique, even transformational qualities as a communication channel, including relative anonymity and the ability to easily link with others who have similar interests, values, and beliefs," but that "features of the Internet also tend to leave a lot unsaid and unspecified and open to inference and interpretation." The convergence article points out the way in which previously unavailable interpersonal relationships develop, "Knowledge communities form around mutual intellectual interests; their members work together to forge new knowledge often in realms where no traditional expertise exists; the pursuit of and assessment of knowledge is at once communal and adversarial." Rheingold provides the practical model of these ideas when he speaks of Well "Finding the WELL was like discovering a cozy little world that had been flourishing without me, hidden within the walls of my house; an entire cast of characters welcomed me to the troupe with great merriment as soon as I found the secret door. Like others who fell into the WELL, I soon discovered that I was audience, performer, and scriptwriter, along with my companions, in an ongoing improvisation. A full-scale subculture was growing on the other side of my telephone jack, and they invited me to help create something new." He goes on to say that "I have good friends now all over the world who I never would have met without the mediation of the Net."
All that being said, all of this connectivity has severely limited an individuals privacy.
Hacker culture has made important contributions to the development of the Internet. Hacker culture is a sub-culture that wouldn't have come into existence without the Internet. The free software movement has been one of their greatest contributions, both in terms of software and ideology.
The idea of the Internet as a social space instead of a mere tool was a very interesting concept used in the article by Mark Poster. The juxtaposition of Germany and the hammer was a great way to illustrate his concept of the Internet as social space.
The Internet provides the capability of a global or national political dialogue that could never have existed on such a large scale before. The Internet "enables citizens to disseminate news and organize resistance to totalitarian rule." The Power of the Mobile Many illustrates this in terms of the ways that Filipinos and Zapatistas were able to successfully fight against coercive and repressive policy. I find the concept of "netwar" to be very intriguing and actually ties in very well with what I wish to examine in my research project for this class. I feel that the Internet is becoming the new public sphere. We haven't had this kind of a public sphere for some time due to the way broadcast television was packaged and funded. The Internet allows us to bypass many of the commercial interests that have eroded journalism. People are very busy these days among working long hours, long commutes, and other such responsibilities that we simply do not have the time to meet at town hall or the agora. The Internet allows us to participate in a public sphere from anywhere. We can comment on a blog or a message board from our cell phone while we are riding the metro home from work. We can now become peer to peer journalists via the same methods. "What if smart mobs could empower entire populations to engage in peer-to-peer journalism? Imagine the impact of the Rodney King video multiplied by the people power of Napster (The Power of the Mobile Many)." As Rheingold states, "if a government is to rule according to the consent of the governed, the effectiveness of that government is heavily influenced by how much the governed know about the issues that affect them."
Overall, I would have to say that the Internet has been more of a boon than a pariah. My greatest concern is its potential to completely erode privacy. Foucault's analysis of the panopticon should provide us with a stark warning that we are constantly under surveillance, especially in the era of the Patriot Act, domestic spying programs, and immunity for the companies that acquiesce to governmental demands.
All that being said, all of this connectivity has severely limited an individuals privacy.
Hacker culture has made important contributions to the development of the Internet. Hacker culture is a sub-culture that wouldn't have come into existence without the Internet. The free software movement has been one of their greatest contributions, both in terms of software and ideology.
The idea of the Internet as a social space instead of a mere tool was a very interesting concept used in the article by Mark Poster. The juxtaposition of Germany and the hammer was a great way to illustrate his concept of the Internet as social space.
