the message is how it impacts society and culture. make chart and put new medium and fill it in. know the idea of hte global village. break throughs in innovation technology and bringing us closer together on a global sphere in the 60s.
the great seduction- shift in communication from media to a more interactive realm. websites, devices, user generated content and democratized media.
truth and lies andrew keen- people are taking money out of the pockets of legit professionals- trading files and videos. be able to explain a few of the problems he complains about.
Rushkoff- talk about the techniqes he talked about in his films. neuromarketing- people would be using science to get to know the market without them knowing about it so that they know how to get into the consumers mind. emotional branding0 talking about how rather advertising for a product it was trying to amke this emotinal connection between the product and the consumer. cheerios commerical and grandmother and baby. creating a culture- saturn cars making them on the same page. song airlines- create a culture of people who were this type of person and flew on this airline, attempted to. narrowcasting- trying to present it in a way that you are going to agree with- senators. rhetorical marketing- political advertising- tell certain political parties to use certain words- war on iraq war on terror. can gain more support from his ideas strictly by the words. under the radar marketing- product placement across different medias, advertisements you dont know is an advertisement. advertisement in games and applications. guerilla marketing- handingout fliers but actually a marketing technique- spray paint stencils and the grafitti research lab that used the led in the sky for ads. undercover/underground marketing techniques and plays into the viral media and make this marketing in the form of some kind of movement scheme. stamping peoples hands a club with songlogo.
digital nation gets second thoughts baout the new way were going. is its bringing us closer to together or tearing us apart. bitmap vs vector graphics. describe the quailities of each one- file formats and applications associated with that. bitmap- pixel based had a resolution web-72 picture- 300 used for photographs, photoshop, psd file jpg gif ppi (pixels per inch) and vector was used for like graphic imagery or text. illustrator .ai file it has anchor points connected with paths and had fill and stroke. they are mathematical coordinates on a grid.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Internet Democracy
1. Based on this debate and previous readings What Definition of democracy do you feel is most fitting for us to use in-conjunction our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies?
I think it is difficult, for myself, at least to choose one type of democratized media as my answer for this question. But, if I had to pick to follow only one of these democratized understandings, even if I do not agree with all of the findings it would have to be Andrew Keens. Keen's definition of democratized media makes sense in the sense of how it restricts certain types of occupations such as artists of all genres and gives away any right to privacy. I think Keen makes a good point when he explains our growing reliance of digital networked technologies because we are so use to now having everything right at our finger tips. Not only are we able to google search everything, but in Keens arguments he explains how the individual us gaining all that they want at the expense of the artist or creator of music, film, and art, which is factual. Although Keen goes about this discussion putting down the growing internet, I believe in Jimmy Wales understanding of the Web which is that it is meant to be accessed and used by all people and that his site, wikipedia.com is almost a small explanation of how the internet is run. It is accessible by all people and isa model there to be edited for everyones use. The internet can be viewed in this same way, a model that is waiting for different users to feed into a mold into a definition.
2. How does your answer to #1 fit into the unchecked nature of Web 2.0 technologies, and what are some tangible examples of this? Do you feel this is an important issue that needs to be addressed further?
I think it is hard for us to understand that this concept of web 2.0 is ever growing an evolving without any type of restrictions placed on it. Although there are restrictions on extreme uses of the internet that go against moral and judicial standings it is easy for anyone to use facebook.com to bully someone such as in the recent Rutgers incident, or for their own personal gain in whichever way that may be. The fact that incidents happen without being monitored always raises the question of why has the government not done anything to try and regulate the internet? In my opinion, I think that the Internet shouldn't have to be regulated. I think if it were to be it would just become another reason for Americans to oppose government for taking away their Amendment/Constitutional rights of free speech. I wish there was a happy balance between people using the internet securely and properly (educational uses, blogging, news stations etc) and those who were misusing it (pornography sites, violent or abuse sites) would be penalized. But, until that happens I think it again comes down to the individual and how the individual person on the internet has been raised and how they can impact the usuage of their internet for the better.
3. Define and describe the phenomenon of the Media echo-chamber as described in the Internet Debates. What are some examples of this silo effect, and do you believe it is an issue that needs to be addressed? Why or Why not?
