Just like everything else on the internet, advertisements have been evolving at an alarming rate, with a seemingly constant development of new, more annoying, or trickier advertisements. The old day of the humble 'Pop Up' are mostly behind us. Browsers employed with ad-blockers and newer methods of embedding advertisements mean that instead of opening a page and getting bombarded with five or so annoying, but easy to dispose of windows of random ads that may or may not having anything to do with the page I'm looking at, we instead get advertisements embedded as banners on the page itself, or disguised as important 'System' messages that can trick the unknowing or unwary. Spyware often operates in a similar manner.
I remember when Pop Up ads were the bane of internet existence. Now, they're some of the less annoying and invasive choices that we stumble across. Embedded adverts bug me because there isn't a way to escape them. They are just there and you have to passive absorb them. The animated with music are the worst, because they're distracting and take up loading time I'd rather spend on other things.
Most websites need the funding they provide, and although these days there is more of an effort to tailor them to the 'interests' of the user in question (which makes me uncomfortable enough on it's own), this often falls flat and ends up with rather...amusing results. How many female users have opened up an internet based email account like gmail and found a bold advert at the top of the page announcing 'What Viagra Can Do For You' or something along those lines.
Spam filters are a requirement for email, just like a multitude of mailboxes have 'No Junk Mail' stamped across the front of them, often ignored at will. Still, now most of my spam is from genuine names and email addresses, either hijacked or compiled somehow to trick spam filters and internet users into accepting them. It's especially hilarious when I receive spam from myself.
Also, the freedom of the internet means that unlike advertisements in the real world, where on television they show on certain timeslots for appropriate ages, or in magazines with appropriate subject matter, on the internet ads are much more random and it's no wonder parents are worried about child security on the internet when even a simple email account will track a multitude of spam and ads of a definite adult nature.
Just like we're bombarded in the 'real world' with adverts from everything from television to billboards and magazines, the internet has also cultivated an invasive, inescapable world of advertisements which can range from harmless and annoying, to harmful and on the shadier side of legal.
Much like concerns with personal privacy on the internet, advertisers are becoming more and more invasive and inventive in their methods of attracting hits, and the 'freedom' and 'anonymity' that people perceive the internet to offer seems to be disappearing with the sheer amount of tracking, data and techniques these advertisers use.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
danah boyd and the facebook news feed.
danah boyd’s reading highlighted some issues for me about Facebook. Firstly I find Facebook as a useful tool to allow social behaviour between connections with people that would have otherwise not have existed or would have cease to exist in the first place. Secondly it is a great way for me to plan events, get invitations to events, join causes and see updates on pages that I have interest in. Facebook is like a social hobby. In this way I forget about its privacy functions or ‘lack thereof’.
I find this interesting in relation to dannah boyd’s argument that news feeds popped the privacy bubble that people thought they had on a social networking forum like Facebook. All of your activity would appear in a communal news feed among your friends, which made it easier for people to ‘keep tabs’ on you and see your associations and revelations about yourself. She mentioned that this scared people at first and that without the ability to ‘rank’ Facebook friends in accordance with the depth of the relationship, people became anxious about utilising the complete social networking tool that is Facebook. She also mentions that because we have such an overload of data flow constantly appearing in our news feed, and the mass of data we comprehend about our Facebook friends, via news feeds, gives us a sense of false intimacy with these people.
I half heartedly agree with her. News feeds have always been common place in the time I’ve been using Facebook, so I guess the factor of a ‘lack of privacy’ doesn’t register. It is part of the norm. In all honesty, half of my Facebook interaction comes from engaging with my news feed, so in all essence I would be a dull and introverted Facebook user without it. I also find that in knowing Facebook is a public network, I subconsciously correct and screen my information and posts before sending them- nothing that is explicitly personal or socially incriminating- therefore news feeds are not really a privacy issue.