The Internet provides the capability of a global or national political dialogue that could never have existed on such a large scale before. The Internet "enables citizens to disseminate news and organize resistance to totalitarian rule." The Power of the Mobile Many illustrates this in terms of the ways that Filipinos and Zapatistas were able to successfully fight against coercive and repressive policy. I find the concept of "netwar" to be very intriguing and actually ties in very well with what I wish to examine in my research project for this class. I feel that the Internet is becoming the new public sphere. We haven't had this kind of a public sphere for some time due to the way broadcast television was packaged and funded. The Internet allows us to bypass many of the commercial interests that have eroded journalism. People are very busy these days among working long hours, long commutes, and other such responsibilities that we simply do not have the time to meet at town hall or the agora. The Internet allows us to participate in a public sphere from anywhere. We can comment on a blog or a message board from our cell phone while we are riding the metro home from work. We can now become peer to peer journalists via the same methods. "What if smart mobs could empower entire populations to engage in peer-to-peer journalism? Imagine the impact of the Rodney King video multiplied by the people power of Napster (The Power of the Mobile Many)." As Rheingold states, "if a government is to rule according to the consent of the governed, the effectiveness of that government is heavily influenced by how much the governed know about the issues that affect them."
Overall, I would have to say that the Internet has been more of a boon than a pariah. My greatest concern is its potential to completely erode privacy. Foucault's analysis of the panopticon should provide us with a stark warning that we are constantly under surveillance, especially in the era of the Patriot Act, domestic spying programs, and immunity for the companies that acquiesce to governmental demands.
social implications of the Internet
In the Bargh and McKenna article, the authors quote another writer, Manasian, as saying "(The Internet and related technologies) will change almost every aspect of our lives- private, social, cultural, economic and political...because (they) deal with the very essence of human society, communication between people." This quote effectively surmises what most of the authors in this weeks readings are getting at, the fact that Internet has revolutionized communication and access to knowledge for those who have the privilege of using it.
I agree with the authors of the Internet and Social Life when they say that the Internet is breakthrough in communication technology because aspects of all previous technologies and synthesizes them into one medium. It can operate as a person-to-person communication tool, revolutionizing interpersonal communication, and it can be used as a mass media tool. The most revolutionizing aspect is that the lines between what used to be distinct modes of communication are blurred by the Internet.
This reading goes on to talk about e-mail and the affects it has on interpersonal communications. There were early studies that said that emails broke down the barriers of inhibition that ruled the professional world and caused people to be more aggressive with their co-workers. The authors cite a different study with college students where the majority of people feel that email has improved their relationships with family and friends. Most people who live far from home would tend to agree with this. It is much cheaper to send and receive email then to make long-distance or over-seas calls. I personally believe that email has a tendency to break-down those inhibitions. Being an instructor who receives large amounts of emails from students, some not always very happy with me, I can tell that they feel more comfortable saying something i an email that they would never dare say to my face. This is because, and the readings agree, that no matter how convenient email is, there is still something lost in the fact that you can't read a person's body-language and are therefor more likely to cross a line that you wouldn't normally cross in a face-t0-face conversation.
In Rheingold's The Virtual Community, the author talks about being a member of WELLS. He tells a cute story about his baby having a tick and finding the answer to its removal before his wife could get the pediatrician on the phone. One of the bigger points the author tries to make is the unique feeling of belonging to a community of people who know you, sometimes purely, through your online persona. These sorts of feelings of camaraderie and belonging used to only be available to people through real-live public organizations, but now can be accessed easily from home. The accessibility of other people with like interests has been a positive thing for most people. Bargh and McKenna say that shared interests and values can lead to close, positive friendships born from the Internet, especially of there isn't a "real world" equivalent. This has changes society in a way that many would view as negative. If people don't feel connected to the society in their geographic vicinity, then they tend to spend more time online conversing with people they identify with. Personally, I would hesitate about making value judgements on whether or not more time online, less time with people in your community is a negative thing or not.
For me, I think the affect on politics is one of the major areas that the Internet has affected. In the article, "Smart Mobs," the author talks about President of Estrada losing power because people were able to rally and come together through the use of cell phone technology. The author of CyberDemocracy is correct to say that governments can maintain control over the Internet, snuffing out positive political discourse. However, no one can argue with the power of connectivity the Internet has introduced to politics. Having written a research paper on political engagement and blogs, it became apparent to me that the idea of pulling people that are spread out geographically but are closely aligned in their opinions together into a cohesive movement on the Internet can spell the difference between success and defeat for many candidates. There is also the issue of civic engagement via the Internet. All I can say is that I have sent a multitude of emails to Senators and Congress people but never once mailed a snail-mail letter on the same subjects. The Pew Research project seems to support this assumption. Instead of seeking information that only reinforces their own pre-existing opinions, people are using the Internet to seek new information and will change their minds if presented with adequate information on a subject.