The users on the debate use the work "Echo-chamber" to describe a specific place where ideas are being communicated. The silo effect they then describe is the fact that these places are sometimes (more often than not) written with a biased opinion or wrongful information therefore those who are reading these types of information are then taking it as fact causing the silo effect. I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion and should be allowed to express their opinions in the most accessible way possible; the internet. I think Americans should become educated enough to understand that these technologies are user generated and should not be taken for fact. It is up to the individual to know that they should be reading many different sources before coming up with their conclusion of what is fact so they are able to see the big picture.
4. What are some ways that expertise and authority could be (or is being) enforced on the internet? Who would be behind these forces? Why do you believe are they are needed or not needed?
In user generated spaces, such as Wikipedia, Facebook, Myspace, etc there are people monitoring these types of sites for misconduct. For example I know that on Facebook an individual can report a page or picture that is deemed offensive and inappropriate and then that information is sent to Facebook headquarters where the administration can come up with a final decision of removing the page/picture. The same respect goes to Myspace and Wikipedia where the creators have the options to remove offensive material and you agree to this in your contract before you are allowed to generate your page or finish the creation of your user name. This is the proper way, I believe, to handle the internet and keep the content on it user friendly.
6. Give a through example of an adaptation or improvement made by a of a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with changing nature of the internet.
Considering I just saw The Social Network movie I would definitely have to use Facebook for answering this question. Facebook has always been a site for the people, by the people. Its intent was to connect a campus socially in a new and different experience. Since the creation of facebook almost 5 years ago, it has become a culturally boom that has evolved and adapted to the new world. It has not lost its original intent to please the individual even though it has improved and gained corporate esteem with the use and ad campaigns. But, these campaigns or done appropriately not at the expense of the user being bombarded.
7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
I do not believe democracy is at all threatened but the unchecked internet. Like Jimmy Wales stated the definition of democracy is a government chosen by the people and the internet in the same respect should be kept by the people. It it when government and politics interfere in this nature that gives the people of society a sense of anxiety and anguish that there is no place they are able to speak freely and be an individual. The internet allows people to in this way be happy and at ease that they are allowed to have control in some part of their lives over this social domain.
I think it is difficult, for myself, at least to choose one type of democratized media as my answer for this question. But, if I had to pick to follow only one of these democratized understandings, even if I do not agree with all of the findings it would have to be Andrew Keens. Keen's definition of democratized media makes sense in the sense of how it restricts certain types of occupations such as artists of all genres and gives away any right to privacy. I think Keen makes a good point when he explains our growing reliance of digital networked technologies because we are so use to now having everything right at our finger tips. Not only are we able to google search everything, but in Keens arguments he explains how the individual us gaining all that they want at the expense of the artist or creator of music, film, and art, which is factual. Although Keen goes about this discussion putting down the growing internet, I believe in Jimmy Wales understanding of the Web which is that it is meant to be accessed and used by all people and that his site, wikipedia.com is almost a small explanation of how the internet is run. It is accessible by all people and isa model there to be edited for everyones use. The internet can be viewed in this same way, a model that is waiting for different users to feed into a mold into a definition.
2. How does your answer to #1 fit into the unchecked nature of Web 2.0 technologies, and what are some tangible examples of this? Do you feel this is an important issue that needs to be addressed further?
I think it is hard for us to understand that this concept of web 2.0 is ever growing an evolving without any type of restrictions placed on it. Although there are restrictions on extreme uses of the internet that go against moral and judicial standings it is easy for anyone to use facebook.com to bully someone such as in the recent Rutgers incident, or for their own personal gain in whichever way that may be. The fact that incidents happen without being monitored always raises the question of why has the government not done anything to try and regulate the internet? In my opinion, I think that the Internet shouldn't have to be regulated. I think if it were to be it would just become another reason for Americans to oppose government for taking away their Amendment/Constitutional rights of free speech. I wish there was a happy balance between people using the internet securely and properly (educational uses, blogging, news stations etc) and those who were misusing it (pornography sites, violent or abuse sites) would be penalized. But, until that happens I think it again comes down to the individual and how the individual person on the internet has been raised and how they can impact the usuage of their internet for the better.
3. Define and describe the phenomenon of the Media echo-chamber as described in the Internet Debates. What are some examples of this silo effect, and do you believe it is an issue that needs to be addressed? Why or Why not?
The users on the debate use the work "Echo-chamber" to describe a specific place where ideas are being communicated. The silo effect they then describe is the fact that these places are sometimes (more often than not) written with a biased opinion or wrongful information therefore those who are reading these types of information are then taking it as fact causing the silo effect. I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion and should be allowed to express their opinions in the most accessible way possible; the internet. I think Americans should become educated enough to understand that these technologies are user generated and should not be taken for fact. It is up to the individual to know that they should be reading many different sources before coming up with their conclusion of what is fact so they are able to see the big picture.