What I do agree with is that news feeds, and the abundance of information you can receive from them, does allow you to be more ‘personally engaged’ with your friends; which is oxymoronic as there is nothing personal about Facebook. I guess it is because these people and their activity are constantly appearing, you feel this sense of a ‘personal connection’. Almost as if the tabs are being kept for you by Facebook. I see how this is a worrying factor in regards to Facebook applications. So in relation to a false sense of personal relationship acquired by the news feed application, I find dannah boyd has an interesting and somewhat truthful point.
Source:
Boyd, d. (2008) ‘Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: exposure, invasion and social convergence’ in Convergence,Vol 14(1): 13-20. Course Reader.
I find this interesting in relation to dannah boyd’s argument that news feeds popped the privacy bubble that people thought they had on a social networking forum like Facebook. All of your activity would appear in a communal news feed among your friends, which made it easier for people to ‘keep tabs’ on you and see your associations and revelations about yourself. She mentioned that this scared people at first and that without the ability to ‘rank’ Facebook friends in accordance with the depth of the relationship, people became anxious about utilising the complete social networking tool that is Facebook. She also mentions that because we have such an overload of data flow constantly appearing in our news feed, and the mass of data we comprehend about our Facebook friends, via news feeds, gives us a sense of false intimacy with these people.
I half heartedly agree with her. News feeds have always been common place in the time I’ve been using Facebook, so I guess the factor of a ‘lack of privacy’ doesn’t register. It is part of the norm. In all honesty, half of my Facebook interaction comes from engaging with my news feed, so in all essence I would be a dull and introverted Facebook user without it. I also find that in knowing Facebook is a public network, I subconsciously correct and screen my information and posts before sending them- nothing that is explicitly personal or socially incriminating- therefore news feeds are not really a privacy issue.
What I do agree with is that news feeds, and the abundance of information you can receive from them, does allow you to be more ‘personally engaged’ with your friends; which is oxymoronic as there is nothing personal about Facebook. I guess it is because these people and their activity are constantly appearing, you feel this sense of a ‘personal connection’. Almost as if the tabs are being kept for you by Facebook. I see how this is a worrying factor in regards to Facebook applications. So in relation to a false sense of personal relationship acquired by the news feed application, I find dannah boyd has an interesting and somewhat truthful point.
Source:
Boyd, d. (2008) ‘Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: exposure, invasion and social convergence’ in Convergence,Vol 14(1): 13-20. Course Reader.
Is technology "killing" us?
Recently, a young girl was tragically killed by a car when she attempted to cross a road – also whilst listening to an iPod. As a result of the phenomenon of Facebook, I heard this news first when my friend’s new status popped up on my Homepage:
“If a girl steps onto a pedestrian crossing and is hit by a car the car killed her, if the girl is listening to an ipod when she is hit the ipod killed her. With all due respect to the poor girl I think you are being a bit sensationalist NZ Herald.”
I also agree with my friend’s point of view, the reporter was being a little exaggerative. The iPod did not kill the girl. There are still many logistical questions needed to be answered about the case such as the speed of the car before and during impact, and whether or not the victim was actually on the pedestrian crossing etc.
This got me wondering about our dependence on new media and the control that it can have over us and our day to day life. To be frank and please no judgement - I like writing essays. There is nothing like the feeling of having completed a piece of writing that is coherent and eloquent in all aspects. But with the rise of social networking sites, mainly Facebook, I have become addicted and spent a lot of unnecessary time procrastinating by stalking other people’s pages and photos. Is Facebook just a new medium for putting off our assignments or have we always distracted ourselves with other meaningless fluff?
This situation can be referred to the “master-slave dialectic” as coined by G W F Hegel who said that “those who enslave others will become enslaved themselves.” Let’s hope he wasn’t thinking of a Facebook World Domination when he made this statement!
“If a girl steps onto a pedestrian crossing and is hit by a car the car killed her, if the girl is listening to an ipod when she is hit the ipod killed her. With all due respect to the poor girl I think you are being a bit sensationalist NZ Herald.”
I also agree with my friend’s point of view, the reporter was being a little exaggerative. The iPod did not kill the girl. There are still many logistical questions needed to be answered about the case such as the speed of the car before and during impact, and whether or not the victim was actually on the pedestrian crossing etc.