I think that with the few issues some people have with the fuzzing of lines with point-to-point Internet communications, I think that most of the changes brought on by the Internet have been positive. Ever since the Internet became more mainstream, chicken-little's have been crying that the sky is falling. So far none of the doom-and-gloom predictions about the Internet ruining our society have come to fruition. I think that we are still in our infancy when it comes how we use and interact with the Internet. I prefer to take a "post-post-modern" view of the Internet. I lime to think that Internet technology is reactionary to a pre-Internet world. The social issues that we experience because of the Internet existed before the Internet but have been sped up and magnified by the new technologies. Eventually we will learn how to educated young people on socially appropriate uses for the Internet that will allow us to minimize some of the negative affects, while maximizing the positive affects.
I agree with the authors of the Internet and Social Life when they say that the Internet is breakthrough in communication technology because aspects of all previous technologies and synthesizes them into one medium. It can operate as a person-to-person communication tool, revolutionizing interpersonal communication, and it can be used as a mass media tool. The most revolutionizing aspect is that the lines between what used to be distinct modes of communication are blurred by the Internet.
This reading goes on to talk about e-mail and the affects it has on interpersonal communications. There were early studies that said that emails broke down the barriers of inhibition that ruled the professional world and caused people to be more aggressive with their co-workers. The authors cite a different study with college students where the majority of people feel that email has improved their relationships with family and friends. Most people who live far from home would tend to agree with this. It is much cheaper to send and receive email then to make long-distance or over-seas calls. I personally believe that email has a tendency to break-down those inhibitions. Being an instructor who receives large amounts of emails from students, some not always very happy with me, I can tell that they feel more comfortable saying something i an email that they would never dare say to my face. This is because, and the readings agree, that no matter how convenient email is, there is still something lost in the fact that you can't read a person's body-language and are therefor more likely to cross a line that you wouldn't normally cross in a face-t0-face conversation.
In Rheingold's The Virtual Community, the author talks about being a member of WELLS. He tells a cute story about his baby having a tick and finding the answer to its removal before his wife could get the pediatrician on the phone. One of the bigger points the author tries to make is the unique feeling of belonging to a community of people who know you, sometimes purely, through your online persona. These sorts of feelings of camaraderie and belonging used to only be available to people through real-live public organizations, but now can be accessed easily from home. The accessibility of other people with like interests has been a positive thing for most people. Bargh and McKenna say that shared interests and values can lead to close, positive friendships born from the Internet, especially of there isn't a "real world" equivalent. This has changes society in a way that many would view as negative. If people don't feel connected to the society in their geographic vicinity, then they tend to spend more time online conversing with people they identify with. Personally, I would hesitate about making value judgements on whether or not more time online, less time with people in your community is a negative thing or not.
For me, I think the affect on politics is one of the major areas that the Internet has affected. In the article, "Smart Mobs," the author talks about President of Estrada losing power because people were able to rally and come together through the use of cell phone technology. The author of CyberDemocracy is correct to say that governments can maintain control over the Internet, snuffing out positive political discourse. However, no one can argue with the power of connectivity the Internet has introduced to politics. Having written a research paper on political engagement and blogs, it became apparent to me that the idea of pulling people that are spread out geographically but are closely aligned in their opinions together into a cohesive movement on the Internet can spell the difference between success and defeat for many candidates. There is also the issue of civic engagement via the Internet. All I can say is that I have sent a multitude of emails to Senators and Congress people but never once mailed a snail-mail letter on the same subjects. The Pew Research project seems to support this assumption. Instead of seeking information that only reinforces their own pre-existing opinions, people are using the Internet to seek new information and will change their minds if presented with adequate information on a subject.
