Is television news being stood up?

Image source: Author screen capture

Over the past few weeks One News At 6pm has changed their "coming up" segment before the first ad break to include the approximate length of time (in minutes) until an advertised story will screen.

Clearly this is an attempt to lasso viewers into watching further into the bulletin, even if they wander off during the ad break. However, is this an effective strategy in a digitally switched on society?

When I see an interesting story previewed, I've been finding myself drawn to Google News to find out more straight away, rather than waiting the advertised four minutes or more.

If TVNZ aim to up their "Generation Y" ratings by asking these viewers to make an appointment with the upcoming story, they seem to have miscalculated. However, what this example does point out is that different media act as different levels in chains of mediators.

Image source

I don't tend to sit down and watch a six o'clock televised news bulletin, but if my parents have the television news on in the background I may be exposed to an interesting story and pursue it further on the internet. In this way, television is still acting as a gatekeeper, influencing what news I access online.

Television and newspapers may have lost ground as a dominant form of news media, but the interplay between offline and online news is affecting our interaction with news. The message isn't in the medium, it's in the media.

Privacy on SNS

As we live in the digital age, people pay more attention to the privacy on the internet and social network sites such as facebook in particular. From the reading ‘Facebook’s Privacy Trainwreck’, Danah Boyd mentioned that “News Feeds” on Facebook made aggregating information more accessible and visible to everyone and pointed out how this new feature expose information in public. But, as long as you control privacy how much and what you are going to share, I don’t think this new feature is a big problem as a privacy loss.

I have an account on Facebook and whenever I log in to facebook, News feed provides me information about what my friends have been up to and with whom they accepted as “friend” lately which helps me keep tabs on them. Usually I use facebook only to interact with friends I already know, and I don’t want to all the materials and information I share with them to be available for anyone to see. So I checked my privacy settings on facebook and made sure that all materials I have on SNS is only available to me and my friends.

I guess many people fear of what other people may think of their actions on facebook or on any other SNS. If people don’t want to lose their privacy and not get embarrassed, they may need to check their facebook for any inappropriate postings and also untag themselves from the drunken photos.

To sum up, I think it is our responsibility to limit and control personal information on the internet. SNS user should control their own privacy settings and more cautions should be taken when they posting some personal details on internet.

Books vs eBooks - a Question of Aesthetics

I want an electronic reader! I find myself stuck between the old and the new. On the one hand, I’m kind of old school and like the feel of a physical book in my hands. On the other hand, as a child of the Millennial Generation, I can’t help but want an eReader.

But first, what is an eReader? It’s an electronic version of a previously published or printed book. Depending on the brand, the specifications can vary in colour, size, features, battery life, storage, and price. There are many versions on the market such as the Amazon Kindle, the Whitcoulls Kobo, the Sony e-Reader, the Apple iPad (with more functions than just eReading), and many other brands and updated versions becoming rapidly available.

Even though I don’t (yet) own this magnificent piece of new technology, I do think the product has lived up to its expectations in terms of the benefits that it offers. Its compact size allows it to be portable for day to day commuting or whilst holidaying overseas; some eReader’s can even store up to 3500 books.

I recognize that my desire for this new technology is heavily fuelled by constant marketing and also because of the “upgrade-me culture” embedded in the society we live in today. By “upgrade-me culture,” I am referring to the obsession people have with upgrading to the latest technological gadgetry as discussed by Simon Armitage in his BBC documentary. To be frank, I plead guilty to this obsession. But in all honesty, how different is reading a physical book compared to reading a book on an electronic reader? (Apart from the fact that you would look kind of cool on the train to work.) And does one really need 3500 books? Is it even possible for someone to read that many books in a lifetime? Maybe. Although, at the core of the “upgrade-me” culture is not about needing as much as it is about wanting.