This got me wondering about our dependence on new media and the control that it can have over us and our day to day life. To be frank and please no judgement - I like writing essays. There is nothing like the feeling of having completed a piece of writing that is coherent and eloquent in all aspects. But with the rise of social networking sites, mainly Facebook, I have become addicted and spent a lot of unnecessary time procrastinating by stalking other people’s pages and photos. Is Facebook just a new medium for putting off our assignments or have we always distracted ourselves with other meaningless fluff?
This situation can be referred to the “master-slave dialectic” as coined by G W F Hegel who said that “those who enslave others will become enslaved themselves.” Let’s hope he wasn’t thinking of a Facebook World Domination when he made this statement!
Money Money Money...
During the 1990's we had the dot-com boom, where people were using money and this wicked new invention called the internet to try and make a bit of cash, and boy did they ever! People were starting up internet based companies to try and sell anything and everything, and some of them are still successful today, just look at Amazon.com or EBay. But a lot of these companies, after the initial flurry of excited traders and investors lost a lot of people a lot of money and when the dot-com bubble eventually burst in the early 2000's over 5 trillion dollars... Yep that's right, trillion, was lost.
But did people learn their lesson? Nope. Now it seems we have moved past the excitement of internet start up companies, and moved onto the technology surrounding the internet, with companies like Samsung, Apple and Microsoft pumping out gadgets, each trying to outdo the other. People seem to have moved beyond investing in the internet itself and moved onto the technology surrounding it in hopes that the piece of technology they choose to invest in will be the next big thing, that it will be the product that will knock Apple's socks off, that they will male millions. I guess the questions become 1) Will this technological boom equal the dot-com era.... and I doubt it to be honest, we are just pulling ourselves out of a recession and with investments crumbling and going into receivership every which way people are being a lot more cautious with how they choose to spend. However, 2) those that do invest, will they have learnt their lessons from what has happened to so many people before them.... Again, im thinking no because let's face it. It doesn't take much effort to part a fool and their money, and money can make people extremely foolish.
But did people learn their lesson? Nope. Now it seems we have moved past the excitement of internet start up companies, and moved onto the technology surrounding the internet, with companies like Samsung, Apple and Microsoft pumping out gadgets, each trying to outdo the other. People seem to have moved beyond investing in the internet itself and moved onto the technology surrounding it in hopes that the piece of technology they choose to invest in will be the next big thing, that it will be the product that will knock Apple's socks off, that they will male millions. I guess the questions become 1) Will this technological boom equal the dot-com era.... and I doubt it to be honest, we are just pulling ourselves out of a recession and with investments crumbling and going into receivership every which way people are being a lot more cautious with how they choose to spend. However, 2) those that do invest, will they have learnt their lessons from what has happened to so many people before them.... Again, im thinking no because let's face it. It doesn't take much effort to part a fool and their money, and money can make people extremely foolish.
Friday, October 1, 2010
WALL-E & The Digital Natives:
Recently watching the animated film WALL-E (2008), I saw the brilliant representation of a world overcome by technological advancements, to the point of dire conditions for the human race. And although the film had many subliminal messages aimed at children, such as sitting in front of the television or computer can cause obesity and laziness, the film also was incredibly relevant to our current social condition in which we live in a world inflicted upon by new media with both positive and disastrous results.
The film itself featured human living in an outer space station as the earth could no longer sustain human life. The human were propped up on moving bed-like devices, and had computer screens in front them predicting and offering them their next moves, whether it be going outside or getting something to eat. And course it appears living such an unnatural lifestyle resulted in the population becoming obese. There was a brilliant short scene in which a husband and wife accidently touch each other and shudder; their engagement with technology had cut off any kind of physical relationships between each other.
