More Thoughts...

Some Thoughts at the End of Class...

Final Project

Where Do We Go From Here?

The Get-A-Cluetrain Manifesto

At the beginning of the class in September, I made a rule for myself that I would never use the blog for ranting or mindless drivel. I did so because I hated reading it when other people ranted so i figured they wouldn't want to read my rantings either. But after that class today, I'm making a new rule...let the rantings begin. (But only when absolutely necessary)

....

I wrote the previous paragraph directly after our most recent class on Thursday. I was angry and eager to vent. However, I (luckily) realized that while it would have made me feel better, it wouldn't have accomplished anything other than possibly make the situation worse. Since that class, I've had time to think over what happened and to work towards making a constructive critique rather than an angered rant. Therefore here are a few of my thoughts about that class and the subsequent points others have raised in the wake of the class...


The Get-A-Cluetrain Manifesto

1) (The best) classes are conversations.

2) Classes consist of human beings, not mind readers.

3) Expectations are best delivered from instructor to students when conducted in a normal human voice.

4) Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically necessary and should sound open, natural, and uncontrived.

5) People recognize what is expected from the sound of the instructors voice.
...
9) While the internet is enabling new forms of class organization it has not fundamentally altered how we, as students, have been trained to converse and exchange knowledge.

10) That is not to say that we are not striving to get smarter, more informed and organize in riskier ways. Participation in this class has fundamentally changed me.

11) People in classes like this have figured out that they get far better information and support from the resources than from one another...so much for professional rhetoric about using each other in an open source network to accomplish something.

12) There are secrets. What may work for the goose may not necessarily work for the gander.

14) One goose may not speak in the same voice as the rest. They direct their conversation at one intended audience and may sound hollow, flat and literally un-gooselike to the rest.

15) It is the homogenized sound of mission statements and brochures for rubber tubing that seem contrived and artificial.

16) It is the act of speaking without saying anything, of talking a lot but saying a little.

17) Those who assumes that all conversations are the same are kidding themselves. Those who assume that we are afraid of criticism are kidding themselves as well. It is only when those criticisms attack a lack of creativity (that we were not asked to apply) that a sense of annoyance is created.

34) Companies must share their concerns with their networked communities

43) Creativity and the desire to take risks only happen when the conditions are right. You cannot force or demand creativity. The best you can do is suggest it and those willing to take that risk will either take on the challenge or not. You cannot assume that by asking for it once, the desire will resurface again and again.

45) Anger tends to route around misunderstanding.

46) This class organizes students in many meanings of the world. Its effect has been more radical than any class I have experienced so far.

47) While this scares me witless, I should not resist the urge to improve these networked conversations.

48) When students are constrained by the fear of failing and ingrained rules, the types of conversations they participate in all sound remarkably like a boring recitation.

50) Today, conversations can be hyperlinked without being "creative" in their form. It is possible to learn a lot without creating something risky. Participating in something risky does not necessarily imply taking more from the experience, from the text. Respect for knowledge gained should win over respect for risks taken. Especially when that specific risk taken doesn't amount to any higher degree of understanding.

62) Students do not want to talk/listen to flacks and hucksters. They want to participate in conversations that actually mean something.

64) Conversations that give access to information, plans, strategies, the best thinking and genuine knowledge. I will not settle for an abstract monologue "chock-a-block" with ear candy but lacking any substance.

73) You're invited, but it's my world. Take your shoes off at the door. If you want to barter with me, get down off that camel!

Group 3's notes on readings for 12/4/08

Chapter 5

• Fort Business => once you enter the office the old hierarchy of business wants you to conform and have no connection to the outside world. That was then.....now they only way to succeed is to make as many connections to the outside world as possible while still remaining locked in the castle. Innovative workers should strive to lower the drawbridge.
  
• hyperlinks/networking - use all that you have, try to get into and have as many networks as possible
  

Chapter 6

• the system of command and control is a hard mold to break; get free from the assembly line method of organization
• the human voice is primary attractor

Chapter 7

• irony is the most common form of internet communication
• create a parallel infrastructure controlled by people acting in their own self interest
• human spirit is the casualty of a job
• invisibility and ignorance are powerful weapons
• no 'grand plan' for the internet

Get Down Off that Camel

A few things: Logistically, the 95 theses bother me, immensely. As introduced in the forward, the point of the book and theses is to present the some of the most fundamental issues of business operation in networked world in a clear, concise way but with humor. Frankly, there is nothing clear or concise about the theses and they're not funny either. It is as if there were drafted in a paragraph and then split up line by line. So while some of the points can operate on their own, the majority depend on previous lines for context and explanation. I hope the actual chapters are not put together in this haphazard manner.