What is problematic for me, and potentially others, is the underlying feeling that as handy as the eReader is, it just does not feel the same as holding a physical book in your hands. It is as though the tactile engagement between the product and the person is lost with an electronic device. Or is it? Marshall and Eric McLulan wrote of electric sensibility that can have a certain “feel.” So, it is arguable that touch screens have a certain aesthetic that have not only taken over the computing world but also in how we can read our books today.

For many generations, people have naively assumed that the hardback novel would forever be held in high regard, but then came the trade paperback size novel and then in regular paperback size. Now increasingly in popularity, we are reading our books, magazines, and newspapers on an easy to use digital device. With just a quick touch of a finger, the page turns itself or scrolls down - demonstrating to us that this new aesthetic feeling is both exciting and attainable.

The Newspaper Extinction

I consider reading the news as being an attribute associated with those who are or want to be of a higher status in society. Not only can they afford it, they can afford to use their time to read from the front to back – even the business and sports sections.

In class, it was said that Generation Y does not or would not consider reading the news. I’m Generation Y, and I don’t like missing out on my dose of the New Zealand Herald at some point in the day. Of course, I can’t deny that I’d rather read online than have the physical paper. But that’s only because it’s free online. If the paper we’re delivered to my house each morning for free, I would not be complaining.

Reading the news online makes things so selective. Supposedly, this is to make things easier or more interesting to readers. I disagree. Sometimes, when I read online and I come home to find the newspaper, I see all the stories I failed to come across while online. Maybe I’m just not thorough enough when I read online. But, I guess, reading the news online is only good for those who don’t want to have to feel obliged to read the full physical paper they have paid for when in a rush in today’s time pressured society. Top stories, headlines and, discussions and comments (which has somewhat been replaced with the creation of a nzherald.co.nz Facebook group) made about certain issues are always the bits and pieces looked out for. Oh, and don’t forget Sideswipe.

I would’ve thought putting up information online was one way of eliminating the need to cut down so many trees to make paper. However, I do hate to think that the newspaper will become extinct in the next decade or so. I want my children, and my children’s children to have at least that as a token of the past (especially if it ends up having to be paid for online).

Social Networking and Security

Personally, for me, my privacy and the security of my information is my primary concern when using the internet. I’ve heard too many horror stories to take for granted that no one will take advantage of any information I let out online. For this reason, I rarely, if ever, give out my real name or other information online unless I personally know whoever is requesting the information. I keep a personal email address for personal use with people I know, and an anonymous one for anything else.

I will never join Facebook. With all the criticism over their privacy policy and security, I would never feel comfortable trusting the website to not let my information get out to people I don’t want it to. I neither trust Facebook as a technology, or the people behind it.

I think people do have to remember that social networking sites are a technology, and on the internet, and can therefore fail or be hacked. Even email accounts can be hacked. And Facebook has proven that it is not secure enough for me to feel comfortable using it.

I might be overly cautious about such things, but I’d rather be safe than sorry.

Privacy on Facebook

Facebook is used by people from all around the world all varying in age, sex and race. This social networking site forms as an ideal platform for communication. You can keep in touch with pre-existing friends no matter what their location is around the globe. Through this online site you create a profile for yourself in which you can share as little or as much personal information about yourself as desired. You can establish online relationships with people from the offline world resulting in what Danah Boyd calls “social convergence.” Boyd says “social convergence requires people to handle disparate audiences simultaneously without a social script” (Boyd 18). She further goes on to discuss how people perform differently in different situations. It is a well known fact that people act differently in different places and spaces. With Facebook you are thrown in the deep end as all your friends can see your information through your profile page. Through social convergence people from various aspects of your life, (e.g. family, work colleagues and friends) can all see the same information thus there is no longer the separation of identity. Social convergence means you can no longer separate people from different aspects of your life as you can see them and they can see you within the confines of social networking sites especially Facebook. I can see why some people think social convergence is a problem. For example, you can be friends with your boss or your family alongside your everyday friends. Your friends can upload and tag you in images such as being drunk or jumping in a rubbish bin or even post on your wall about silly things you have done. This is not something you want your boss or your family members to see although through social convergence they can as they are your friend and can see your profile. This is easily dismissible though as you can hide information from your family or boss by only allowing them to see particular aspects of your profile hiding incriminating photos or comments. Thus I don’t think social convergence is a problem and as Boyd says it is most likely here to stay, we just need to be prepared for what it could mean (19).