The major point that I took from this film is communicated through Marc Prensky’s concept of the ‘digital natives’, the latest generation born into a world thriving and participating in the technological advancements, and as a result do not know the simplistic relations of life before this time. What we see is that with continued infiltration of the youngest generation, they start to sway to adopting the easier technological advancements over social relations, which is seen within the film. As a culture, we are slowly on track towards being dominated at one point or another by technology, and I think it is essential to ensure children have available access, but that they also understand that using such new media is not the answer to every question.
Reinventing the Square Wheel, and Why It Doesn't Work
This article is written in response to The iPad, where it is claimed that Apple's technological imitation of paper will prove world-changing. However, The iPad does not resemble a piece of paper any more closely than does a tablet PC or other touchscreen device, and it resembles a seriously impaired tablet PC much more closely than it does paper.
Figure 1. The iPad compared to other technology. Source: iphonehelp.in
The iPad is no innovation. Thirteen years ago, Apple released a very similar device: the Newton Message Pad. While this device started a revolution, it was, in itself, a failure. This time around, Apple has made many of the same mistakes: a hardware platform which consists of a single primary device with only the bare essentials of accessories and little hope of expandability; a restrictive software platform which guarantees users a limited supply of useful applications; an input method which at first glance seems intuitive, but on further inspection falls short of reasonable usability because of technical shortcomings or misconceptions; and a form factor sitting firmly on the fence between the portability of a smaller device and the usability of a larger one. If the iPad fails to see the same early death as its elder brother, it is through a sheer stroke of careful and deceptive marketing — something which in itself is not rare backing (or fronting) Apple's products.
While the iPad has a touchscreen / pen interface allowing for some degree of writing and drawing (although perhaps seeming like a cheap knock-off when compared to real pen and paper), it fails to address one of paper's major uses: reading. What makes paper so great as a reading technology is its ease on the eyes: any LCD screen performs poorly by comparison. Were this not the case, we would have seen paper be surpassed by the technology of nearly two decades ago: pen computing is nothing new. As excellent a medium as paper has proven, imitation is perhaps not the most sincere form of innovation.
Figure 1. The iPad compared to other technology. Source: iphonehelp.in
The iPad is no innovation. Thirteen years ago, Apple released a very similar device: the Newton Message Pad. While this device started a revolution, it was, in itself, a failure. This time around, Apple has made many of the same mistakes: a hardware platform which consists of a single primary device with only the bare essentials of accessories and little hope of expandability; a restrictive software platform which guarantees users a limited supply of useful applications; an input method which at first glance seems intuitive, but on further inspection falls short of reasonable usability because of technical shortcomings or misconceptions; and a form factor sitting firmly on the fence between the portability of a smaller device and the usability of a larger one. If the iPad fails to see the same early death as its elder brother, it is through a sheer stroke of careful and deceptive marketing — something which in itself is not rare backing (or fronting) Apple's products.
While the iPad has a touchscreen / pen interface allowing for some degree of writing and drawing (although perhaps seeming like a cheap knock-off when compared to real pen and paper), it fails to address one of paper's major uses: reading. What makes paper so great as a reading technology is its ease on the eyes: any LCD screen performs poorly by comparison. Were this not the case, we would have seen paper be surpassed by the technology of nearly two decades ago: pen computing is nothing new. As excellent a medium as paper has proven, imitation is perhaps not the most sincere form of innovation.
Self-identity Crisis
Globalization and self-identity are at the two poles of modern movements. The technical-economic globalization has left almost every country no choice but to become part of the assimilation process, however, on the cultural-spiritual level, things aren’t going that smooth, and probably never will be.
Human beings are social animals, we living together in order to survive; therefore, essentially we are afraid of being “left out”. We need to be assimilated in some ways, to share similar values and believes, so that the society can function well, so can ourselves. But, to be understandable does not mean to be unrecognizable; we also have the need to be a distinguishable individual, to keep our uniqueness.
The Internet makes us incredible easy to “keep up” with others, but such constant, almost real-time, and rapid exchange of information, forcing us to adjust ourselves all the time to be able to keep “in fashion”. Visiting Facebook or browsing Youtube has become one of indispensable daily activities to some people, as important as food and cigarette. Many other digital devices and technolongies, such as iPhone or 3G network, are also developed, so that can make us more easier to be connected together all the time. However, such fast living pace style driving us moving forward so crazy that leaving us no time to think back, which is vital and fundamental for a healthy self-identity.