I think that with the few issues some people have with the fuzzing of lines with point-to-point Internet communications, I think that most of the changes brought on by the Internet have been positive. Ever since the Internet became more mainstream, chicken-little's have been crying that the sky is falling. So far none of the doom-and-gloom predictions about the Internet ruining our society have come to fruition. I think that we are still in our infancy when it comes how we use and interact with the Internet. I prefer to take a "post-post-modern" view of the Internet. I lime to think that Internet technology is reactionary to a pre-Internet world. The social issues that we experience because of the Internet existed before the Internet but have been sped up and magnified by the new technologies. Eventually we will learn how to educated young people on socially appropriate uses for the Internet that will allow us to minimize some of the negative affects, while maximizing the positive affects.
We have let the Internet simply become embedded in our everyday lives. The Internet affects the ways in which we behave offline as well as online. It has established the universal connection in the social world and our ideologies. Because of its importance to our society, our work and non-work lives. The Internet has become something that would be extremely difficult not to have.
The Internet has changed us into a networked society where the interpersonal formalities have somewhat dissolved, and we turn towards living in a network. The internet has affected and changed our individualism.
Most would believe that the Internet has not decreased users' social contacts but that is a falsehood. People use the computer for a variety of reasons such as pleasure, gratification, relief from stress, neglecting work and school and/or or family obligations.
Internet use can become very addicting and web-sites such as MySpace where there is an outlet for social networking rather than formal communication, doesn’t help. You can say it is like a “cyber drug,” and for some people the web provides a series of outlets for them to “pick their poison” to reach their “fix.”
This continuation of Internet activities affects family life and community involvement. You may have to look at these specific effects of the Internet on a gender scale since in some of the previous readings it was noted that males outnumber females significantly as users on the web. Then we must look at a scale for demographics of who is able to obtain usage of the web and then you can really see the main factors and distinguishing effects from the internet.
From a democratic view, the effects lie with the selectivity of the information that is consistent with the user's predispositions and beliefs. I firmly believe the information will not broaden users' beliefs but rather narrow them. Users will fall into/find a homogenous community which will be created, grow and form the ideologies of those who share this common view. I think the Pew article can back up my opinion up, as many users delve into politics through the internet for political news and commentary. The internet is very much a contributor to a vast audience of political views. The article states that, “commentators have expressed concern that growing use of the internet would be harmful to democratic deliberation” as far as users’ expressive common interest and intentions rather than the exchange of views for this year’s election. I will end with the key point that “they are worried that citizens would use the internet to seek information that reinforces their political preference and avoid material that challenges their views” (http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/141/report_display.asp)
Weighing a Switch to a Mac by Thomas J. Fitzgerald and The ultimate smackdown: Mac versus PC by Gene Steinberg shared a commonality as far as which system was better. The switch to MAC varied depending on who was willing to leave the WINDOWS world. MAC introduces new applications that present a good argument for a user to at least try it for two weeks. It seems the biggest conflict was the familiarity with the new platform, but users, and customers were somewhat satisfied.
In conclusion, there are pros and cons of the effects of the internet. Today society has enhanced its growth through thinking, analyzing, criticizing authenticating, and composing their thoughts towards the web.
The Internet has changed us into a networked society where the interpersonal formalities have somewhat dissolved, and we turn towards living in a network. The internet has affected and changed our individualism.
Most would believe that the Internet has not decreased users' social contacts but that is a falsehood. People use the computer for a variety of reasons such as pleasure, gratification, relief from stress, neglecting work and school and/or or family obligations.
Internet use can become very addicting and web-sites such as MySpace where there is an outlet for social networking rather than formal communication, doesn’t help. You can say it is like a “cyber drug,” and for some people the web provides a series of outlets for them to “pick their poison” to reach their “fix.”
This continuation of Internet activities affects family life and community involvement. You may have to look at these specific effects of the Internet on a gender scale since in some of the previous readings it was noted that males outnumber females significantly as users on the web. Then we must look at a scale for demographics of who is able to obtain usage of the web and then you can really see the main factors and distinguishing effects from the internet.