I think this is interesting to look at. Bascally we can see that as more and more people converge onto Facebook more and more people from different aspects of your life will be able to see the other parts of your life throgh your interaction with your other 'online friends.'
I dont see this as a problem personally. Facebook always gives you the option of hiding people from seeing particular information to specific people. This is handy as you can be friends with family without being looked down upon due to your Saturday night halabalu.

Are Facebook Friends Real Friends?

New media and the internet have redefined the boundaries and conditions of friendship and social relationships. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace have redefined the definition ‘friendship’ and for many, these sites have opened a portal towards meeting new people with similar interests, or perhaps mutual friends. The social networking sites have allowed for the expansion of the communication process across yet another easy to use medium, that is more attractive than an email or chat forum, or even a phone call, as it offers the all same features, with simplistic capabilities and the option of multitasking. And although for many of us Facebook users have not experienced the negative consequences for using such websites, they still exist and pose a threat to the future of social relations.

For many of us who grow and move through different areas of life, it could be school, university, different jobs, Facebook allows us to find and connect to people from all of these areas, even when they have passed through our lives and we no longer socially interact on a personal level any more. And as time goes by, a continuing appears to be that more and more people who were once part of your life, or have met you only a couple of times decide to be your friend on Facebook. So we have to ask ourselves, do we accept these people because are truly friends with them and plan to engage in further social relations in the future, or press that button which says confirm for voyeuristic purposes, to see and take a look at what other people may be up to?

In my own personal experience, on my departure from high school was met with several friend requests from people I went to school with, but had never engaged in any sort of conversation with in my life, which resulted in them being denied. Facebook and other sites should be for communication amongst the relevant people within our lives, and a social problem is that is has become about receiving high friend counts and viewing others’ personal information for the purpose of entertainment. Friendship is reduced and mocked in this sense, and with websites such as Facebook, we should be smart with our personal information, because at the end of the day, you don’t know who’s looking.

Apparently video games can save the world...

I was listening to an episode of the Guardian's Tech Weekly podcast last night and the final item was an interview with a games designer, Jane McGonigal, who seems to believe genuinely that the key to "saving the planet" lies with video games. I'm personally very averse to her whole perspective: it creeps me out, actually. But she is getting a lot of exposure, including a slot earlier this year on the TED Talk circuit. Whether you watch the video or listen to the last part of the podcast, I'd be really interested to hear your views on all this... especially if you can give me some reasons to tone down my cynicism and distaste for the views expressed by McGonigal!

Luke's Personal Experience

During the tutorial i had with Luke today, we discussed the issue of privacy and surveillance. With this post I would like to share an idea while testing the boundaries of Privacy with an example from our every own 314 lecturer Luke.

Luke provided an personal example that went something like this: His trip back to UK for the first time after the London Bombing, he realized there are more armed officers with their finger on the trigger and he found that disturbing and it's purpose was to provide surveillance to make people feel save and Luke pointed out that he didn't feel save under that kind of situation.

The issue i want to talk about relating to this idea is the "social experiences"



New media technology allows us to access news and information globally, trying to present the most updated information, event that are most relevant and interesting to the consumer. but global news are not as important to us compared to local news. We are more interested in the events that occur around us, event that we have experiences to. Not suggesting that global events aren't important, it's just that its not as relevant as local news, as local new have a direct influence.