We are so easy to lost ourselves in this digital era; we are no long sure which part of us is real, both physically and psychologically. Multiple personality becomes a need rather than disease to keep us away from being crazy. We need to split ourselves and create new self-identity for each life or world, the real and digital. Moreover, these different identities are not stable, but need to be constantly transvaluated, in order to keep our uniqueness. It is more and more hard for us to control our identities, but only can learn to adapt ourselves to the new selves.
I am not so pessimistic about this change, just feel so ironic how people want to be same with other in order to feel safe, while, on the other hand, trying to make different voices, so that they will not fall into oblivion. It is just like playing the rope walking.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
False identity.
Identity has always been a complex concept. Goffmans work on identity to me was always quite clear and I could relate and understand it in relation to my vision of my own identity. Identity, Goffman argues, is played out through a variety of roles which all make up the self. I can understand this as I see my self as a sister, a friend, a daughter, and how all these different roles make up who I am. However the internet has made this a whole lot more intrinsic as we are now able to play these roles all at once. Also we are not limited to the physcial aspects which are attached to our identites, such as race or gender. I think games such as second life are really interesting in the fact that they give people the opportunity to completly create their own identity with out any restrictions, and its great being able to explore who one wants to be. However, from my own experience with the game I would have such a blast accessing a wide range of my many selves when I got off and came into the real world i started to realise the many restrictions which were in it. A documentary I watched really highlighted this point with people finding that they like the identity they had created so much online that they had become discontented with their real life identity. The people got addicted to playing out a false identity online. So maybe having this option to become who ever you want on the net is not such a good thing. It may just be giving people false hope and really teasing them with a fantasy and you become disheartened by your real life identity.
Facebook in the 21st season.
I think Facebook is such a good way to keep up with everyone's birthdays, events and even last names.
Me and my friends Vlers have the same friends , we've grown up together and this 21st season everytime I ask her if shes coming to XX and YY party she says " no Im not invited". Thats not becuase they don't like her , or that they don't want her to come but she is not on Facebook. Some people aren't sending traditional ivitations in the mail anymore, or if they do its to the ones who have confiremed they are ' attending' on Facebook. With the assumption that everyon is on Facebook majority forget who went ot their highschool or friends they haven't seen in a while.It's easy to keep track of events on Facebook for people like Vlera with no Facebook its a major social disadvantage.
Every party , event and show is now on Facebook first, it's easy to find out whats on this weekend on Facebook if you don't have much on or forget who's birthday is on that weekend. With Facebook I know peoples birth dates that I would have never known or even wanted to know( 'connections' on Facebook that I've seen once in my life).
Facebook is a great calander , even though I don't go on it daily its a perfect weekend and birthday calander ; especially for the 21st season.
Me and my friends Vlers have the same friends , we've grown up together and this 21st season everytime I ask her if shes coming to XX and YY party she says " no Im not invited". Thats not becuase they don't like her , or that they don't want her to come but she is not on Facebook. Some people aren't sending traditional ivitations in the mail anymore, or if they do its to the ones who have confiremed they are ' attending' on Facebook. With the assumption that everyon is on Facebook majority forget who went ot their highschool or friends they haven't seen in a while.It's easy to keep track of events on Facebook for people like Vlera with no Facebook its a major social disadvantage.
Every party , event and show is now on Facebook first, it's easy to find out whats on this weekend on Facebook if you don't have much on or forget who's birthday is on that weekend. With Facebook I know peoples birth dates that I would have never known or even wanted to know( 'connections' on Facebook that I've seen once in my life).
Facebook is a great calander , even though I don't go on it daily its a perfect weekend and birthday calander ; especially for the 21st season.
Is technology a means of social control?