A few I liked:

73. You're invited, but it's our world. Take your shoes off at the door. If you want to barter with us, get down off that camel!

32. Smart markets will find suppliers who speak their own language.

74. We are immune to advertising. Just forget it.

Map of Online Communities

Click Here to Start

Ok, so I know that this is may seem infantile and I know that this is coming from a non-theorist/newbie in general...but I really don't think that the chart is that hard to comprehend. After the discussion in class (and the more interesting one that happened out of class) I went back and read and re-read the section entitled America (On Civilization III). The more I read it, the more I came to understand that the Fig. C is a pictorial representation of the entire chapter, but not one that hides a deeper meaning depending on how you read it. I believe that in the paragraphs within America, Wark sets up exactly how he wants you to read and analize the chart. He starts off in [052] by defining the x-axis of the 'graph'. "History is a story and geography an image of this topography, in which the boundaries are forever being expanded and redrawn." Wark defines the x-axis as time and each column as a specifc medium that "opens toward certain [specific] possibilities". But media that have been transformed through time. Each medium allows for a certain outcomes but each is also the starting point for the next, chronologically.

"The world of possibility is the world internal to the algorithim. So: a passage, mediated by the novel, from the topic to the topographic; a passage, mediated by television, from the topographic to the topological; a passage, medited by the game, from the topological to as yet unknown spaces..."

Fig. C exists to show the progression of media through time but with examples to show the direct application. The levels mentioned in the chapter parallel the changing complexity of the media and the thought processes/questions needed to achieve that new medium. Life gets progressively more complicated as the once straight lines of the place then of the map are folded onto one another to create a new space. "The line makes topics, maps them into the topographic, then folds the topographic into a digital topology...At each level of the actual unfolding of the line across the world, it offers a glimpse of the virtual in its own image." The simplicity of the story and the line is lost to the complexity of the game. "The question of the form of the game cannot be separated from the question of the form of the world - of gamespace."

Gamer Theory

Firstly, I like this book...I think. But I don't really think that it is conducive to the types of discussion that we are used to having. Judging from many posts and comments, it is a pretty good assessment to say that the majority of the class is confused and/or frustrated with the book. I am definitely among them. While I realize that I am judging this book from a place of very far down on the theory totem pole, I don't think that some aspects of this book are really as complicated as some would have us believe. I do understand that some of the points require a different kind of thinking and application to comprehend them, they are not necessarily hard.

Class Blog 11/18/08

12:06 - the human element. how are you?

12:08 - if gamespace is __ how does the critique work?

12:16 - Paragraph 23. bring back the human aspect back to the gamespace? Wark is critical of the digital in that there are only two choices - yes/no, 0/1...theres no room for maybe. Challenge the digital binary to get more from it. Digitization is the further establishment of stark choices. The largest problem w/ digitization is that fact.....no fluidity, no freedom to move between choices. We have to work on the gap betweent the 0 and the 1. Space within the binary.

The Right Way for E-Waste

For the Digitally Deceased, a Profitable Graveyard

There is something poignant about the process, the systematic destruction of these unwanted, in some cases never used, components. One more reminder of our disposable society.

Finding ways to dispose of America’s increasingly large stream of e-waste is difficult: an estimated 133,000 computers are discarded by homes and businesses every day. In a 2006 report, the International Association of Electronics Recyclers estimated that about 400 million pieces of e-waste are scrapped each year. And while some prominent manufacturers, like Dell and Hewlett-Packard, have agreed to recycle their own equipment, such programs have so far made only a modest difference.

Ms. Kyle’s organization estimates that there are roughly 1,100 businesses in the United States and Canada that dispose of used electronic equipment, but that only a small percentage try to do it in an environmentally friendly way.

The company’s pledge to recycle with minimal environmental impact was another reason Hempstead was sold on e-Scrap. That impact could be enormous — for instance, the picture tubes in computer monitors and television sets can contain up to 10 pounds of lead, a toxic substance.

“We have a zero landfill policy,” Mr. Feinstein said, “and so do all our vendors.” He said he visited MaSeR periodically to ensure that the material was fully recycled.

