I read the thingabout how scholars are using Facebook as a field for their social science studies. I'm not surprised. I don't how successful they'll be. Most of the people on here have private profiles, so a stranger can't view them and find ou about their stuff. Oh well...more power to them. I think Facebook is public domain, as is the rest of the internet. Facebook is just a virtual public, only it allows the user the options of anonimity in viewing others, and privacy in others viewing them.
Now...why is it so popular? Human curiosity. I've said before that Facebook and Myspace allow you satisfy your curiosity and allows extreme efficiency in gathering important social information. People have called me to enquire as to why I changed my status on Myspace. They didn't have to call or see me to know I was 'smitten' . I myself have done similar things. You can keep tabs on 40 people simultaneously while sitting in one spot. It's all about the info.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Facebook + School
I read the thing about facebook becoming a hub for businesses and school. Well, I'm not surprised. I think it's a fine idea. Facebook is kind of fun, and when you can make any obligation more fun, you will obviously enjoy it more and people will respond and participate more enthusiastically.
I think this frees you up as well. I can contribute to important discussions whenever I want. Also, it allows you jot something down when the idea is fresh in your mind, making it available for everyone to view and digest before you forget about it.
I think it would be great if there was a meeting in a couple weeks, and the boss says Ok, everyone post ideas on Facebook before the meeting and participate with one another. In that time, the people could feed off each other's ideas, allowing for collaborative thinking, which will be available at everyone's own convenience. It's great, in my opinion. I hope the company I work for could adopt something like this.
I think this frees you up as well. I can contribute to important discussions whenever I want. Also, it allows you jot something down when the idea is fresh in your mind, making it available for everyone to view and digest before you forget about it.
I think it would be great if there was a meeting in a couple weeks, and the boss says Ok, everyone post ideas on Facebook before the meeting and participate with one another. In that time, the people could feed off each other's ideas, allowing for collaborative thinking, which will be available at everyone's own convenience. It's great, in my opinion. I hope the company I work for could adopt something like this.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
You can't say that in public (Rachel Collins case)
I believe the girls were wronged. Before I begin my rant, let me say that there is no doubt that what she and her friends did was juvenile, stupid, and malicious. I agree with that much. In fact, I fantacize about punishing (an actual punshment, not just ignoring them or using relational or social aggression) people when they behave this way. I think it's awful and is even perhaps indicative of some kind of bad human condition. I'm a wuss, or maybe just too imaginative.
However, the internet, and Facebook.com are public domain, which is where free speech reigns. The comments were (I actually thought they were funny) mean and spiteful, but they weren't directed at the professor. They were directed at an effigy of the professor. They posted a little picture of her and said gross things and that's it. There is a difference between the actual professor herself, the tangible flesh and clothing version, and the intangible, pixalted version. I think defamation of character doesn't apply to the internet. Maybe I'm crazy, as most people might think when reading this.
The kids set up that dumb group as a virtual punching bag for the professor who was, even for decidedly stupid reasons, consistently aggravating to the students. Kind of like group therapy for people who share a common grievance, albeit a dumb one. This was comiseration in action. That's fundamentally it, in my opinion. If they were sending hateful or harmful emails to the professor, that would be another thing. I think the whole thing was blown out of proportion.
However, the internet, and Facebook.com are public domain, which is where free speech reigns. The comments were (I actually thought they were funny) mean and spiteful, but they weren't directed at the professor. They were directed at an effigy of the professor. They posted a little picture of her and said gross things and that's it. There is a difference between the actual professor herself, the tangible flesh and clothing version, and the intangible, pixalted version. I think defamation of character doesn't apply to the internet. Maybe I'm crazy, as most people might think when reading this.
The kids set up that dumb group as a virtual punching bag for the professor who was, even for decidedly stupid reasons, consistently aggravating to the students. Kind of like group therapy for people who share a common grievance, albeit a dumb one. This was comiseration in action. That's fundamentally it, in my opinion. If they were sending hateful or harmful emails to the professor, that would be another thing. I think the whole thing was blown out of proportion.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Social networking and the lurking menace
vesselsSocial networking sites are an everyday phenomenon these days. So much in fact, that a young person without a page on Facebook or Myspace is borderline anomolous. I got a Myspace about three years ago. After a year or so, I deleted it because I felt like I relied on it too heavily for information about my friends, when I could just call them. After a while, I made a new one and still use it. It's easy to think of it as a guilty pleasure, but then again, maybe it isn't.
Humans have a natural curiosity about one another, and with MS or FB, this curiosity is easily satisfied. Plus, one can browse through a wide array of subjects (people) while sitting in one place. Also, they offer people the chance to study a person in anonimity. You can check someone out without being caught staring. It's all extraordinarily convenient, so it's no wonder these things have taken off the way they have.
If there is a cohort that is particularly enthralled by SNS's, it is undoubtedly adolescents. Now, we all remember high school and it's boundless collection of social booby traps. So, with this in mind, many are concerned with the SNS's potential hazards as they offer kids instant access to other kids, which they will certainly use to scrutinize and punish one another. But, haven't kids done this forever? In high school, I was on both sides of the bullying. I dished it out, and I took it. Myspace didn't even exist yet.
I view SNS's as vehicles or vessels for social phenomenon, not advocates or proponents of them. The amount of bullying online, in my opinion, is no greater than the amount occuring in the lunchroom, playground, gymnasium, or hallways. One can criticize a SNS by saying it harbors teenage cruelty. The same can be said for the aforementioned locations.