Reading Kingsley Dennis's article "Opening Oandora's box: How technologies of communication and cognition may be shifting towards a 'Psycho-Civilized Society' one thing came to mind which is none other than social control, Dennis notes that the use of wireless technologies have been developed to target an individuals biological body, with specific focus upon the neuronal functioning of the brain. This is a scary concept to take in there is no doubt that we will reach a point in our lives where technology will dominate every sense of our being from chips placed into our skins to track our every trace or even the new passports which now have chips placed in them. One has to stop and think if this is another ploy for the government to control the world we live in. Such as the example given in Dennis's article the "Active Denial System" which is a non-lethal energy weapon which sends direct pulses into target subjects. This causes a painful burning sensation designed specifically for crowd control. To have the most powerful tool in our body (the brain) controlled means we lose all functions of freedom of choice we are left to depend on technology alone. Dennis notes that Technology will be so advanced that it can even detect if a driver is getting tired through the eyes alone or the wireless-brain technology that goes beyond the sphere of gaming and has been developed to stop people from over-gaming it works by sending acoustic sound wave signals to the brain which tells gamers to stop playing. If all these concepts noted by Dennis comes true and technology reaches a stage where it can control our subconcious than there is no doubt that technolgy will subsequently be used to control the consumer society. If technology can be used to stop people from playing, buying or doing any particular behaviour in general than it can consequently also be used to do the opposite.
So should we as a society support the advancement of technology?.....is technological advancement a positive driving force in the world we live in? ... either way there is no way to know but to wait and find out...
So should we as a society support the advancement of technology?.....is technological advancement a positive driving force in the world we live in? ... either way there is no way to know but to wait and find out...
Privacy vs. Curiosity
The best thing about Facebook is the ability that it gives you to watch others without their knowledge. This is a somewhat hypocritical feeling however, as most users, myself included, would love nothing more than to know who is frequenting their profile while at the same time enjoy the anonymity gifted to us while we innocently (or not so innocently) browse the profile of someone we fancy, dislike, are jealous of or are just generally interested in.
We simply can’t have it both ways, so which is better?
I believe we would all (deep down) prefer the privacy factor…
Amidst rumors of a new Facebook application which allowed users to view and display the top five other fb users that view their profile the most frequently, I did some digging as this rather bothered me. Not because I often spend large amounts of time on particular people’s profiles because I want to track their movements and begin some serious illegal stalking, but because I still believed that if this were application were real, some people may have been surprised to see my name pop up on theirs. This is because, and I’m not sure if I’m alone in this, the people whose profiles I visit the most are not my close friends but slightly more removed contacts who I’m not in regular contact with and therefore are not already aware of what they’re up to, this makes them far more intriguing to me. I hope that doesn’t sound too ‘stalkery’.
However my mind was put at ease when I discovered a comment on Facebook’s Help Centre which confronted this question by saying that no such application was allowed by Facebook and that if anything similar ever eventuated it would be quickly removed.
According to the Help Centre this kind of application would simply be a breech of policy and anyone who comes across a ‘dodgy’ application should report it to speed up the process.
I urge everyone to do this for dignities sake.
This subject brings up the debate about the difference between simply killing boredom by trolling a random profile and the act of stalking. For some, the former can quite easily slip into the latter.
In actuality there really isn’t a lot preventing someone from viewing your profile if they are determined.
Even if there is someone who you have not accepted as a ‘friend’, it is likely they will know someone who knows you and allows them to view you from their account. The only real way to counter this would be to limit you contacts list to close friends that you are in contact with on a regular basis that you trust implicitly not to allow anyone else to abuse their Facebook account. According to the Dunbar Number this would mean that we would only have around 5 friends. How many of us would let that happen? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of Facebook?
Perhaps we should all just accept the nature of Facebook for what it is, in Mark Zuckerberg’s words “The age of innocence is over.” Besides surely if you’re that worried about someone wanting to stalk/kill you…DON’T have Facebook!?
We simply can’t have it both ways, so which is better?
