Week 6 Discussion

[John JonesKeymaster]

There is no prompt for this week. You are free to write about whatever issue(s) in the readings that you find compelling.

[jsears3Spectator]

Net Smart – Ch.3

While reading this chapter I thought about my own “power” through participation while online. I think that for the most part a lot of my own “power” comes unintentionally. I do not think that I am influencing, encouraging or otherwise when I share the latest update on Marvel Comics latest story, but I am because with each share I am allowing the source to get more views potentially. I am also allowing the company to see the amount of shares the piece has received which influences what type of texts the company will post in the future. I don’t think that we adequately account for how much “power” we have on the internet or even how much power it has over us.

B2B – Ch. 8

From this chapter I really learned that I have no idea how regulation works with respects to television and radio. I can honestly say I didn’t know that the FCC can’t regulate satellite radio so this was a very interesting reading for me. I was taken back to the Family Guy episode where the FCC takes over TV in Quahog so Peter starts his own station so that he can’t be regulated. I wonder how commonly citizens and the FCC are at odds in reality. It is amazing to think about all the ways that I use frequency in my daily life, for example, the text gives the example of using my car key fob (Loc 5838 Kindle Copy). While I am sure that I knew that frequency transmitting is how this process worked it is still interesting to stop and think how frequency something commonly associated with radio plays such a large role in our day-to-day lives.

[TiffanySpectator]

@jsears3 your comments regarding your online “power” through participation reminded me of an article I read last year about a man who liked everything that showed up on his Facebook newsfeed. Have you read it? He basically decided on a whim to “like” every single post that came up on his Facebook newsfeed for 48 hours to see what the outcome would be. Here’s a link to the article if you’d like to take a look at it:
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/i-liked-everything-i-saw-on-facebook-for-two-days-heres-what-it-did-to-me/

Anyway, the author says “There is a very specific form of Facebook messaging, designed to get you to interact. And if you take the bait, you’ll be shown it ad nauseum.” When you said, “I am also allowing the company to see the amount of shares the piece has received which influences what type of texts the company will post in the future” I think you totally hit the nail on the head. There are so many different avenues to encourage online participation that we truly don’t always realize the power we possess simply through our likes and dislikes.

[John JonesKeymaster]

Interesting link; thanks for sharing.

[TiffanySpectator]

NetSmart Ch. 3 – Participation Power

The concept of “many people will cooperate if the medium makes it easy enough” really stuck out to me in our readings this week, especially where the author speaks of the ability of communication media to make it “easy or affordable for people to do things together that used to be difficult or costly” (Rheingold, 112). Currently, I’m an independent consultant for Jamberry, which sells decorative nail wraps and other hand and nail care items. The company is the new kid on the block of the direct sales industry, but the company has gotten in on the concept of online participation as the foothold of its business plan. With most direct sales companies such as ThirtyOne, Scentsy, Pampered Chef, etc., consultants must find a host who is willing to open up his or her home for an evening and lug a bunch of sales materials to said home in the hopes that party participants show up and buy the product. Shipping is often expensive unless a participant elects to have the products shipped as a bulk order to the hostess at the end of the ordering period; this causes delays in receiving the product, as everyone must wait until the ordering period closes, and then has to make arrangements with the hostess to pick up their products. In contrast, Jamberry supplies its consultants with a website from which customers can order directly, and the product ships immediately to the customer’s address without the need to wait for the party to close. Rather than toting all of my samples, catalogs, etc. to someone’s house, I hold online “parties” on Facebook that consist of informational posts and games for prizes that people can access at their leisure rather than requiring them to show up at a certain time and place. The ease of access and user-friendliness of the Facebook party has helped to expand my business in ways that I couldn’t have achieved through home parties alone, especially given my busy schedule.