When the twin towers got hit, the news broadcast the event worldwide, it was massive! everyone knew about it. But this event had more influence on the US than people say in New Zealand. To New Zealanders this was a tragic event, we still donate money and share their loss but it's still a event that happened ages away! We would not consider that the sky tower would be the target of the next attack. Because New Zealand is different from America, we have similar yet different ways of living. It's an event that happened ages away from New Zealand the sort of experience shared among Americans are different to people in New Zealand. American's would have a closer interaction with the media in relation to this event, where New Zealanders might not have the access to this sort of information hence not interact with the event as much as Americans. After this event many images of the twin towers with in the movie have been edit out to avoid reminding the viewers of the event during their interaction with the movie. But to New Zealanders when we watching films such as spider man the presentation of the twin towers would not really influence our engagement with the film it self.


Going back to Luke's example, his trip back to UK, the experience in the airport to him have made him feels less save as he's being staying in New Zealand too long, aware of the event but can not relate to the social context. I'm pretty sure Luke knows that the armed guards are set up due to the London bombing but he doesn't feels save as hearing about it and experiencing are two totally different things.The fact that he hasn't personally experience the crisis hence he can't relate to the experiences of the people who have personally experience the situation. To them by having armed officers standing guard gives the a sense of protection, a system set up to prevent a similar event from happening. It makes London People feel safe!!

Another ideas that arose when i wrote this post is that by submitting someone else personal experience (the lecturer and the tutor) on a blog post which could be used as apart of an formal assessment for the uni, can that be consider as invading a persons privacy? even though this was mentions to the whole tutorial class and Luke stated it's ok to use material mentioned in the lecture and tutorial in blogs. Than again this information can be consider a personal and it's mentioned with in a small group, a group he has utter trust in sharing his secrets with and by updating this post...have I invaded his privacy?

Privacy and FB

Is there a private life in our online communities?

if there is, how private would it be?

I was lingering on Facebook (oh yes AGAIN) and i was wondering should i change my privacy settings. but as i was looking through it, i found it quite tricky. It gave me the option of disclose certain informations about myself to either my friends, everyone, friends of friends and even the 'other' option that allows you to customize your privacy setting. If we look at it closely and think about it, all these options doesn't really help in maintaining your privacy. One of the most amazing?stupid?tricky? part of Facebook is the friend request option. I was looking at it the other day and found out that Facebook have automatically requested some strangers to be my friend without my authorization. If i didn't found out about this the other day, that stranger might have been my 'friends' and all my informations will be disclose to a total stranger.

To be honest, i do not believe that there is this sense of privacy on any online social networks. For me, the whole point of joining a social network is to disclose some of my informations, and sharing it with my friends and family. With this in mind, i would not be constantly thinking of whether my information will leak out to somewhere else or not, because if it ever happens, i am kind of expected it to be.

Whatever we choose to post on our profile in a social network site, it does not only limited to our friends and family. These information can be easily track down by some other people. One of the current trend that i am seeing on Facebook is the commercial aspect of it, and how it manipulate the informations network in Facebook. Some people actually created a profile and start selling their products. Well that sounds perfectly fine, but the thing is, they tagged people in their pictures so that other people around the people who got tagged will get notified. From this we can see the chain effect of Facebook, on how informations are disclosed and pass down. These people who are trying to sell something on Facebook also tend to hack into other people's account and start changing their profile pictures into their products' images without the users' consent.

By choosing to put our information online, and displaying them to the world, at that stage, we already choose to chuck part of our privacy away. Of course we can control and filter what sort of informations we want the others to know, but we cannot exactly expect that all our informations will be kept with us safe and sound.

I reckon, the only way to protect our privacy is to either not disclosing our informations online at all, or filter the ones you do not wish to publish and kept them somewhere real safe (which sadly, there isn't such thing yet online).

Privacy in the 21st century?

We are living in a world, where public and private spaces have been blurred by technology.
Technology brought people the new era, where life was promised to be a much better place to live, but it seems like we have exchanged privacy with technology.