I believe we would all (deep down) prefer the privacy factor…
Amidst rumors of a new Facebook application which allowed users to view and display the top five other fb users that view their profile the most frequently, I did some digging as this rather bothered me. Not because I often spend large amounts of time on particular people’s profiles because I want to track their movements and begin some serious illegal stalking, but because I still believed that if this were application were real, some people may have been surprised to see my name pop up on theirs. This is because, and I’m not sure if I’m alone in this, the people whose profiles I visit the most are not my close friends but slightly more removed contacts who I’m not in regular contact with and therefore are not already aware of what they’re up to, this makes them far more intriguing to me. I hope that doesn’t sound too ‘stalkery’.
However my mind was put at ease when I discovered a comment on Facebook’s Help Centre which confronted this question by saying that no such application was allowed by Facebook and that if anything similar ever eventuated it would be quickly removed.
According to the Help Centre this kind of application would simply be a breech of policy and anyone who comes across a ‘dodgy’ application should report it to speed up the process.
I urge everyone to do this for dignities sake.
This subject brings up the debate about the difference between simply killing boredom by trolling a random profile and the act of stalking. For some, the former can quite easily slip into the latter.
In actuality there really isn’t a lot preventing someone from viewing your profile if they are determined.
Even if there is someone who you have not accepted as a ‘friend’, it is likely they will know someone who knows you and allows them to view you from their account. The only real way to counter this would be to limit you contacts list to close friends that you are in contact with on a regular basis that you trust implicitly not to allow anyone else to abuse their Facebook account. According to the Dunbar Number this would mean that we would only have around 5 friends. How many of us would let that happen? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of Facebook?
Perhaps we should all just accept the nature of Facebook for what it is, in Mark Zuckerberg’s words “The age of innocence is over.” Besides surely if you’re that worried about someone wanting to stalk/kill you…DON’T have Facebook!?
The iPad.
Apple is responsible for many of the technological enhancements we have seen. The iPod which has changed how we listen to music, and in turn has changed the music industry with a decline in CD’s and therefore an industry dependent on sites like iTunes. We now see artists pre-releasing songs and videos on Apples popular site, allowing fans to buy the mp3’s instead of a tangible CD. Recently Apple have taken technology to the next level by digitizing paper.
The Ipad it seems is the only digital devise which resembles a piece of paper, and it is said that this technological invention is one that will change the world as we know it. The Ipad has all the capabilities as a computer or iPhone (email, downloadable applications, iTunes etc) and new functions the others don’t offer. The only thing the iPad lacks, is a print button therefore allowing it to be a digitized version of a paper.
This remodelling of paper is bringing one of the most basic items in society into the new technology driven medium. Allowing another part of society to grow, and become more sophisticated. Although the iPad is a new technology, experts say that there will be many modifications to the devise, and it will an item to watch when looking to the future.
Internet killed the Newsprint Star?
Well not exactly but it definitely has made an impact on the way we access our daily news. There are pros and cons of this format of the news, as there usually is with the shifting of traditional forms of media to technological mediums.
An aspect of online news which I think has an advantage over hard copy newspapers is after reading an article on msn or nzherald you can then look at the 'related articles' attached to it unlike newspapers which are limiting. Newspapers subscribe what they think is relevant to you as a mass, it is not individualised. You can choose what is relevant. Accessing news online gives the user more selectivity, you can read what you want and easily ignore what you don't want to read. I guess you can do that with newspapers as we all have skipped certain sections to read the more 'interesting' news but by being able to just search and 'google' what you want to read about you have more control and greater accessibility, such as viewing more than one article by different authors and more photos than what is in the paper. Facebook and other SNS has made news faster to share and more selective as well because we can see what news our friends are interested in (on their walls or the links they post in the newsfeed.) Supposing we are like minded to our friends this can be useful as social currency for discussions and share information. Many online articles now have the option to 'Share' straight onto facebook so that the link to the article will appear in the newsfeed and person's profile. Online news sites are adjusting into the facebook phenomenon by encouraging the sharing and 'liking' of articles, the readers are deciding if the stories are relevant or hold their interest.
