Do users value privacy on Facebook?

Overall, I believe the answer to this question is no.  The fact being that there’s a larger uproar about changes in the design of the site versus the terms of service and privacy policy changes.  This is a big problem because it potentially gives Facebook the power to harvest and sell user data without much of a user uproar.

I don’t know why users are more concerned about the design of the site versus what Facebook can do with their content.  I believe some of the younger generations do not understand what privacy is or have not been educated in digital literacy.  There are many people who have Facebook profiles who are completely public.  I wonder if these users are inept when it comes to setting privacy controls or just don’t care.  Obviously, the design of the site will be the most immediate change a user can feel and that’s possibly why we hear larger criticisms regarding the interface versus the contractual agreements.

Until there is a mass problem of confidentiality or Facebook tries to sell user data (including, communication exchanges between users) to other corporations, I don’t see people being concerned with privacy on facebook.  I think it’s important that users hold facebook accountable and any other site they engage with.   Users should also make sure their staying up to date with privacy policy updates and be knowledgeable about the sites they use.

The Harmony Among Internet Memes

Youtube is a wonderful place that rarely fails me.  There have been very few times I haven’t found a video that I was searching for.  My favorite thing to do on YouTube is to watch the “most viewed” videos.  It’s interesting to see what videos have spread among the masses and what internet memes develop via youtube.  It’s always a great feeling to identify with an internet meme references outside of the internet, but maybe I’m just a nerd.

I traveled to California for an electronic music festival and at one point during the concert this video played on the large screens.

The DJ, Deadmau5 mixed the song and the crowd went crazy.  Not only did we get a little taste of keyboard cat, but the King of internet memes himself, Rick Astley.  It’s interesting to think about how these specific videos become viral, but what amazes me the most is the feeling of understanding an inside joke among 7,000+ people.  It’s almost indescribable.

The great unity underlying internet memes contribute to the universality component of the internet.  Some question the amateurish and ridiculous content  and cry out, “What does this video say about the mindset of the masses?”  coughAndrewKeencough.  Ultimately, I believe it’s important to look at internet culture for what it’s worth.   My usual skepticism over quality and content is not really emphasized when regarding internet memes and culture.  Ultimately, viral videos are simply entertainment.    If it makes you happy…why not?

See the girl towards the left touching the red mouse head? That's me.

Wikipedia Edits

For emac2321 we were required to edit a page on Wikipedia so naturally, I chose to edit The University of Texas at Dallas page.   I had edited the page to include the new program, Emerging Media and Communication.   I edited the section entitled academic programs under the school of arts and humanities.  My edits showed that the new program was under that specific school and the types of degrees for this program.

I edited this page a long time ago and my additions are still up.  I noticed that someone put more information under academic programs about the entire program, but this is actually straying away from the original design of the page.  There isn’t any in-depth information about each specific major, but rather the majors offered by each school.  I believe that once the admin sees this information it will be taken down immediately.  Since I tried to stay true to the original design and only added information that is pertinent and equal with the other majors I believe my edits will stay intact.

Britney Spears: Love or Hate Her

When I began reading the discussion page on Wikipedia for Britney Spear’s the first thing I noticed was the policy on biographies of living persons and how important it is to cite factual information from reliable sources and beware of an libelous content that could be posted to the site, but  I wasn’t really surprised when I found misinformation that needed to be removed because the information was sourced from tabloids.  The editors seem to monitor that heavily so I don’t think there’s a big problem of rumors in the article.

The main problems that I see developing on the discussion page is that some feel that the article has an overall negative slant towards Britney Spears.  A user who posted that the article can have negative reviews of Britney, but should have equally positive things to say about her.  The editor responded by saying that

“the reality of the matter is that its far easier to find negative criticism of Spears than it is to find positive. She is probably one of the most severely negatively received artists of her time and the article has to give accurate representation of the WP:WEIGHT of negative reception versus positive.”

I’m not really sure what I think of this statement by the editor.  I think it’s too much of a generalization that I don’t see any real evidence to prove that assumption.  Plus, it comes across that he has a negative view of Britney Spears and therefore, defends criticism without encouraging contributors to find sources with a balance of opinions.  If she really is the “most severely negatively received artists of her time” he should provide evidence of that.  As far as I know, that’s just the opinion of the editor and that could influence his judgment in moderating the article.

Another user points out that a review listed on the website is just an attack on Britney Spears and could not be considered a professional review.  The editor defends the review by saying that the author of it is professional and that sometimes artists will get bad reviews.  Overall, it seems that there is a negative slant towards Britney Spears by the article and that is the main topic of the discussion page.