From a democratic view, the effects lie with the selectivity of the information that is consistent with the user's predispositions and beliefs. I firmly believe the information will not broaden users' beliefs but rather narrow them. Users will fall into/find a homogenous community which will be created, grow and form the ideologies of those who share this common view. I think the Pew article can back up my opinion up, as many users delve into politics through the internet for political news and commentary. The internet is very much a contributor to a vast audience of political views. The article states that, “commentators have expressed concern that growing use of the internet would be harmful to democratic deliberation” as far as users’ expressive common interest and intentions rather than the exchange of views for this year’s election. I will end with the key point that “they are worried that citizens would use the internet to seek information that reinforces their political preference and avoid material that challenges their views” (http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/141/report_display.asp)
Weighing a Switch to a Mac by Thomas J. Fitzgerald and The ultimate smackdown: Mac versus PC by Gene Steinberg shared a commonality as far as which system was better. The switch to MAC varied depending on who was willing to leave the WINDOWS world. MAC introduces new applications that present a good argument for a user to at least try it for two weeks. It seems the biggest conflict was the familiarity with the new platform, but users, and customers were somewhat satisfied.
In conclusion, there are pros and cons of the effects of the internet. Today society has enhanced its growth through thinking, analyzing, criticizing authenticating, and composing their thoughts towards the web.
Internet effects
The effects of the Internet on everyday life are probably more far reaching than we even realize. Whether it be on family life, community involvement, democracy or interpersonal relationships. From reading the PEW summary of findings about the Internet and the democratic debate, the Internet appears to be an incredibly positive force when it comes to democracy. The article stated that during the specified campaign that 40% of those who use the Internet used it to get political material, this number was 50% higher than the previous campaign. A main part of this study was to see if using the Internet only reinforced the political views that were already held , the study shows that those who used the Internet were “exposed to more political arguments than non users”. This shows that internet users get a broader range of opinions and information by using the internet. A side of this that could be negative is that if you do not go to reputable sites you may be gaining unsavory and false information about a candidate that may give you incorrect assumptions, it should be everyone’s responsibility to try and make an effort to research what is opinion and false and what is verifiable. I find this to be even more important to do after watching the Google documentary and understanding how the engine works and how it does, unfortunately, have it’s flaws. The PEW study also stated that 42% of Internet users had gotten news about the campaign online or through email. Email is another area to be careful of when it comes to receiving facts about a political candidate. Many emails I receive about the candidates are forwarded and tend to be slanderous and false and so it may be better to either not even read these or to keep in mind that they are probably for the most part false. The PEW article also states that the amount of users using the web to obtain political information is undoubtedly higher and therefore it is a positive effect, however an explanation for this may be that the users are just using the internet as a supplementary source of information, which means that the internet may not be attracting new people to look for information about the election, but perhaps just supplementing those who are already interested in it and already receive information via the television on the newspaper. The article CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere somewhat agrees with this, it states, “ The Internet is being understood as an extension of or substitution for existing institutions”. I believe it is more of an extension when it comes to the political aspect, mainly because the Internet is seen as less dependable than other forms of media such as television or the newspaper. That, and according to Cyber democracy “Internet is often accused of elitism”, which may be another reason why people tend to not use it as their primary source of information. A positive effect may be the fact that the Internet provides a public sphere, which has been the fundamental part of a democracy for many years. The public sphere has disappeared when one reads or watches TV alone, becasue there is no place to share opinions, thoughts and ideas, however on the internet this can be utilized again and achieved via chat rooms, message boards or even email.