I also found that Jenkins’ definition of participatory culture was reflected over and over again in my online business format (Rheingold, 113). For example:

1. relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement – “attending” an online party requires virtually no effort on the part of the guest. He or she is free to check the notifications and contribute (or not) to the party at his or her leisure.
2. strong support for creating and sharing creations with others – I always post a picture of my current “Jamicure” at the beginning of the party and encourage others to do the same when they receive their product. It is a fun way to promote participants by the hostess’s virtual party guests, and the enthusiasm is infectious once people see all of the cute and creative combinations that participants come up with.
3. some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices – online Jamberry parties allow me to share pictures, illustrations, and documents regarding use and maintenance of the product with a group of users whose experience with the product is always varied. Some have never heard of it, some have heard and are curious, some have tried them and are participating in the party to learn more and earn more.
4. members who believe that their contributions matter – I make an extra effort to make virtual participants feel welcome and engaged throughout the duration of the online party through positive and encouraging feedback on their party contributions. If someone posts a picture of their new Jamicure, I make sure to comment as soon as possible on what I like about the combination. As others share their experiences and questions, it encourages others to contribute as well.
5. members who feel some degree of social connection with one another – many online party participants often have mutual friends but don’t necessarily know each other personally. Between the shared connection to the hostess and the sociable atmosphere of the online party, members form deeper social connections with one another through their virtual participation.

[jsears3Spectator]

Tiffany,
First, my sister-in-law sells the thirty-one nonsense and it’s extremely annoying! She’s always trying to set up those parties. With that being said I really like the way your company has adapted to a more modern age to sell their product. With the power of social media, as described in the text, we are able to reach so many so quickly that to not use this tool would be a complete waste. I think that this may be why sites like Amazon or Ebay do so well, they can reach so many in such a convenient manner.

[pboyle623Spectator]

Tiffany,
I agree that the business plan for Jamberry seems to follow a different path than other home-based businesses. It is very refreshing to see a company realize that adults today live very busy lives and often do not have time or convenience of hosting a party where friends would feel obligated to purchase.
Using mass media is definitely essential in this day and age. I, myself, have found that I am shopping for antiques on line now through Facebook. There are also classified listings for those selling misc household items, and seems more secure than Craigslist.

[mike sopranikSpectator]

In chapter 8 of Blown to Bits, the author (pp. 304-305) states,
Incumbents, such as existing radio and TV stations and cell phone companies,
have spectrum rights granted by the FCC in the past, perhaps decades
ago, and renewed almost automatically. Incumbents have no incentive to
allow use of “their” spectrum for innovations that may threaten their business.
Innovators can’t get started without a guarantee from regulators that they will be granted use of spectrum, since investors won’t fund businesses
reliant on resources the government controls and may decide not to provide.

When you have antiquated regulatory conventions such as what the FCC approves and appropriates, it can cause serious issues with innovation and development. As he stated, there is no incentive to allow sharing or usage of their allocated spectrum to potential competitors.
This is one reason why the US places #9 in internet speed worldwide, and we have one of the most expensive costs for internet in the world (huffington post)
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/us-internet-speed_n_3645927.html

Without viable competitive options, a few providers control the overall access to the infrastructure of the internet and will undoubtably freeze out any and all competitors within their marketplace.

[John JonesKeymaster]

Good point; it is fascinating how legal structures affect things like broadband speed.

[Kayla MontgomerySpectator]

Blown to bits Ch. 3

The article I chose is “What you see is not what the computer knows” This talked about all that can be done with a computer that you actually don’t know about. According to the text the United States army wrote a report that information that only they could know about. They redacted the report so that these top secret things were edited out before it went public. “An Italian blogger, who scrutinized the U.S. recovered the redacted text and posted it on his website”. The moral of this story is that the computer can do way more then you think it can. Things that you think are deleted aren’t and if needed to anybody can pull up anything on an computer.

[sbloxtonSpectator]

I think this is incredibly interesting and incredibly important as well. Everything you look at, type, or do on your computer is remembered and those who know how can retrieve this information. I watch a lot of crime shows and this is a prominent part of investigations now days. The technology can be used to find you if you get kidnapped, but also to convict you of a crime. It think it also points out that we don’t know as much about the technology we are using as we should. This technology can be both beneficial and harmful, so I think it’s best that we learn as much as we can about it all.

[tarinkovalikSpectator]

Chapter 8 of Blown to Bits really caught my interest. The “Surviving on Wireless” section on page 262 was very surreal to me. The text states, “A dramatic example of the pervasiveness of wireless networks, in spite of the limits on spectrum where they are allowed to operate, was provided in the aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Lower Manhattan communicated for several days largely on the strength of wireless.” I never thought about how Manhattan communicated during this tragic day. Technology wasn’t as developed as it is today yet New York City stayed on top of things and found a way to communicate.