Insult

Why Osama Doesn't Have A Facebook Account

Why Osama Doesn't Have a Facebook Account:

Al Qaeda may have been a pioneer in exploiting new media to spread propaganda and recruit members. But now, many experts feel the terror group is falling behind. Despite all the hand-wringing in U.S. intelligence circles, Osama & Co. don't seem to be comfortable with Web 2.0-style applications. Marc Lynch explains why, in a must-read post. Here's a snip:

Social networking: one of the biggest problems for a virtual network like AQ today is that it needs to build connections between its members while protecting itself from its enemies. That's a filtering problem: how do you get your people in, and keep intelligence agents out? An AQMonster.com database would be easy pickings - an online list of all the 'explosives experts' would be a gift to intelligence, no? An AQFacebook or AQSpace might create an identifiable universe of jihadist sympathizers, but again would probably help intelligence agencies as much as AQ. Perhaps an AQLinkedIn model, where members need to be recommended by a current member would reproduce the low-tech approach of allowing in trusted members and keeping out unknown quantities. This could potentially strengthen the 'organization' part... but at the expense of a greater distance from the pool of potential recruits who would not be sufficiently trusted to join. Overall it's hard to see how AQ could adapt social networking without creating such vulnerabilities. Its rivals, on the other hand, have no such problems - Muslim Brotherhood youth are all over Facebook.

Mobile, Mutable, Mixed and Mashed

Live Blog of Class 11/11/08

12:12 - media available to forward/send, tag/archive, searchable

12:18 - Bruns and Becky, Brandon, and Corey

12:32 - threat level? Really?...just say no. have had polarized news a while now. debate requires conflict. Bruns views ultimately require homogenity. problem is that mainstream media produces polarization and if they would simply get out of the way the population would naturally move together. blogs dont need to appeal to the masses.

12:37 - what about the social networking sites?

12:41 - if a group reaches consensus, any outlier who comes into that rhelm with a different view point they will be seen as a troll. Shirky and power laws

12:43 - myface and spacebook :). facebook is not for deliberation but for linking, expansion, forwarding of information. accessibility.

1:10 - Tools, France, or games?


Final list:
-- link/org
-- circulation -> advertising, forwarding/sending
-- niche networks
-- user generated, engaging
-- tag archive, searchable, accessibility
-- updating frequency
-- YouTube
-- don't forget the useless, playful, absorbing

Generation O

Presidential Election Delivers on Promise of New Generation of Voters

"Government under Mr. Obama, they believe would value personal disclosure and transparency in the mode of social-networking sites. Teamwork would be in fashion, along with a strict meritocracy."

"The point is that that communication technology is the tool that makes all things possible, from hook-ups and pop songs to protests or the president of their choice."

"There's a lot of attention deficit with this generation. You have to keep people engage and active because its a highly technical society and there are lots of ways to distract our minds."

Change.gov

In an effort to keep the internet momentum going....change.gov

"Share your story and your idea and be part of bringing positive lasting change to this country."

Obama and Hip-Hop Politics

Live Blog 11/6/08

12:03 - continue conversation on Juicy campus? small groups? i dont know about you but it feels like we've had the conversation a million times about hateful facebook groups, emails etc. I might actually be alone in this though.

12:07 - in our little groups. it says a lot about out campus, especially b/c we're so small...everyone knows everyone else's business.

12:16 - not serious enough to have any authority step in. Just a site for "juicy" gossip.

12:28 - too ridiculous, nobody cares

12:31 - consensuses:
- low impact, individual choice, damage already done --> no response necessary.

- the majority of these people are those who want to be talked about, bring it on yourself (a lot of the time), largely for men, shouldnt have HWS input until there are actual threats --) no response

- dont legitimize it, the more you talk about it the bigger it gets.

- seriously guys, i dont care about this....we really need to move on

12:47 - technology in the election--> the hologram on CNN. make the election an interactive spectacle.

12:54 - Obama won b/c of his use of election. emails, social networking, texting, prizes, spurring supporters to take innitiative (bottom up). constant connection and updates.

12:59 - intensity of engagement + feeling of involvement = ?? "in new media you have to believe that it matters."

1:02 - did we help make history? did our generation acutally change anything? did we change the election?

1:11 - sarah palin and tina fey...decreased her credibilty (wait, did she have any to begin w/ ?)