From mobile phones to social networking sites, we are constantly monitoring other people and we a monitored by others. We log on to Facebook to catch up with our friends where we can see pictures of our friends and comments made by them, we receive texts and phone calls from our friends and family. Privacy is no longer active in the world where we are living and breathing because we are constantly in surveillance by the people that are around us.
When we go to supermarket for example we might see a coupon saying 20% off a product and all we need were to give up a few of our personal information to get that discount coupon. Marketers have learned how to seduce consumers with discounts and it shows how vulnerable people are in giving out its personal information.

Tools for tracking people which once was used by the government in the past but now in the digital age large corporations have access to these tools. With the constant development in the digital age the word privacy is becoming more and more irrelevant and the world public is becoming more relevant.

World Press Photo Competition.

Earlier on this month I went to the Auckland Exhibition of the World Press Photo Competition, for those of you not familiar with the competition, their website's mission statement says;
"Our Mission is to encourage high professional standards in photojournalism and to promote a free and unrestricted exchange of information. World Press Photo aims to support professional press photography on a wide international scale. Promotional activities include an annual contest, exhibitions, the stimulation of photojournalism through educational programs, and creating greater visibility for press photography through a variety of publications."

Their focus has been on professional pictures which highlight issues which the world is dealing with at the time of the contest. Kind of like a'The Year That Was' in photos.

Now if you think back over the last year you may recall that after the disputed Iranian Election all foreign journalists were kicked out of Tehran so they couldn't report or show the rest of the world footage of the protests taking place by opposition supporters. What Iran couldn't stop was the flow of images, and videos of the events that Iranians were managing to load on to the internet.

This year, the World Photo Press, acknowledged that these images were hugely influential on our comprehension of what was really going on in Iran by giving a special mention to a still shot taken from protesters Neda Agha-Soltan's death (please beware the image is not pleasant. and the original footage even less so)

Although only a special mention, one must remember that this is a competition run in order to promote images from the Professional Press Photography. To me this is highlights the way in which our world is changing and the line between Professional Journalism and the civilian is blurring, so much so that now civilians are even mentioned in events so sacred to the Press as 'The World Press Photo Competition'.

God 2.0 is now entertaining at a place near you.

This blog post is inspired by and a response to the blog post God or Google: Media Technology Modern Day Replacement for Religion? For the purpose of this blog-post when I refer to ‘religion’, I am referring to Christian beliefs and followers. I also agree that new media amongst many other factors, are increasingly replacing the need for religion to a certain extent. Instead of ultimately replacing religion, there is an apparent shift in numerous Evangelical or New Age Churches that attempt to adapt traditional rituals to contemporary society and new media technology. I recently went with a friend to her New Age Church to see what it was like and the ‘sermon’ had been transformed into an extravagant rock-concert. Much money and time had been spent on high-end production equipment and state-of-the-arc technology to create a multi-faceted media experience that ironically seems to defeat the entire purpose of helping those in need. From the elaborate venue with synchronized lighting and music, live professional video cameras and audio equipment, giant LCD and projector screens to free give-away DVDs for newcomers; it was a drastic change from the traditional notion of tediously attending the dreaded Sunday masses as a child. This is one of the introductory videos that we were shown at the service, which uncannily resembles a theatrical movie trailer.

Although web 2.0 media on the internet idealistically promotes a democratic forum of speech that encourages a sense of individualism, there co-exists the desire for belonging and communal activity. In one of the readings in another course, Cass Sunstein discusses in Republic.com 2.0 the notion of polarization and cyber-cascades in relation to group behavior within different forums on the internet. Shared group debates or discussions within online forums formulate, strengthen or reaffirm one’s current beliefs and values about a particular subject. For enthused Church-goers or the curious wanting to find answers, the World Wide Web is a haven away from haven providing one with like-minded individuals who may share the similar views and interests. By utilizing popular social media sites the Churches attempt to 'spread the good news' on a global scale that will appeal to anyone with access to the internet and specifically young people. The Church I visited had their own official website, Facebook page, YouTube Channel, Twitter account, Wikipedia and so on. The popularity of such sites, including God.com, GodTube and the endless number of other interactive religious related pages only reinforce how the entertaining and updated version of God is here to stay.