On the discussion page someone submitted that there should be a subject entitled “Praise and Criticism” which would help this controversy over whether or not the article is too negative.  Contributors could list information on both sides and maintain quality by citing reputable sources.  I think this would help the article immensely and give a greater scope to the artist.

Wikipedia: Britney Spears

Twitter’s Future Buisness Model

This article in the New York Times describes how on the surface Twitter seems like it isn’t very a useful tool, but Twitter’s collectivity and the way people spread information is revolutionary.   The article describes many examples of how Twitter is put to good use by Corporations and people.  Also, Twitter has a remarkable ability to report news as it happens.

The underlying issue in this article, in my opinion, is basically summed up in these few lines:

“To continue growing, Twitter will also need to earn meaningful revenue, which the two-year-old company has yet to do. Twitter hopes to charge companies like Starbucks for features that help them communicate with and learn more about their customers, the founders said.”

It will be interesting to see how Twitter will charge Corporations for the opinions of consumers and for their advertising services which is basically free right now.  I believe it’s important that the service for the public continue to be free.  Users shouldn’t be charged for potentially giving valuable insight to Corporations, businesses, and other groups.  This puts Twitter as the middle man will be able to give businesses an audience, feedback, and aid in marketing strategies and in turn can generate revenue.

New York Times: Putting Twitter’s World to Use

Larry Lessig: Creativity and Copyright

Below is a video from March 2007 of Larry Lessig talk at TED.  Lessig describes three stories, one having to do with how our culture moved from a read writable culture to a read only by quoting John Phillip Sousa and how things are changing.  Secondly,  how we interpret the law and how it changes and finally, how BMI was able to take down ASCAP and how that relates to today.

In Lessig’s argument, he emphasizes that digital natives are remixing original content as a form of expression and this is the way they have learned to communicate with the world.  Lessig describes the reaction from businesses and the law have to the amateur content remixed on the internet. Copyright law dismisses any use of content that is remixed as illegal and therefore, is at war with the amateur creators.  He points out how our ‘common sense’ has not revolted against these copyright laws.  He discusses how there are only two extremes of the side of the debate and we must find a balance.  He argues that we need a private solution in order to legalize and realize the economic potential of digital technologies. He uses the example of BMI demonstrating competition to achieve balance.   Because we don’t have a public domain it is up to the artists and businesses to embrace a certain degree of free content so we can grow on a neutral platform and so they can exist simultaneously in order to develop creativity.  It’s basically only a matter of time before we come to this solution or one near it for the generations to come will demand it or become criminals.

TED Talks: Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity

Social Networking Class Systems

A new study done by the American consumer behavior analysis firm, Nielsen Claritas, have found that the users of Facebook are affluent and the users of Myspace are in the lower economic strata.  Anderson Analytics also came to the same conclusion.  I think anyone who have used either of these social networking sites could tell you this.

I started using Myspace in 2004 and joined Facebook once the high school networks were allowed to join.  After I had switched to Facebook, I ended up canceling my account on Myspace.  One of the reasons being that I didn’t need or want to manage two accounts.  I liked the design of Facebook over Myspace and it had a selective demographic.

I think it’s obvious as to why Facebook is a home for a wealthier demographic while Myspace caters to the masses.   To register for Facebook in the early days, you had to be a student at a University with a legitimate university issued email account.  Being able to enroll in higher education means you have a certain wealth or knowledge behind you,  whereas anyone can sign up for Myspace.   Even the design of the site caters to the classes.  Myspace is very busy with auto-playing songs and customizable everything.  Facebook has a very standard and sleek design that’s easy to navigate.  Studies of design and color palettes for certain demographics emphasize this point.

Eventually,  Facebook opened to everyone.  I liked the privacy and elitism that came with Facebook.  I figured it would become another Myspace and I was expecting a new social networking site to come about and be the next big thing.  Facebook has evolved so much since they became public.  It has gotten a little out of control in my opinion, with applications, quizzes and spam, but some think this is a good thing.  I look forward to seeing how these sites will evolve and  to new social networking sites and where the demographics will go.

The New York Times: More Proof – Facebook for the Rich, Myspace for the Poor

Information Overload

by Nitrozac & Snaggy

We receive content in so many different formats, at any given time, and the constant stream of information can at times be too much to handle.  Information overload refers to the excess of information we receive daily through all kinds of mediums and the individual’s difficulty in processing and assessing validity towards that information. Information overload is a serious issue that I think more people should consider.  For instance,

Researchers now say that the stress of not being able to process information as fast as it arrives – combined with the personal and social expectation that, say, you will answer every email – can deplete and demoralize you.