1:18 - bottom up adivertising, "citizen journalism", obama's campaign really utilitzed this

1:19 - metaphor... conceptualize the multiple kinds of media we've seen in the campaigns

Obama Shows Bigger Lead in Polls That Include Cell Phones

Obama Shows Bigger Lead in Polls That Include Cell Phones

Les Obama-McCain Miserables

Machines Set to Count Votes Nationwide Flunk Last-Minute Accuracy Tests

ES&S Voting Machines in Michigan Flunk Tests, Don't Tally Votes Consistently

"The same ballots, run through the same machines, yielded different results each time ... This begs the question -- on Election Day, will the record number of ballots going through the remaining tabulators leave even more build-up on the sensors, affecting machines that tested just fine initially? Could this additional build-up on voting tabulators that have not had any preventative maintain skew vote totals? My understanding is that the problem could occur and election workers would have no inkling that the ballots are being misread."

Uh oh. I foresee the possibility for a 2000 Election 2.0.

Rebooting Obama

How Much is YouTube Worth to Obama and McCain?

READ THIS

Total in absolute time (view * video length):

Obama: 14,548,809.05 hours

McCain: 448,093.01 hours

How much would it cost to buy this much airtime if you were purchasing TV time?

Its around $46,893,000. 

Trippi makes one additional point. We're not comparing apples to apples, since a TV ad is a form of push media that interrupts people's attention, while web video is much more a pull media, where we chose to watch. As he said, "The finer point would be that people were not forced to watch these -- they wanted to watch them -- they chose to watch them."

Can any candidate afford to ignore YouTube in the future?

Videos

Firstly, I know someone (Adrienne I think) set up a youtube account for the class to post videos but I forget what the username/password is! If anyone could help me out that would be great because I need to 1) post my group's video and 2) watch the ones that I missed.

Secondly, I really enjoyed the last class. I didn't really have any specific expectations going into the class regarding the videos but I'm really glad that they all were so different. Each group took the extremely loose guidelines of making something that was Rebooting America + something you researched + theme/message of some sort and ran with it. Even though I didn't get a chance to see all of the videos, the ones that I did see were great. I was impressed with how they picked a topic/issue and tackled it by using pictures, clips, etc.

I don't remember who said it in class, but I completely agree with the point that making the videos forced us to have more than just conceptual understanding of Rebooting America. We had to go beyond the powerpoint with the "key points from the book" and connect to real, concrete, visual examples that meant something, not just abstract concepts. We had to have a real interaction with the book in order to create something that was creative and entertaining. Within my group, I found that those who had a actually read Rebooting America and had a good understanding of it made a more valuable contribution to the overall video presentation. 

When working on the project, I started my own short film which I hope to finish soon. So watch for it!

Cairo Activists Use Facebook to Rattle Regime

Cairo Activists Use Facebook to Rattle Regime

Insert Caption Here

Kill Your Blog

Twitter, Flickr, Facebook Make Blogs Look So 2004

"Thinking about launching your own blog? Here's some friendly advice: Don't. And if you've already got one, pull the plug.

Writing a weblog today isn't the bright idea it was four years ago. The blogosphere, once a freshwater oasis of folksy self-expression and clever thought, has been flooded by a tsunami of paid bilge.

'Blogging is simply too big, too impersonal, and lacks the intimacy that drew me to it.'

Twitter - which limits each text-only post to 140 characters - is to 2008 what the blogosphere was to 2004. 

@WiredReader: Kill yr blog. 2004 over. Google won't find you. Too much cruft from HuffPo, NYT. Commenters are tards. C u on Facebook?"

Career Choice

http://www.countermilitary.org/PoliticalCartoons/index.html

McCain-Obama Way Too Friendly??

I was just exploring the CSPAN Debate Hub that JD suggested when I came across a blog that had a recent post entitled, "McCain-Obama Way Too Friendly" that said,

"One thing I liked about the Bush/Gore Debates is that it was obvious both men loathed each other and they didn't care who knew it. That liberated them, for good and ill...You look at the way [McCain] sneered at Romney in the primary debates and compare it with his tentativeness toward Obama."

Now I clearly don't have authority on claiming who hates whom etc but from watching last night's debate it was obvious (to me at least) that they both despised each other. It was especially evident given their physical proximity. During the first two debates they were quite far away from each other, either at podiums or roaming around the room. But last night they were at the same table, only a few feet away and the physical animosity seemed to be at a peak. 

Not to mention the verbal attacks. Last night the conversation got almost vicious at times. Not that the specific things they were saying were mean or hateful; it was the short, stinging nature of the comments that led to the overall tone. The two candidates clearly couldn't stand what the other was saying and used both sarcasm and interruptions to get that point across. So, I don't know what debate the author was watching because there was clear animosity between McCain and Obama.