Privacy of the Public

With the topic of privacy over the past week, we've talked a couple of times about CCTV and its recorded monitoring of public locations. I know that this is quite a contested issue, that some feel this is an invasion of privacy that does not warrant the security it offers. Regardless, CCTV is widespread, and overall people accept that they will be monitored in many public places.

This got me thinking about how privacy is so dependent upon location, and furthermore, how this relates to privacy online. Physical locations explicitly define the public from the private: CCTVs are acceptable on the street, but definitely not inside the home. Of course online (specifically SNS), what is public and what is private isn't so defined as there is no traditional sense of location. Danah Boyd (from the set reading) talks about this 'grey area' of information privacy online: much of what is posted online is not private, but it is assumed that it will only be read by certain people.

On Facebook, for example, friends can comment on other friend's walls, but the comment reaches further people through news feeds, as well as being viewable by anyone with access to the wall. Just who a wall post will reach is actually pretty much unknown to the commenter, being dependent on a combination of privacy settings, friends lists, and networks. Sure there are privacy settings, but short of limiting all content to "friends only", privacy quickly becomes a murky term.

Facebook 'Places' is an interesting complication. To me, the idea seems to be a sort of combination of CCTV and SNS; the Facebook Places user can be tagged and their physical location shared (monitored). A part of me believes that (just like with CCTV) while in public locations, I can't expect my actions to be completely private. Yet the thought of being tagged on Facebook Places, and my location being traceable across online networks is somewhat unsettling. In a sense, this becomes another grey area of privacy: the knowledge of my location is public, but I also want some degree of privacy and control over this information.

Again, it seems Facebook is not only pushing the boundaries of privacy, but also pushing the boundaries of public information.

Lets do it online

It has been suggested that sexuality and intimacy online has become an arising issue due to changes and developments in technology. Prior to modernity, relationship formations were symbolised and characterized by gender roles and sexuality was seen to be more so linked with reproduction. But with the increasing freedom that has come with technological developments such as social networking sites, people are now able to have more choice in the types of relationships that they want to enter into. Though, with such selection and developments made online comes added anxiety about relationships and issues with intimacy, supporting the argument of intimacy formed through distance versus physical closeness without intimacy. New technology such as Skype has brought new ways of exploring and showing intimacy, but new anxieties also. Developments such as Skype are open to interpretation, they are believed to be used to create and sustain a connection but can also be viewed as a level of surveillance. Presently, online networks allow individuals to build an identity for themselves which can constantly be re-assessed and changed, partnerships are then more democratic as they share the view of equal ranking. Creating romance online can be understood to involve the formation of roles and using the imagination within virtual spaces. These dating networking sites are consequently teaching users how to 'present' themselves and is a form of branding. It has provided us with a set of norms and expectations when presenting ideas and images so they appear real and authentic while being interesting. Therefore with new media has come concerns over infidelity and the emotional/physical debate.

Facebook Places - Serendipitous?

Last week in the lecutre, Luke talked about Facebook introducing their new application - Facebook Places.
It is a new application that allows people to meet up with each other by chance, or serendipity. You will "never miss another chance to connect when you happen to be at the same place at the same time."

I thought serendipity was supposed to be, you know, spontaneous, exciting, random?!
Even Dictionary.com states the definition of serendipity as "an aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident." I feel these words fully describe what serendipity is meant to be. However, Facebook Places ruins it all because having the ability to know that your friend is down the road, doesn't make it serendipitous since it isn't a random (desirable) discovery.
Firstly, maybe your friend is at that certain place because s/he wants to be left alone. For example, your friend may be in the library studying for their exam that's coming up in a couple of hours, of course they don't want you to bother them!
Secondly, (as someone had mentioned in class) Facebook Places allows Facebook stalkers to be real stalkers.