I think the article that best describes the effect of the Internet on community involvement would be the article Smart Mobs: The Power of the Mobile Many, especially the section on Mobile Ad Hoc Social networks. I think that these networks can be very positive and effective, as the article states, “organizing among people and their devices is done informally and on the fly”. If you need to remind everyone that there is a meeting tonight or that they need to remember to bring a certain item it can be done with very little effort, but still have a big effect. This process is so effective because it is
“self organizing, fully decentralized, and highly dynamic”. This system is positive and highly beneficial in the case that there is a crisis or an unplanned event occurs. For instance, if there were a huge wreck it would be nice to have an update on your phone immediately that would alert you of the situation, rather than having to encounter the issue. Another positive of the “mobile mobs” is that it allows everyone to participate in contributing information and news to society “We are also engaging in a process of cultural reclamation, where the individual is put back into the loop of information production a dispension”. It is like when the Virginia Tech shootings occurred; they played and replayed the video from a student’s camera phone of the sounds of the gunshots. Another example of the effect of Internet on community relations comes from the article buying into American idol. When a brand such a Harley Davidson or Apple begins to attract highly committed consumers they are able to move the brand online and this enforces social connections, by being able to communicate with others who enjoy the brand. This in turn results in the consumers buying more of the product that brought them together in the first place. “Individuals also place real weight on the judgment of their fellow community of consumption members”. In the article “Worship at the Altar of Convergence”, the say “convergence represents a cultural shift as consumers are encouraged to seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content” I think that these loyal customers (Harley Davidson or Apple) going to the internet to make connections could be seen as a form of that kind of convergence. I also think the article involving the Mac vs. PC, can also be taken into consideration here, when deciding whether you want to be a Mac or PC user, networks you are involved in can defintely be an influence when deciding which to choose. As the article Which is Best: Mac or PC for a music computer says “there is no best, it is different for everyone”, I think your decision may lie in more with what your friends, family and others that you come into contact think and use, more than if you really weighed the positives and negatives. A Negative aspect, which is touched on in the article Mobile Mobs, is the privacy concerns that come with having a Mobile Ad Hoc Social network. By having these social networks you cannot always ensure who is in your network and who can contact you.
The article that I felt related best to the effects of Internet on family life was the article “Buying into American Idol”. This article shows that families are coming together more and more through the media, one person may be very involved in a television show and this causes the other members that may not be as invested in the show to come and watch and to spend quality time together, by doing this they become invested in the show and this gives advertisers a stronger connection. Advertisers want to “extend across as many media as possible”, so that they can be the most profitable. A show may start on television, but may be advertised and written about on the Internet and newspaper. This affects not only family members, but can affect interpersonal relationships as well. By having a common interest at work or something to talk about gives people a sense of belonging, such as when it comes to women and gossiping. “Jones suggests that gossip is an important resource that women historically have used to connect their personal experiences within a larger sphere beyond their immediate domestic environment.” Shows such as American Idol and reality television are something most women can relate to and talk about. Reality television allows viewers to “share their values, express outrage and learn about differences” and this can all be done via the Internet, whether it be on an instant messenger or message board or chat room. The negative side to this is that while families are coming together more via different media, which is considered to be a positive, is this replacing families coming together over dinner or by playing a game? And if that is so maybe the effect isn’t really isn’t as positive as it appears to be.
Way too much time on-line!!
I think that it is undeniable that Internet has impacted the social and economic aspects of our society. Communication is easier, we are able to find any information we need, assignments have more depth, and work is more organized, however; I don’t think that all of the effects have been positive.
I think that the Internet is somewhat socially isolating in situations and taking away from interpersonal communication. It’s replacing our need for face-to-face interaction; instead of getting together with friends, we are meeting in chat rooms and on social networking sites. There are also other issues associated with communicating over the Internet, according to Bargh and McKenna; there are time delays to consider when choosing to communicate over the Internet. A survey of international college students, according to Bargh and McKenna, found that they considered off-line communication to be more beneficial to establishing relationships.
I think that the Internet has had positive effects on maintaining family relationships with those who may not live in the same area, according to the authors, “a study showed that the Internet helped to maintain long distance relationships”. While I think that the internet has done an amazing job in helping to maintain relationships, I also believe that the long hours that people spend on-line can have a negative effect on the relationships they have with people in their area.
As far as the community involvement, Bargh and McKenna cited a study that found the more time people spend on-line, the more likely they are to participate in organizations outside of cyberspace. I can’t help but wonder if this is because their usage has had such a negative effect on their relationships that participating in these groups is the only way they are not completely committed to maintain a relationship.