Twitter 101

I had a great time using Twitter during the debate. Initially it seemed strange to just post random comments but as more people got on it was fun to have the interaction. I was planning on watching the debate regardless, but Twitter-ing the debate made me focus more both on what the candidates were saying but also how they were saying it, their body language, etc. I suppose my experience on Twitter was akin to sitting in room with friends watching the debate commenting, joking, laughing etc. (Although these friends were a bit slow to respond at points.)

While I think the experiment was overall a success, it would have been fun to have more people involved. If there was a greater difference in opinions there would have been a better debate among ourselves not just the one on TV. (Prior to the debate, I actually got a few of my friends from different schools to join me in Twitter-ing their responses to the debate because I knew they would be different from our class'.)

Even though the whole idea of Twitter seemed pretty pointless initially,  I found that the more I used it the more natural it became, even after the debate was over. I hope the same was true for my classmates (esp those who had trouble with the concept). I look forward to using this platform again as different means of communication.

Live Blog for Class 10/2/08

12:10 - Twitter? Trying to figure out how to make it work. Adrienne made page now lets figure out how to actually use it....

12:22 - Compromise on Twitter. Volunteers for Twittering the debate. Guys? Anyone?

12:22 - How do you access Twitter w/o a laptop or TV? Come on guys lets not act like we're technologically illiterate.

12:26 - Millennials complain that other generations don't know how to work technologies ("jeez mom its just email"), but this class is currently acting like we've never used things like this before. 

12:29 - Beating a dead horse.

12:31 - Still beating it....

12:39 - I'm pretty sure a whole bunch of brain cells were just murdered. "omg, twitter me, tweet me, follow me, like omg, idk, omg...." Definitely have a headache now.

12:44 - Do we have to be in a group to identify ourselves?....."It's not about you." vs. self marketing??

12:48 - "You cannot be you outside of society."

12:50 - Value inclusivity. 

12:52 - Group vs. individuality. Different kind of formation of groups and how we identity ourselves within that group. Key factor in re-defining democracy. Peer learning communities and the power of social networking?

12:55 - checking for predators.....(aka awkward silence....)

12:58 - wow. they're actually doing a techno trash art sculpture. thats pretty awesome

1:05 - freerice.com not that i believe everything on wikipedia but here's possible verification. Apparently we're not the only ones wondering....Harvard is too.

1:08 - Is clicking on rice grains a viable form of democratic participation?

1:17 - Important to install curiosity in the public. How do you get our generation involved? Treat us like 5 year olds? "Super big, super colorful, videos..." (I'm kinda worried about that.) What would millennial politics look like?? -"Like a video game?" How would you get people involved in topics such as the economic crisis? 

1:20 - sit around w/ friends, drink beer, watch the debate and twitter.....

"The Basis of Optimism is Sheer Terror."

While reading the first couple of essays in Rebooting America and thinking about the need (or desire) for optimism, I was reminded of a paragraph from iSpy's introduction.

"Isn't interactivity, like communication, an unadulterated good, something that can help eliminate misunderstandings, overcome differences, and even empower the masses? Isn't it, in fact, the antidote to the depredations of mass society, a technological enhancement of democratic participation, the ability not just to see and hear, but to be seen and heard?"

When I read that in iSpy, I wrote it off as sarcasm because Andrejevic clearly wasn't considering interactivity as a means of democratic empowerment. I feel as though he believes there is the potential for positive uses of such interactivity, but they are overshadowed by the overwhelming negative of constant surveillance. But the authors in Rebooting America are encouraged to envision and plan a positive outcome for the age of interactivity. In the ever smaller digital enclosure, the authors are asked to cut doorways into a world without surveillance boundaries. 

While a little optimism is a nice change from the overall depressing and frankly, frightening picture painted by Andrejevic, I believe that his is reality while the others only the sunny side of life. The writers advocate the belief that the internet will be an aid to democracy and in fact, make democracy "more realistic" and bring the "we the people" back to the political process. The image of a newly re-vamped democracy that has active participation from informed citizens is amazing....in theory. But in reality my question would be, how would you transform a feeble democracy with uninterested, apathetic voters into some amazingly efficient super-democracy? The authors offer their views on the perfect combination of interactivity and democracy but not a feasible plan to implement.

Twitter Politics

iSpy Recap

iSpy was in many ways, very shocking for me. Not because I was learning things I didn't know already but because Andrejevic concisely recounted all the various ways our supposed freedom doesn't exactly exist. The concept of the digital enclosure finally put a name on an image that I had been slowly developing in my mind. One where walls were slowly being erected the more times I swiped that Shoppers Club card or drove through the E-Z Pass lane. iSpy forced me to reassess my place in that enclosure. And to determine, now that I know where those boundaries lie, what I'm going to do about it. Andrejevic presents his arguments to shock people into understanding but leaves it up to us, the "savvy citizen", to decide how we're going to change this culture of surveillance to one of democratic participation and potential.