But okay, it may be nice some times to know that your friends are at a particular bar/club/what have you and it's cool to meet up with them but you should at least have the ability to check yourself in, not have it automatically checked in for you. Facebook is assuming that we all want this feature in our lives and it's taking your "control" that you have over your profile away from you.

So, Facebook Places, serendipitous? No.
Facebook Places, sort of creepy? In my opinion, definitely.

Fired from facebook

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg once said the world has changed, that it has became more public and less private, with the immense rise of social network sites this statement isn't far from the truth. Are facebook users becoming more blase with the sharing of personal information?

Privacy is a real concern with the amount of personal information we share on facebook and other SNS especially when it has to do with jobs. Employers are commonly using facebook as a way to judge potential employees or to monitor them.

Facebook is used to interact with friends, share what is on your mind and to express yourself...just make sure you don't say anything that can get you fired. It is not entirely that uncommon to hear of employees being dismissed for saying how they feel about their job, a 16 year old girl was fired for apparently saying that her job was "boring" on facebook: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1155971/Teenage-office-worker-sacked-moaning-Facebook-totally-boring-job.html. In the casual setting of facebook it should be okay to post something as generic about how someone feels about their work without fear of losing their job. It is most of the time just a way of making conversation online and to gain empathy from friends. It isn't just words which can have negative impacts but photos as well. We can control what we share on our profiles, but we cannot control what our friends put on their pages such as photos which can be unflattering or embarassing and taken out of context.

I don't agree with employers judging someone by their profile as it can be inaccurate portrayals of someone as internet does allow room for playing with our identities, it also doesn't reveal the whole person, there is time for play and work. On the other hand they are representing a company, franchise, business etc. But afterall if the facebook profile is set to public there is nothing stopping the employers of having every right to view it. Privacy settings over facebook in this instance is very important. And if you want to feel free to vent don't add your boss.

Meaningful Relationships

The Dunbar Number - I didn't know existed before attending the lecture on Online Social Networks. However, the concept is a unique one - that one can have a meaningful relationship with only 150 people at a certain point in time. 150 is a big number if looked at in terms of having a meaningful relationship in person; especially nowadays when people hardly seem to have time for themselves.

But if 150 is applied to social networking sites, it doesn't seem that big number, or does it? For a lot of people this number wouldn't seem big considering the number of 'friends' they have on their friend's list on social networking sites; some people have more than 500 hundred friends, which seems quite unreal if looked at interms of having being able to have a "meaningful realtionship". And then for some people this number wouldn't seem really big as their purpose for joining social networking sites is to establish relationships beyond their "real life relationships".

The context in which people place the quantitative value of The Dunbar Number I think, completely depends on what they the term 'friend' on social networking sites constitutes to. Or even on what Judith Donath puts it as, Strong and Weak Ties; Strong ties being the close network of friends and Weak being the acquaintances. She however the idea about strong and weak ties in to a different direction; but just in realtion to The Dunbar Number, Donath's idea gives one a lot of flexibility regarding the formation of "meaningful realtionships" on SNS.

The Fetishization of Cellphones:

Over the past 10 years we have seen the extreme advances through cell phone technology; for many of us, we never leave home without it, and never turn it off. It is a physical extension of our lives moulded into a miniature device. And with such a large inception into the majority of lives throughout the world, it poses the question if by owning and communicating with our cell phones, we are all subconsciously moving into the ‘technophile’ category, as our lives largely become dependent.

I chose this topic through personal experience, in which earlier this week I had broken my phone and had to wait 3 days for it to be repaired. Living without it was such a bizarre experience, and truly quite frustrating. I found myself reaching for it even though it wasn’t there several times, as well as planning to text others before remembering I couldn’t. This showed me first, not just for myself but as an entire culture how reliant we on this technology, and how personalised it has become in the running of our daily lives. The cell phone is a personalised manifestation of social relations and efficiency rolled into one device, and has spread across the lives of billions in order to offer a simpler and easier means of communication; one in which is not limited by time or money, just reception.