Of course, there is the more serious threat of online predators. This should be taken lightly. There is the option of making profiles private, or unviewable by people 18yrs+, but that alone is not enough. I imagine, though, that successful predation would be both very rare and very difficult. There are lots of obstacles an online predator faces. Most kids are savvy to online predators. A kid in Chicago getting a message from a kid they've never met in Indianapolis will be suspicious because they know that this is the likely disguise of a creep. Most of them pose as children, because they know that if they tell the truth about their age, the kid won't talk to them. Most children and parents are educated about online predation. Besides, the kids are watch each other's sites. If Suzy, 15 gets a comment(a message that is viewable to all) from Joe, 27, Suzy's friends will undoubtedly raise Hell about it.
I have this stance because I've witnessed these things happen with my younger brothers and their friends at our house.
Humans have a natural curiosity about one another, and with MS or FB, this curiosity is easily satisfied. Plus, one can browse through a wide array of subjects (people) while sitting in one place. Also, they offer people the chance to study a person in anonimity. You can check someone out without being caught staring. It's all extraordinarily convenient, so it's no wonder these things have taken off the way they have.
If there is a cohort that is particularly enthralled by SNS's, it is undoubtedly adolescents. Now, we all remember high school and it's boundless collection of social booby traps. So, with this in mind, many are concerned with the SNS's potential hazards as they offer kids instant access to other kids, which they will certainly use to scrutinize and punish one another. But, haven't kids done this forever? In high school, I was on both sides of the bullying. I dished it out, and I took it. Myspace didn't even exist yet.
I view SNS's as vehicles or vessels for social phenomenon, not advocates or proponents of them. The amount of bullying online, in my opinion, is no greater than the amount occuring in the lunchroom, playground, gymnasium, or hallways. One can criticize a SNS by saying it harbors teenage cruelty. The same can be said for the aforementioned locations.
Of course, there is the more serious threat of online predators. This should be taken lightly. There is the option of making profiles private, or unviewable by people 18yrs+, but that alone is not enough. I imagine, though, that successful predation would be both very rare and very difficult. There are lots of obstacles an online predator faces. Most kids are savvy to online predators. A kid in Chicago getting a message from a kid they've never met in Indianapolis will be suspicious because they know that this is the likely disguise of a creep. Most of them pose as children, because they know that if they tell the truth about their age, the kid won't talk to them. Most children and parents are educated about online predation. Besides, the kids are watch each other's sites. If Suzy, 15 gets a comment(a message that is viewable to all) from Joe, 27, Suzy's friends will undoubtedly raise Hell about it.
I have this stance because I've witnessed these things happen with my younger brothers and their friends at our house.
Monday, September 1, 2008
My thoughts on Digital Natives
Well, for the most part I agree with the article. However, as someone who is a "digital native", I must say that being a member of this cohort does not automatically predispose you to being technically savvy. Perhaps it is because I have never used these things much, or perhaps I have a piece of that ADD epidemic from the previous generation, but often, when I look at these things, it registers as scrambled giburish. (SP?) For example, I had to print the directions on how to subscribe to peoples' blogs with Google Reader.
I liked the part where you could scroll over a statement and the paragraph would appear to the right of it. My favorite was Graphics first vs. Text first. Not only I do agree with the little article, but I want to see it become reality. This is for selfish reasons. The reason is that I hate reading. Well, I don't hate it, but I'd much rather watch a video on the subject. For proof of this, I can watch a video of an academic or intellectual giving a speech on something and retain the info alot better than if I read the transcription of the speech. Maybe it's just me, but perhaps this affirms the theory that text is becoming support for graphics instead of the other way around. Maybe I am part of the phenomenon.
I would side with digital immigrants on the subject of text messaging. When I think about it, a text message is seldomly, if ever, more efficient or practical than a phone call. In fact, many avid texters will affirm the existence of texting nuance. Texting is taking on it's own slew of mores and norms, comparable to the way that actual, live, one on one conversation has its own. I think this is bizarre and silly. I think text messages are impracical and are only cool if they come from a romantic interest and are "suggestive". (I have actually experienced this and it is very exciting.) Other than that, text messages have no purpose in my opinion.
I liked the part where you could scroll over a statement and the paragraph would appear to the right of it. My favorite was Graphics first vs. Text first. Not only I do agree with the little article, but I want to see it become reality. This is for selfish reasons. The reason is that I hate reading. Well, I don't hate it, but I'd much rather watch a video on the subject. For proof of this, I can watch a video of an academic or intellectual giving a speech on something and retain the info alot better than if I read the transcription of the speech. Maybe it's just me, but perhaps this affirms the theory that text is becoming support for graphics instead of the other way around. Maybe I am part of the phenomenon.
I would side with digital immigrants on the subject of text messaging. When I think about it, a text message is seldomly, if ever, more efficient or practical than a phone call. In fact, many avid texters will affirm the existence of texting nuance. Texting is taking on it's own slew of mores and norms, comparable to the way that actual, live, one on one conversation has its own. I think this is bizarre and silly. I think text messages are impracical and are only cool if they come from a romantic interest and are "suggestive". (I have actually experienced this and it is very exciting.) Other than that, text messages have no purpose in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