4. What are some ways that expertise and authority could be (or is being) enforced on the internet? Who would be behind these forces? Why do you believe are they are needed or not needed?
In user generated spaces, such as Wikipedia, Facebook, Myspace, etc there are people monitoring these types of sites for misconduct. For example I know that on Facebook an individual can report a page or picture that is deemed offensive and inappropriate and then that information is sent to Facebook headquarters where the administration can come up with a final decision of removing the page/picture. The same respect goes to Myspace and Wikipedia where the creators have the options to remove offensive material and you agree to this in your contract before you are allowed to generate your page or finish the creation of your user name. This is the proper way, I believe, to handle the internet and keep the content on it user friendly.
6. Give a through example of an adaptation or improvement made by a of a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with changing nature of the internet.
Considering I just saw The Social Network movie I would definitely have to use Facebook for answering this question. Facebook has always been a site for the people, by the people. Its intent was to connect a campus socially in a new and different experience. Since the creation of facebook almost 5 years ago, it has become a culturally boom that has evolved and adapted to the new world. It has not lost its original intent to please the individual even though it has improved and gained corporate esteem with the use and ad campaigns. But, these campaigns or done appropriately not at the expense of the user being bombarded.
7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
I do not believe democracy is at all threatened but the unchecked internet. Like Jimmy Wales stated the definition of democracy is a government chosen by the people and the internet in the same respect should be kept by the people. It it when government and politics interfere in this nature that gives the people of society a sense of anxiety and anguish that there is no place they are able to speak freely and be an individual. The internet allows people to in this way be happy and at ease that they are allowed to have control in some part of their lives over this social domain.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Democratized Media
1. How does Keen's does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? use examples from the web in the form of links.
Keen increasing talks in his book "The Great Seduction" about the democratized media. He discovered this term while at a FOO Camp and had no idea how greatly this would impact his life. Keen talks about how the internet is ruining our culture and not furthering it with the advances it is making in technology and the Web 2.0 world. Not only is the internet putting artists (musical and expressive) and journalists out of business but they are also having their work stolen on a consistent basis because it is put up on the free web for anyone to view. Also, new and easier downloads of such devices as movie makers and photo shop are putting movie makers and editors out of business as well. another issue Keen discusses is the fear that there is a growing meshing of truths with no one's personal individual truth prevailing. According to Keen this problem is "threatening the quality of civil public discourse, encouraging plagiarism and intellectual property theft, and stifling creativity". (Keen, p.17)
Some examples I can give of Keen's fears coming to light are one's that can be viewed form my Public Relations interest stand point. Some of these Web 2.0 websites can be those that are against big companies such as Wal-Mart and have gone as far as to make hate web pages for them. http://wakeupwalmart.com/ <-- this link sends you to a page made by dissatisfied consumers putting down Wal-Mart's production tactics and their use of importing from other countries so we can have cheap (cost wise) merchandise. Other satirical examples of the Web 2.0 I can think of that I have come in direct contact with is the use of YouTube to make fun of how some news stations, such as this of Fox News and their anchors report the news http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adyau9YtaAE It is the use of these videos and editing software that allow any regular person who has a will to produce something will find an easy way to do it thanks to the evolving internet.
2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?
Douglas Rushkoff and Andrew Keen's both have a very direct and almost derogatory view of where the world is heading in the sense of media and technology. Rushkoff and Keen's both believe that people are spending more and more of their time online and giving into this "corporation" or "democratization" as they both individually call it where there is the loss of individual and the expansion of one solitary view of the world which is that that can only be found on the Web. If I had to pick one of these views to understand and that I can relate most to it would be Rushkoff's. To me Keen's view of the internet is extremely pessimistic. He sees all the negatives in what the Internet has to offer but does not see all the jobs, and money, and the positive impacts that Web 2.0 has offered to the people of the World. Rushkoff's idea of our lives becoming a corporation I agree with completely. I think we can not only blame our lives revolving around media to advancement in technology but I also believe that social influences and the way corporations are run these days is a very influential part to how our lives our run. People have to be extremely multi tasked with their life styles like they are with their business life to be able to run their day to day activities and duties. There is a pro and a con to everything in this life and I believe people just need to have the ability to see what is important and real within their lives to understand how to use these devices to thier fullest potential.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Joe Malone: Whither the Individual?