Why do we feel the need to constantly upgrade and renew our technology? As the cell phone technologies have been inducted into many lifestyles, we also begin to see how these personalised items become fetishized, to appeal to our consumer wants, and tap into the idea that slimmer, faster, more advanced models are always available for consumption. It appears that marketing campaigns advertising such products are metaphors for human relationships also, and we begin to associate the idea that purchasing the latest iPhone, or blackberry, will result in some type of social success, or ease and freedom within our personal lives. As people we connect cell phones and their new features as essential, as upgrading technology is a physical form of improvement and gives the feelings of fresh, new and ease when applying these devices to our own lives.

Mixing work with play

I work in brand promotions and my company has a facebook page. Most of the staff (about 200) are friends with the company and there has never been an instance when someone has called in sick (who hasn't actually been sick) and work has caught on. I have worked at the office for three months now and they are just too busy to look on Facbook to see whos telling lies ( alot of people have a lot of excuses to not make it to work weekly). Major firms do not have the time to chase people around Facebook; the important thing for us is that the shift gets filled and deal with that person later ( by not offering them anymore work). If anything when the account managers look at photos on facebook to makes it easier for them to decide who has the right look for the next campaign. In such cases having your work as a friend on Facebook means you can get more jobs becuase they want the most recent photos.Weight gain/loss, changed hair colour, piercings, tattoo's could mean that they no longer look the same and if a client wants only blond haired girls for a job , it's very easy to see on Facebook whether the girls that are suited for the job are still blond. It makes it easier for the staff to see photos of campaigns and how successful the jobs were; in a way Facebook is a good way for the client and staff to see results on every campaign.
However I did a few jobs for different agenies and I can't upload those photos onto my facebook becuase the agency I work for the most will see and I could risk doing major campaigns for their big clients.
I think that IF anyone accepts or adds their boss or co-worker on Faebook and they get caught for been out allnight and not performing well on the job , or faking being sick it's their own fault for mixing work with social life. If one adds their boss on facebook it should only be fair to prepare and face their consequences.They should watch what they upload or write on their pages. therefore it might be a good idea to keep personal life and work separate.

How to lose and not get a job: Facebook

There has been recent news in Germany of calls to ban employees from using social networking sites to discriminate new employees.

Although the attempt to legislate against employees using Facebook appears a little extreme, it represents an increasing and concerning trend.

What is happening in Germany, is an attempt to make this gray area strictly black and white.

By default, Facebook makes aspects of your profile open to users, allowing people to see your pictures and information. If you have nothing to hide, this won't affect your professional life. But there is always the threat that a friend will write an incriminating wallpost, or tag yourself in an unflattering photo or video.

Of course, the obvious thing to do would be to make your profile private.This might help the individual in the hiring process, but what about after you have been hired? But what if your colleague or employer adds you as a friend? A refusal to accept a request could cause an uncomfortable workplace, and cause as large a professional threat as that embarrassing photo.

I have had an employee tell me that he checks all candidates online, although I'm unaware of how thorough these checks were. For the employee, these checks were necessary for the credibility of the company. Furthermore, the job involved working closely with young children, and any trouble or ineptitude caused by employees would reflect poorly upon the company.

Fortunately, at the time I didn't have an online social networking profile. If this were to happen now, I think I would view it as an invasion of privacy, especially as an online profile wouldn't reflect my abilities. I'm troubled by the thought of strangers looking through your photos, already anticipating finding something negative. At the same time, I understand the position of employers, especially with children involved.

Although I'm still undecided on the issue, on this gray area, I'm leaning towards the side of privacy. Although it may seem a little naive and hopeful, I hope that similar action to Germany won't be required in other countries, but that employees will refrain from using Facebook to monitor employees, and if they do, that information they receive will be put in perspective. In the meantime, maybe don't tell the world you hate your boss.