Privacy and the Constitution

Bill of Rights - Amendments Related to Privacy

Amendment I (Privacy of Beliefs): Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment III (Privacy of the Home): No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV (Privacy of the Person and Possessions): The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX (General Protection): The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment XIV (Liberty Clause): No state shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Responses

About class on 9/18:

I forget who wrote this on their blog, but someone brought up the point that although the discussion was quite lively and enjoyable at times, it failed to actually discuss one point. There was no central argument. I believe that people learn more (and more effectively) if they are forced to investigate all sides of an issue and debate it rather than just saying anything that is even slightly related to the topic. I am not saying that the entire class was chaotic but it felt as though the central issues were constantly being ignored in favor of comments designed to evoke specific responses from classmates (with whom you may or may not agree with). 

Response to the class discussion and this blog and its comment.

Firstly, the post itself is contradictory. You initially state, "according to my interpretation of the constitution this taking of my information...is a breach of my personal privacy and should not be done." However, you continue to say that governmental monitoring policies such as the Patriot Act are acceptable because you feel that you have done nothing wrong. I understand that you may agree with the terms of the Patriot Act but to agree with it simply because you believe it does not apply to you is well, not good enough. The prevailing counter argument to both private and governmental monitoring in class has been exactly that. People have said that they agree or have no opinion on data mining because they believe it has no effect upon them. The "I have nothing to hide" argument. To every person who uses that argument, I have to say that any method that restricts personal freedoms (even if you personally are not directly affected) is WRONG. If people believe that the physical invasion of privacy is immoral then why is the technological equivalent acceptable? Why does the government need permission to go through the papers on your desk but the your files on the internet are fair game? It is the SAME THING. If you believe the internet is a completely open area and that you have nothing to hide then would you have a problem with anyone accessing your credit card numbers? bank account numbers? pictures of your children? Why is it okay for individuals, companies, governments to have access to the your most important data, the numbers ones that make up your IDENTITY?

WHY?

Digital Enclosure

He Who Enjoys Solitude Will Not Love Freedom pt 2

I did not immediately post on the initial readings for iSpy because I felt I needed to time to meditate (and frankly stew) over what I had read. While none of the overarching points made by Andrejevic came as a surprise, I was astonished as to the effect their condensed form had on me. I didn't really understand my feelings until after the class discussion. 

In all honesty, I was shocked at the majority of the class' response. Shocked that the same people who had, presumably, just read the same chapters I had, could act so blase when it came to their privacy (internet or otherwise). I am not one to stand on a soapbox and proclaim that "Big Brother is watching" and we all must rise against him, but I suppose I naively thought that people (especially politically aware students) would care more.

"Is being data mined really that bad?" Truth: the action of being data mined causes no direct effect or harm to your person. However, the data gathered whether it be shoe preferences or credit card numbers, could potentially used against you in the future. Sure those advertisements on the sides of your web browser don't pose a threat to your safety so much as an annoyance but they are merely the small visual reminders that anything and everything you do on the internet is being monitored. Maybe not directly but by recording everything from click streams to buying preferences the supposed "realm of free space" the internet is supposed to be quickly became one of the easiest platforms upo

n which to be surveilled. 

I was struck most when Prof. Dean had to resort to dramatic examples to make comparisons to internet surveillance that people could connect to. The thought of being followed around all day seemed preposterous to some but the idea of having every movement on the internet tracked was okay. Flipping through someone's planner to discover their future dates etc was an invasion of privacy but reading personal emails was not. I suppose I am lost as to why people fail to see the connection without making such obvious parallels. 

He Who Enjoys Solitude Will Not Love Freedom

Groups and Alliances and Coalitions...Oh My!