I was surprised to read about how the government tried to control censorship on television and radio. I knew that the government regulated these networks but they had struggled with someone such as Howard Stern. The government really cannot censor every radio or television show. There are always loopholes and ways to break the rules. And would censoring these networks further make any real difference? This section of the text reminded me of how controlling and power-hungry the government can be. Censorship has come a long way over the years. Television shows are now less censored and I feel that they will become less censored as the years go on.

[marvarlasSpectator]

Tarin, I think you make an interesting and somewhat popular view point that today’s government appears very “big brother-esque”. I liked in the same chapter, they include a quote on how changing your paradigm may help you to better understand this. “Regulation of radio was therefor as vital to its development as traffic control was to the development of the automobile” said Justice Frankfurter(pg 277, B2Bs). There are many things our government has controlled for so long (like having to have car insurance) that we forget, and when a new regulation comes along, we cannot accept it. When in reality, it will become our norm, and we will not know life without said regulations.

[Chasity RobinsonSpectator]

Tarin, you made some good points on how far technology has come even since the 9/11 incident. Wireless capabilities during that time allowed for loved ones to say there final good byes. I couldn’t imagine getting a phone call like that. I also agree with your thoughts on regulating censorship in radio and tv programs. Howard Stern was definitely a person known to cause ruckus while on the air speaking freely. Censorship has can along way with new rules and regulation but like you said there is always something that gets through the loops somehow. It may later be found and discarded but in the end what effect did it have one those who seen it?

[Kayla MontgomerySpectator]

Tarin,

This is actually a very interesting topic and it makes me wonder how things actually were on that day. With so much going on how was it possible to communicate through all of the chaos. This also reminded me of a episode on a series I used to watch called Revenge. There was an episode that somewhat emulated the accident that happened on 9/11. There was a bombing in a building in the middle of NYC and all cell towers, computers, and forms of communications were knocked out. This made me wonder if there was a situation like that when the actual explosion happened in 2001, being that the technology wasn’t as up to date as it is now.

[AshleySpectator]

Tarin – It’s really interesting to note how important internet communication has become in this era, especially in the face of disasters or civil unrest. Think of the way that people were able to coordinate “largely on the strength of wireless” despite having other avenues closed off in your example. It really foreshadowed the way that the same techniques have been used in the Middle East in the recent past to spread information globally when the governments were trying to suppress it. I think the most worrisome thing about this, especially when thinking about censorship, is what happened in 2011 when Egypt almost succeeded in cutting off internet services to its citizens totally following their protests. Details in this article. The internet has become an incredible tool for free speech. Like a quote in the article says, internet service “is essential to ensure that government acts responsibly towards its citizens”. I think it’s important for us all to be aware of what regulations are being put in place by our own government to try and keep that route open and unobstructed in the future!

[jablosserSpectator]

On page 122 of the Net Smart book, the author writes, “Whether it is opposing or proposing…everybody at some time or another has a cause to advocate, whether or not they have a platform for broadcasting their views.” As we have seen, the Internet has provided a platform for some who may have not had the means to broadcast their views before. The way the Internet provides access to many people allows for endless opportunity for promotion or criticism of a particular cause. Recently, we saw how the Internet and Facebook allowed for ALS to raise money and awareness for a cause that maybe many didn’t know about prior to the Ice Bucket Challenge. Because of instant access and the seemingly endless connection to all sorts of people, the Internet provides opportunity for anybody now who has the ability to communicate effectively to share their thoughts and opinions. This chapter on “Participation Power” demonstrated just how powerful the communication tools we now have access to are affecting and influencing everyday lives because of the information that can be easily disseminated.

[marvarlasSpectator]

What struck me as interesting in this weeks B2B reading, Chapter 8, was whether or not we want the digital explosion? We greatly take for granted that the internet works (most of the time, anyhow!) and our information is somewhat safe. But is it? Think back to the recent celebrity phone hack scandal. It was alluded (although, I’m not sure confirmed) that the possibility was due to cloud technology. We live in a world where even our medical records are kept via internet server and to know that it has the possibility to be hacked into is scary. As the book states, “we are in a position to decide on an overarching view of information” (pg 294). We must decide if we want more government intervention to stop future hacks from potentially happening, but diminish the way in which we use and know the internet now.