The effect that the Internet has had on democracy and politics is astounding, according to the PEW reports more than “40% of Internet users have gotten political information on-line”. The Internet is increasing political awareness and provides an avenue for the everyday person to voice their opinion through blogs and other user generated content. While the Internet is an amazing source for news, the PEW studies found that for the most part it is a complement to the other media outlets, with people still preferring to get their news in more conventional ways. I have always said that I will always prefer a newspaper that I can hold compared to one on-line. One interesting thing I have to add, while at the presentation by Mark McKinnon he mentioned the effects of the Internet on politics. According to McKinnon, the Internet is “really interesting and having a huge impact”, he mentioned that “it’s becoming democratized”; everyone can now voice their opinion.
I have mentioned that the Internet can have positive and negative effects on relationships, but I think the Internet can also have a negative effect on pocketbooks. Identity theft is very high in our society, and the Internet is helping to aid the criminals behind it. The article on the culture of the Internet mentioned what they called “crackers”, those who illegally penetrate computer systems. These “crackers” can impact the lives of individuals in a very negative way and can ultimately, in some cases ruin what they have established.
Overall, I think that the positives of the Internet out way the negatives. The Internet has made the impossible very possible and has provided our society with a way to be heard. It has made communication easier and much more convenient.
The articles on the PC vs. Mac were full of information, as far as the good things and the bad things of both and I completely agree that it is about “what you like”. I have never had a preference and I probably never will, as long as it has word and I can go on-line, then it’s all good!
I think that the Internet is somewhat socially isolating in situations and taking away from interpersonal communication. It’s replacing our need for face-to-face interaction; instead of getting together with friends, we are meeting in chat rooms and on social networking sites. There are also other issues associated with communicating over the Internet, according to Bargh and McKenna; there are time delays to consider when choosing to communicate over the Internet. A survey of international college students, according to Bargh and McKenna, found that they considered off-line communication to be more beneficial to establishing relationships.
I think that the Internet has had positive effects on maintaining family relationships with those who may not live in the same area, according to the authors, “a study showed that the Internet helped to maintain long distance relationships”. While I think that the internet has done an amazing job in helping to maintain relationships, I also believe that the long hours that people spend on-line can have a negative effect on the relationships they have with people in their area.
As far as the community involvement, Bargh and McKenna cited a study that found the more time people spend on-line, the more likely they are to participate in organizations outside of cyberspace. I can’t help but wonder if this is because their usage has had such a negative effect on their relationships that participating in these groups is the only way they are not completely committed to maintain a relationship.
The effect that the Internet has had on democracy and politics is astounding, according to the PEW reports more than “40% of Internet users have gotten political information on-line”. The Internet is increasing political awareness and provides an avenue for the everyday person to voice their opinion through blogs and other user generated content. While the Internet is an amazing source for news, the PEW studies found that for the most part it is a complement to the other media outlets, with people still preferring to get their news in more conventional ways. I have always said that I will always prefer a newspaper that I can hold compared to one on-line. One interesting thing I have to add, while at the presentation by Mark McKinnon he mentioned the effects of the Internet on politics. According to McKinnon, the Internet is “really interesting and having a huge impact”, he mentioned that “it’s becoming democratized”; everyone can now voice their opinion.
I have mentioned that the Internet can have positive and negative effects on relationships, but I think the Internet can also have a negative effect on pocketbooks. Identity theft is very high in our society, and the Internet is helping to aid the criminals behind it. The article on the culture of the Internet mentioned what they called “crackers”, those who illegally penetrate computer systems. These “crackers” can impact the lives of individuals in a very negative way and can ultimately, in some cases ruin what they have established.
Overall, I think that the positives of the Internet out way the negatives. The Internet has made the impossible very possible and has provided our society with a way to be heard. It has made communication easier and much more convenient.
The articles on the PC vs. Mac were full of information, as far as the good things and the bad things of both and I completely agree that it is about “what you like”. I have never had a preference and I probably never will, as long as it has word and I can go on-line, then it’s all good!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)