Whenever the issue concerning groups is posed to the entire class for comment, I feel as though we go 'round and 'round like dogs chasing our tails only to find out that at the end of the discussion we have neither caught the tail nor really discovered why we were chasing it in the first place. The quick success of the first group prompted many within the class to clamor for "groups all around" (not drinks for once). This led to an immediate separation between those who were eager for groups, those who absolutely hated the idea, and those trapped somewhere in the middle. The addition of more variables to the 'group conundrum' such as the distinction between basic course curriculum vs. final project and cohesive group (with singular blog) vs. loosely allied coalition made the issue that much broader and more difficult. From the conversation that arose from our forced groups from last class I have managed to distill the numerous possibilities to a few choice scenarios for group organization:

1. Cohesive group with 1 blog that everyone has access to where individual blogs are relinquished for the greater cause. (Just as the first group.)
2. Closely-knit group where personal blogs are obtained but access to group blog is available as well. 
3. Loosely arranged coalition where members have a "group blog" that is utilized in the same manor as Location F8, as a sounding board and general forum but all input is done via individual blogs. 
4. Tightly associated group of people who have no intention of working with other people.
   

These potential organizational designs would then have to be paired with one of the many various choices for content:

1. Daily work. Comment on class readings, class discussion, etc. Boring.
2. Daily work and some focused readings based on previously discussed topics of interest.
3. Daily work that is completely targeted to designated interest.
4. Final project only. May or may not be on previously discussed topics.
5. Final project and everything else. Spend the entire semester with small group. Yay?

So now all there is left to do is to come up with some winning combination. However, unlike the real lottery, the odds are better if you do play.

Troll

Buy a Helmet

"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me". 

As a child, I often chanted those words back at whatever bully was tormenting me on the playground. To respond to hurtful comments in kind felt, well, good. I may have returned home with confidence destroyed and self esteem in shambles but as long as I didn't let that bully see what he had done to me, I remained the victor. With age came maturity and the realization that such methods are not appropriate outside the playground. (Now one could endlessly debate that we never left the playground just moved to a bigger one and that such phrases are still used just in more carefully worded language...but I'm not here to pursue that.) However, since my entrance into the blogosphere I have come to see that for many, the Internet has been a means to return to the playground, a new and improved one at that. In this playground you can throw sand, steal toys and pull pigtails all without repercussion. The threat of "time out" is no longer enough to keep everyone playing nicely.

While the average person isn't likely to go wild with this new found freedom many have begun to take advantage of the fact that words are now the most powerful weapons in this playground. And given the anonymity, people are free to say whatever they want. Entire subcultures have been created upon mantra that words are just words and the belief the the problem only arises when you let that bully (troll) see his effect. Verbal harassment is all just part of the game. Trolls argue, "the willingness of trolling 'victims' to be hurt by words makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it."(Schwartz) They think that as soon as people come to actually believe in the childhood rhyme I used to chant, trolling will no longer be effective. But until that time, trolls are going to continue to push the limits of social barriers. But the question is how far is too far? When trolling, a verbal attack, takes on a physical component (such as victims committing suicide)? Who knows?

Trolls contend that, "ultimately the power lies in the community to dictate its own standards."(Schwartz) If masses of individuals form associations where such malice is tolerated than it should be allowed to continue. Only when enough people begin to censor themselves and others will such blind hatred decrease. In free spaces such as the internet playground, when real world morals and societal norms are thrown out, there cannot possibly a security monitor to watch every person's actions. People must act on their own. How to accomplish this....."I'd say empathy is probably a factor." (Schwartz)

Oops

Upon reading the comment on my last post I realized I made a bit of an error regarding that question....I never really answered it! So thank you inconvenience. Therefore, in response to your question, I feel that it is neither a positive nor a negative thing to be so interconnected with daily technologies. If the technology (such as computers) became a crutch and one is entirely dependent upon it, then yes, I believe it would be detrimental. But it is not wrong for technologies such as writing to fuse with those who utilize them because, "writing is utterly invaluable and indeed essential for the realization of fuller, interior, human potentials." (Ong, 23)

To answer your second question: no, I do not feel defined by my technology. As stated in my previous post, I feel as though it is a part of me but not one easily distinguishable and not one that should play any role in defining me. 

You - Technology = ???

Do you feel that the technologies you use configure you or make you who you are?