[vmaddenSpectator]

I do not fully think our information is safe which is why I never use cloud technology. Something about it just makes it iffy in my mind, personally. I mean like you said, it works most of the times, but there is still that smaller percentage out there that make hackers able to receive information. You make a good point with the celebrity phone hack scandal and right about medical records are kept via internet servers. My family just got a letter in the mail from BlueCross BlueShield to be aware of the hacks that have been happening through their company and to keep an eye out with our bank accounts and everything. I never really realized until now, how much is kept via internet because it is scary and frightening. We rely on something that makes our lives easier not to realize that it is not all safe. We need to try future hacks from happening because it seems to be getting worse. I do not know how it should be done, but I believe the government should be looking into it more.

[jablosserSpectator]

I agree with your point about how we take for granted that our information is safe, but we really don’t know how safe. Most of us use the Internet every day for a variety of things, including accessing our banking information by paying bills online, providing our credit cards when shopping, et cetera. It’s a fine line about how much governnment intervention to choose. Yes, I want my information kept safe, but I also value my privacy. But then again, when you access the Internet, you lose a good deal of your privacy because of the way the Internet is designed to provide as much information about the user to the website you’re accessing.

[vmaddenSpectator]

In chapter 3 of NET Smart, it focuses on Participation Power. With the world being a digitally network place, participating can become real power and it’s the kind of power that is worth sharing. During this participation, there is a toolbox of skills. “Persuasion, curation, discussion, and self presentation foremost among them, and spans a range of involvement, from tagging a photo or bookmarking a site to editing a Wikipedia page or publishing a blog” (Rheingold, 114). Using these skills and the knowledge of the participation can help when it comes to landing the job you have always wanted or even just organize something. In this time, everyone is re-creating new “wrinkle” and realizing they cannot be blocked from the future. Stanford professor, Fred Turner, stated that, “I believe we’ll all be better off when more people learn to be good network entrepreneurs; you can’t succeed at network entrepreneurship unless you consistently enrich your network” (Rheingold, 119-121). With doing this, we are all investigating and arguing on what we read and see, even hear every day.

[sbloxtonSpectator]

Writer/Designer Chapter 4

I thought I would write about Writer/Designer as we haven’t discussed it much and I really enjoy the book. This chapter of Writer/Designer is all about sources and copy right issues. I found the information on choosing a source and determining its ethos to be very informative. In previous classes when I have been told about choosing sources, we were mostly only told to avoid Wikipedia and the other basics. What I like about this section is that it takes both motive and diversity into account. The motive of the source and who writes it definitely changes its reliability. Another part of this chapter that I found interesting is the distinction between a source and an asset. I had never heard the term, asset, used in reference to a source. Basically an asset is the part of the source you use in your project. I find having a term for this to be useful. The chapter also mentions how the digital age is constantly in update and how “Things on the web disappear.” I agree that things are constantly updating, but things on the web never disappear, as other readings have discussed. The first thing we now learn about the web is that things never go away. Copyright is also a huge section in this chapter and it certainly cleared some things up for me about fair use and citations. The purpose, nature, amount, and market effect must all be taken in account when dealing with fair use; I had no idea that it was this complicated before reading the chapter. The source citing information I found to be extremely relevant to our projects. I never thought about the citations needing to be styled in a way which suits the genre of the text and I found the finding a lost dog analogy to be really helpful. I wish I had read this chapter before I did the sources in my rough draft, because I’m definitely going to be editing them quite a bit.

[John JonesKeymaster]

I get a little irritated when people categorically say not to use Wikipedia as a source, so I try to cite it a lot.

[pboyle623Spectator]

In Chapter 4 of W/D we learn about copyright and citing sources. It was interesting to find out about the different types of copyrights or licenses available to authors. This is great news since contacting an author and obtaining permission might not be a viable solution.
There are also some internal checks you can perform as to the legitimacy of using any source. I did not realize there were those specific guidelines around using work for a multimodal project or anything else. Citations have always been discussed when using any non-original work within your own, but the explanations of permissions and licensure were never fully explained before.
Is this information that should be taught when citing sources as well? Or does this not matter, since work is normally for educational purposes and only shared within a small group?