Studies also suggest that the bombardment of information lowers people’s intelligence and causes other detrimental work habits. Some people may not be susceptible to information overload.  There are those who feed off the constant flow of information and without it can feel lost.  These feelings would be categorized with information addiction.

I believe that one of the notable consequences of information overload is that it can blur the line between work and play.  Many people face information overload in regards to email.  Coworkers may be vying for your attention and have questions for you and will send these to you any time of day.  When you’re always connected to the network your employer can always get in touch with you.  Because of this, I don’t think there’s a great deal of respect for traditional work hours anymore.  We are bombarded with so many different distractions  it is difficult to recover from these interruptions and refocus our attention to the task at hand.  Studies also show that there is “reduced creative activity when work is fragmented by interruption”.

There have been steps to fight information overload.  One suggestion by Jerry Michalaski is to “trust your community to filter and flow the right things to you when you need them.”  This works exceptionally via Twitter.  There have been efforts in software that prioritizes email for users.  A Google engineer has also designed a helpful tool for email addicts, by shutting down gmail for the user and prompting them to take a break.  Information overload has been around for a long time and the only way to combat it is through filters.  It’s important we research filtering technology to learn how to navigate the digital information landscape.

Source: Information Overload (The Guardian, UK)

AT&T vs. Google

There are many facets to the ongoing Net neutrality debate.  Recently, AT&T sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission claiming Google was in violation of the agency’s Net neutrality principles, which oddly enough, they have always been in favor for.   Richard Whilt, Google’s telecommunications lawyer, responded via blog to defend Google’s position.  AT&T alleges that

Google is violating the fourth principle in the FCC’s Internet Policy Statements, which calls for fair competition among providers of networks, applications, services, and content, as it blocks telephone calls made using Google Voice service to certain rural communities.

AT&T’s senior vice president also goes on to accuse Google of violating the fifth principle of nondiscrimination which Google adamantly supports.

Google argues plainly that the rules that apply to traditional phone companies should not apply to Google.  Particularly the  rule in which

AT&T and other traditional phone companies are prohibited from blocking phone calls to any number because they  must abide by common carrier laws, which require infrastructure providers, such as phone companies, to allow anyone who wants to use their networks access to the “public” infrastructure.  The concept of a common carrier is supposed to ensure that the public retains access to fundamental services that use public rights of way, such as telephone service or roadways. “

Google asserts these rules don’t apply to them for a number of reasons.  One being that the application runs on a infrastructure built by many other companies.  Google Voice is also a free service.  There was no intention by Google for the software to be a replacement for phone service and to register users must have a landline or wireless phone.

AT&T is trying to lump net neutrality into telephone services rules.  Whereas, Google points out that the “FCC’s open internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers – not the creators of Web based software applications.”  With this reaction from AT&T, we can only assume that their motivations are out of fear that Google could become a competitor and greed.  This is the beginning of a long and arduous battle over control.  I look forward to the FCC’s response.

CNET News: AT&T calls Google a hypocrite on Net neutrality

A Deeper Look at the Internet and Democracy

Map of the Iranian blogosphere produced by John Kelly and Bruce Etling for their paper, Mapping Iran’s Online Public: Politics and Culture in the Persian Blogosphere

The topic for our last class discussion was whether or not the Internet advocates Democracy.  This article presents a very objective and unbiased view on the internet and democracy.  I emphasize this because there seems to radiate “the grandiose promise of technological determinism – the idealistic belief in the Internet’s transformative power” in mainstream media and most people’s minds.  In other words, the “technological determinism according to which the Internet would be the hammer to nail all global problems, from economic development in Africa to threats of transnational terrorism in the Middle East”.   There is a heavy emphasis on how democratizing the internet is that we tend to neglect core issues.  Morozov illustrates how the coverage of foreign blogging focuses on “secular, progressive, and pro-Western bloggers.”

With that in mind, he discusses how the internet has definitely changed the flow of information.  He uses examples of people utilizing the web in democratic fashions, but feels that it is too early to propose the democratizing power of the internet.  He discusses Obama’s utilization of the internet as a tool for victory, but asserts that is not what earned his victory by a number of reasons.

He states how technology plays a role on the global stage and that the “internet is making group and individual action cheaper, faster, leaner,” but yet questions “the impact of the internet on our incentives to act”.  He discusses government transparency and with the availability of information what are the chances certain information will ignite action.

One of his major points that resonated with is me is that we need to not be blinded by our ideological determinism, it’s incorrect to assume that people will seek out information they do not agree with or simply don’t know about.   Most importantly, this article states that we shouldn’t say we know the internet is a force for democratization or not, but we shouldn’t give up on the idea.   Basically, we “should ditch the blinding ideology of technology determinism and focus on practical tasks.”