We are definitely in a culture where news (like mostly everything else) is on demand. This is what gives internet an advantage as News breaks faster online as it doesn't need to be printed off or have deadlines, the news is always available and updated and we can read whats happening all around the world in a click of the mouse. Alot of newspapers are constructed by the 'higher powers' e.g. corporations and conglomerates, usually with an agenda or bias views, although what we read on the internet can be bias but we get a more diverse range of sources and opinions.
Blogs are also a useful way to hear people's opinions on current news issues or share your own view as they are a personalised and user-generated medium. But with this freedom to express online people need to watch out for inaccurate information or bias views, it becomes a matter of judgement. Blogs and facebook can make breaking news stories more personal because people who share their experiences may have been there at the time and have their own input. Their own experiences creates a sense of exclusivity and intimate look to events, but in some cases looking/hearing from a distance can be better sometimes.
While the internet has its perks of being a convenient and diverse medium to get the news I do not think it can ever replace the nostalgia of opening a newspaper delivered to the doorstep on a Sunday morning. But as Marshall McLuhan said the Medium is the Message and the social context of gathering our news on the Internet signifies the shifting culture that we are the medium.
An aspect of online news which I think has an advantage over hard copy newspapers is after reading an article on msn or nzherald you can then look at the 'related articles' attached to it unlike newspapers which are limiting. Newspapers subscribe what they think is relevant to you as a mass, it is not individualised. You can choose what is relevant. Accessing news online gives the user more selectivity, you can read what you want and easily ignore what you don't want to read. I guess you can do that with newspapers as we all have skipped certain sections to read the more 'interesting' news but by being able to just search and 'google' what you want to read about you have more control and greater accessibility, such as viewing more than one article by different authors and more photos than what is in the paper. Facebook and other SNS has made news faster to share and more selective as well because we can see what news our friends are interested in (on their walls or the links they post in the newsfeed.) Supposing we are like minded to our friends this can be useful as social currency for discussions and share information. Many online articles now have the option to 'Share' straight onto facebook so that the link to the article will appear in the newsfeed and person's profile. Online news sites are adjusting into the facebook phenomenon by encouraging the sharing and 'liking' of articles, the readers are deciding if the stories are relevant or hold their interest.
We are definitely in a culture where news (like mostly everything else) is on demand. This is what gives internet an advantage as News breaks faster online as it doesn't need to be printed off or have deadlines, the news is always available and updated and we can read whats happening all around the world in a click of the mouse. Alot of newspapers are constructed by the 'higher powers' e.g. corporations and conglomerates, usually with an agenda or bias views, although what we read on the internet can be bias but we get a more diverse range of sources and opinions.
Blogs are also a useful way to hear people's opinions on current news issues or share your own view as they are a personalised and user-generated medium. But with this freedom to express online people need to watch out for inaccurate information or bias views, it becomes a matter of judgement. Blogs and facebook can make breaking news stories more personal because people who share their experiences may have been there at the time and have their own input. Their own experiences creates a sense of exclusivity and intimate look to events, but in some cases looking/hearing from a distance can be better sometimes.
While the internet has its perks of being a convenient and diverse medium to get the news I do not think it can ever replace the nostalgia of opening a newspaper delivered to the doorstep on a Sunday morning. But as Marshall McLuhan said the Medium is the Message and the social context of gathering our news on the Internet signifies the shifting culture that we are the medium.
Crack up Facebook events
Hahaha found this online super crack up which in some context talks about facebook and surveillance and privacy to an extent..
A Picture's worth a thousand words so i'm wondering if i should submit this entry anyway...check it out ...
Oh images found online cant remember what site..
.
Touches on many contexts which might create some ideas and yeah a picture is worth a thousand words.
A+ blogpost hahaha
A Picture's worth a thousand words so i'm wondering if i should submit this entry anyway...check it out ...
Oh images found online cant remember what site..
.
Touches on many contexts which might create some ideas and yeah a picture is worth a thousand words.
A+ blogpost hahaha
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)