To answer that question, I feel that one must attempt to judge themselves separate from the "technologies". They must imagine themselves removed  from any situation where the interaction might occur and compare that person to who they are now. I believe that unless one has existed in a preliterate society, it is impossible to completely determine to what extent daily technologies affect and configure you. To evaluate the magnitude of something in life, one must not only completely understand it (and its role in your life) but also be able to alienate themselves from it. "To live and to understand fully, we need not only proximity but also distance." (Ong, 23) Having been raised in a literate world, I am fundamentally biased and can imagine no such separation from technologies of any kind. "Technologies are not mere exterior aids by also interior transformations of consciousness." (Ong, 23) The sheer act of using a pencil or reading a book has already so altered my version of reality that there is no "going back", no way of imagining my world with out them. For, since the first time I began to use the technology of writing to express words, I could no longer think of words without picturing them, no longer be able to define one without using another. Ong uses the metaphor of the musician to illustrate this point. One is unable to separate a musician from his music. To succeed at his art the musician "has to have interiorized the technology, made the tool or machine a second nature, a psychological part of himself". (Ong, 24) In using technology I have internalized it and made it a part of me, so much so that it is impossible to ever be separated. "The use of a technology can enrich the human psyche, enlarge human spirit, (and) set it free..." (Ong, 24)

What's in a.....Face??

Does it matter if an interaction is face to face?

My gut reaction would be to say that yes, person-to-person, face-to-face interaction is crucial however the fundamental medium of this class (blogging) suggests otherwise. I don't believe that it is necessary for all conversations to take place face-to-face, however the paralanguage (non-verbal elements of conversation) is just as important for interpreting someone's meaning as the words they are saying. In his article, "What Can a Face Do?", Richard Ruston states that, "ultimately, the face is an instrument whose primary purpose is that of communicating; we cannot dissociate the face from the sender from the system of meaning implied by that face's messages being sent to a receiver."(p.221) While it is not impossible to have a conversation via text it is truly difficult to communicate and convey all aspects of the interaction.

Elements of description that simply cannot be determined via text such as age, sex, nationality (as determined by dialect) are also lost when interactions are no longer face to face.  Near true anonymity can be achieved when communications are reduced to text transfered via the internet. With that anonymity comes the perception of decreased personal risk. When having a face-to-face discussion with someone, you are personally responsible for what you say. You will have to deal with whatever reaction they might have. Therefore, in those situations, the majority of people are more apt to be more conservative and careful about what they say. Both one's reputation and physical body are at risk should you choose to make the "wrong" comment. However, in media such as blogs etc. neither of this risks are relevant. With nearly complete anonymity and the ability to converse with people on the other side of the world you (personally) don't have to be responsible or accountable for anything you say.

In this age where technology and communication play inescapable roles in our lives it is easy to see why such media (blogs etc) have become so extraordinarily popular. The ability to say what you want, when you want with no serious repercussions to essentially anyone, anywhere in the world is, well, incredible. 

Rules of the Game

Reflecting on the class:  Just as there are seven levels of grief, I had what felt like seven different successive reactions to the class. The first lasted the time it took me to pack my bag, leave the classroom and walk down the stairs. I think the best word to describe that emotion would be shock. But it was unlike any shock I've experienced before. It wasn't like the surprise you experience upon hearing some juicy piece of gossip or the reaction to a devastating story on the news. It was just as unique and alien to me as the class I had just left. It was not the method by which the class information was conveyed nor even the professor's conspicuous absence that surprised me most. (Strangely, I am not unfamiliar with professors leaving classes unattended.) It was the near total lack of direction that had the most effect upon me. Typically, when I enter a class for the first meeting of the semester I expect to be greeted with sylibi and course expectations, with strict guidelines and attendance policies. But upon entering the class, all we got was a brief introduction, a short list of books, and a discussion topic guideline. That was it. No welcome speech by the professor or a "lets go around the room and say your name". For the first 20 minutes of the class, it felt as though everyone was running through what was written desperately trying to find some concrete starting block for the class. It was as though we had all entered the game confident there would be some sort of stability once we got there but quickly discovered there were no rules, no referees, and no guidelines as to what was in or out and that it was up to us to figure out how to play it. 

Having had a day and a half to reflect on my initial experience, I realize how important it was that the professor was not there for the first class. Immediately, upon reading the first assignment, I understood why she was not there, what point she was trying to prove. But I did not consider what greater implications it had, how it forced some students into leadership roles and how because of that, we as a class, felt much more comfortable being told what to do rather than being asked what to do. When it was left up to us to decide what we wanted there was a general feeling of confusion, distrust, and agitation. We were upset that we were being asked to do something on our own, for ourselves. We had to converse with one another and discuss the topics for our own benefit, not to impress a professor or to get a grade. I think this last phase of reaction to the first day has had the greatest effect upon me. For being part of the generation that constantly feels the need to assert its individualism, one would think that we would exploit the chance to exercise and demonstrate that characteristic. But when given the chance (even in an academic setting), we shrink back and are more comfortable letting someone else take the reins and direct the majority. How true are our feelings if we tout these ideals yet aren't willing to live up to them?