[John JonesKeymaster]

It is good to know when you should be concerned about licensing and copyright, particularly if you work in industry where if you use an unlicensed image on a flyer you could get sued. It is not a bad idea to practice fair use in educational assignments, but the rules for fair use in an education context are generally more broad; that is, you have more freedom to use others’ work without worrying about lawsuits.

[AshleySpectator]

I thought Chapter 4 of W/D was really interesting. We have covered in previous readings what tricky situation copyright laws can create. Having concrete information about how and when using copyrighted works is appropriate and the sorts of situations in which you can claim fair use helps make the situation a bit less daunting. I also wasn’t aware that Creative Commons was actually a non-profit organization. I thought that Creative Commons was just a licensing system that several people on the internet had decided was logical and began to use. You come across the files that make use of the Creative Commons model several places on the internet these days, especially on sites like Wikipedia. I guess I didn’t give the fact that it came from somewhere and would function best when moderated much thought until I read about it in our book! Knowing that a resource exists like this that makes what is expected of you in your use of the material is definitely knowledge I will make use of well beyond this class!

[erheyerSpectator]

In Blown to Bits, Chapter 8: Bits in the Air, there was a section titled “The Most Beautiful Inventor in the World” that I thought was really interesting. The book alludes to a lot of historical events, but I thought this one was particularly historic and I thought it was weird that I hadn’t heard anything about it before the reading. I had never even heard of Hedy Lamarr before, but now I feel compelled to Google her and figure out if I’ve seen any of her old movies before. An actress making the spread spectrum discovery seems kind of surreal and kind of Hollywood in itself. Aside from the interesting historical tidbit, what I find the most intriguing is that the Navy bought the patent but never built it. I know that sometimes this is done in business to keep competitors from gaining specific technologies, but I wonder what kind of historical impact it would have had if it had been built back then. I also like Lamarr’s quote at the end of the section “Films have a certain place in a certain time period. Technology is forever.” I agree and disagree with this, since technology becomes outdated so quickly. However, if you look at it as technology being something that we constantly build upon, that’s kind of different.

[Chasity RobinsonSpectator]

While reading Chapter 8 in B2B, I couldn’t help but to see the comedy in the remark made by President Bush. However, as a listener, I am disturbed by the FCC’s decision to censor the President’s remark. In general, I feel that the FCC acts properly when deciding what words or expressions are in good taste with the American people. In this case, they were way off in my opinion. I believe there is a fine line between airing something that was intended to be vulgar and airing the “truth”. In this case, the remark was not intended to upset or to disturb the listener. In fact, the remark was never intended to be heard at all. In this instance, given the fact the comment wasn’t intended to be heard and also the comment did not directly refer to excrement in a literal sense, I believe the comment should have been allowed.

[erheyerSpectator]

I agree with you @chasityrobinson- out of everything to censor, censoring that seems kind of ridiculous. I feel like so many things slip through that should be censored in the entertainment industry that they shouldn’t be focused on things that are 1) not even meant to be heard, as you said, and 2) actually deal with real life. Hearing a candid conversation between world leaders where one swears would actually make me feel a little better about them. Swearing implies heightened emotional involvement, something politicians don’t always seem capable of.

[mike sopranikSpectator]

The FCC as compared to parts of the industrialized world is a little behind the times and at times, in my opinion, overstep the boundaries of censorship. For example, the Smothers Brothers TV show was canceled in the late 1960s because it was considered controversial by the FCC. What the real issue was that Nixon hated them because they were avid supporters of the antiwar movement. Although the FCC clearly violated their rights to free speech, there was no recourse since the network was actually an employer versus a media outlet in this case.
I also agree that editing what any politician says is not the place of the FCC to decide. They should only be rule makers, versus the judge as to what they deem appropriate to air.

[tarinkovalikSpectator]

You make some really interesting points! I don’t think they should have censored the President either. I actually think censorship is just unnecessary in most cases. If President Bush’s words were censored then where is the hope for anyone else? Of course, the president was controlled by his “people” on what to stay to make him look good. Isn’t that the whole idea behind censorship? Making the world and people look better then they really are? I think it’s better to just be honest and real.

[Author]

Posts