Joe Malone: Whither the Individual?: "Social networks continue to become more widely used by all ages across the globe. With this trend comes the extension and expansion of indi..."
I agree with Joe on all his points about the role social media plays in people's lives. His ideas about social media keeping connections together instead of dismissing egos or taking away privacy seems to be along the same lines of my take on social media. Not only Joe but other people in the class have also given the same comment that people have the choice to choose what to add and what to not let people know about you. I think that it may be our generation that may have an understanding of the limits of these types of situations and have less of a concern with privacy and more of an understanding that privacy is not as prevalent as someone would expect.
Friday, October 1, 2010
3 pages
There is a fear that as we join these Facebook and social media sites that these places limit or minds and our ability to be ourselves because they are so restrictive in the make-up of their sites. Do people really find this an issue? I know for myself it is not so much an issue that I cannot customize my Facebook page because I am so intrigued by all of the other positive things it does allow me to do. For example I am able to keep in touch with all my friends who are abroad and view pictures, videos, and blog sites of their encounters without the worry of a daunting phone or text messaging bill. If you join a Facebook page or make a Twitter account why would you be so worried about needing such things as reflection times in the first place? These sites are made to keep people connected no matter where life takes them. These places are not meant to be your personal journal areas. By personal journals I mean a place where you can write your deepest and darkest thoughts with the freedom of complete privacy. If you do not want shared on these social sites personal information all you have to do is not type that information anywhere on the page.If you want a diary, than buy yourself a notepad. These types of sites, in my opinion, don’t hold a mass weight on people’s lives and ruin egos. When I was back in high school and MySpace was the big hit it was stressful to try and be technologically savvy and update your background every other day to keep up with your friend’s pages. I think these pages you were constantly judged by how your MySpace looked and no one even paid attention to your actual page. On Facebook and Twitter you are actually viewed by how you want to be viewed. What networks you are a part of, what you like, what pictures you have up. These kinds of issues allow you to make yourself how you want to be viewed and have direct influence on those factors. All in all I would say that people who are so nervous about the negative impacts on Facebook need to look back onto a time when Facebook was obsolete. How would you reach people from your high school or plan events and know what was going on in your social world? It is hard to remember these times, as I certainly don’t, and am definitely excited to see where this type of society will lead us in the future. It is hard for me to picture Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter and other social sites in any other places than where they currently are. All I can think these social sites are going to turn into is a more virtual hand on experience. I can see them incorporating video chat instead of profile pictures and becoming more life-like profiles than social networks. I can see Facebook becoming my children’s way of physical activity. For example I can see the iPad and virtual games becoming more portable and only working on solar energy so they are forced to be outside in the daylight playing these types of games. Those types of games and virtual reality I can see becoming the status quo of life. I think it is time that all generations embrace the new change instead of fighting it. Schools need to stop seeing the negatives in using technology in the classrooms and embrace all of the potential that is possible. I can not speak for other nations such as South Korea, but I know that the United States can progress to this type of ideals within the next few years.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Whither the Individual
There is a fear that as we join these Facebook and social media sites that these places limit or minds and our ability to be ourselves because they are so restrictive in the make-up of their sites. Do people really find this an issue? I know for myself it is not so much an issue that I cannot customize my Facebook page because I am so intrigued by all of the other positive things it does allow me to do. For example I am able to keep in touch with all my friends who are abroad and view pictures, videos, and blog sites of their encounters without the worry of a daunting phone or text messaging bill. If you join a Facebook page or make a Twitter account why would you be so worried about needing such things as reflection times in the first place? These sites are made to keep people connected no matter where life takes them. These places are not meant to be your personal journal areas. If you want a diary, than buy yourself a notepad. These types of sites, in my opinion, don’t hold a mass weight on people’s lives and ruin egos. When I was back in high school and MySpace was the big hit it was stressful to try and be technologically savvy and update your background every other day to keep up with your friend’s pages. I think these pages you were constantly judged by how your MySpace looked and no one even paid attention to your actual page. On Facebook and Twitter you are actually viewed by how you want to be viewed. What networks you are a part of, what you like, what pictures you have up. These kinds of issues allow you to make yourself how you want to be viewed and have direct influence on those factors. All in all I would say that people who are so nervous about the negative impacts on Facebook need to look back onto a time when Facebook was obsolete. How would you reach people from your high school or plan events and know what was going on in your social world? It is hard to remember these times, as I certainly don’t, and am definitely excited to see where this type of society will lead us in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)