Response to Hugo Liu’s “Social Network Profiles as Taste Performances”

When it comes to social networking profiles our tastes matter. They are able to display our social class, our education level, where we grew up, personality, what we have or don’t, and also a “degree of fashionableness” (Liu 255). As beings we have come to understand this and therefore it is common to do things that we feel we show us in a certain light. When I think of social networks it seems that for those who are connected probably have a minimum amount of money. Each person is either able to get access to the internet in some way, or has it in their own living space. Right off the bat, if one cannot afford a house, they will most likely not stay in the same place for a long time and therefore not have a chance to create the same kind of tight bonds that would normally take place. Just to clarify I do not think that “friends” on social media necessarily mean that they understand you, have met you, or even want to meet you.

Source: comScore Company

These social networking profiles come with a kind of time commitment—you must keep up with it because there are people out there who want to know what you are doing, and want to keep in contact with you. It has become such a big part of how we communicate now, and especially with the rise of tablets, laptops and mobile devices we are able to check our phones every waking moment. Facebook messages are now comparable to a text message. With access to a smartphone you can set all your Facebook messages to pop up on the screen just as a text message would. Social networks have become instant means of updating, contacting and also advertising.

When a 14-year-old boy or girl creates a Facebook profile for the first time, how much of it do you think is actually true? I don’t mean birthdays or where they were born, but what they like and don’t like, and how they display themselves. As Liu describes, our tastes become the main defining factor of who we are, and so we pay very close attention to this. When you are still young and trying to figure out who you are, not only online, but also in “real life,” it is more likely that you will change what you like or don’t like, in order to improve your status on social networks and also your status in real life. I am sure that everyone tweaks their personality in someway shape or form, but no matter what I think there will always be a disconnect between who we truly are in person and how we are on social media. This may be because we are all trying to transfer who we are into some digital form, which is not completely natural or straightforward, but as time goes on and as social networking becomes so ingrained in our everyday lives, we learn how (?) to represent ourselves online (or at least how we wish to be represented).

I have not been on Facebook since it was first founded, (Feb. 2004) but one big change that I see is that it used to be more common to meet people in person and then look for them on Facebook so that you could keep in touch. People often established who they were in person before becoming Facebook friends, but now so many people are meeting online, so they have to make a “good” impression through their profile. When you meet someone in person you are able to see whether or not you get along and whether you interested in being friends. It has started to become strange to know everyone on your Facebook. We add people all the time that we don’t even know. Our ideas about people are strictly based off how we imagine them according to what they do on social media.

Click HERE to read about why Twitter’s layout change effects how we use it!

Response to Danah Boyd’s “Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8”

Source: Shuttershock

Early forms of online communication were mostly on forums or chat groups were people could talk with those who had similar interests as them and this is no longer the case. Now, when we think of forums or chat rooms we think of geeky teenagers exchanging theories about new video games or TV episodes and creepy men interested in contacting young girls. Although interest based groups may seem like a thing of the past I see them as being far less damaging and more productive. In Boyd’s paper she uses Friendster and MySpace as examples of social networking sites when talking about friendship. Because these kinds of sites have such large audiences (well, only out of people who have access to computers) they are constantly conflicted and confused about how they should portray themselves. When I was in junior high and I had a MySpace I was always told that I needed to be careful about who I accepted a friend and also what I put on my profile because you never really know who will see it and how they will feel. I think that eventually people can get confused on their true identity, especially if that person is also dealing with the insecurities that come with being a teenager.

Your friends demarcate identity and “signal meaningful relationships with others” (Boyd 10). With MySpace you actually have to put who your top friends are and it is expected that those people reciprocate. The way that social networking works now requires that you create an online version of yourself and that is mostly because of friending. Friending is changing and also defying social norms because it effects and complicates the relationships that are based outside of these networks. When Boyd talked about how these sites started and who first joined, it reminded me of collaborative filtering. It may not have been purposeful, but it worked out that way. People were usually invited to join by their friends or acquaintances and if they decided to join they would look at other people’s profiles to figure out how to use the networking site. You often have a lot in common with your friends, so when these sites first started out there was not a lot of variation, because those who were joining were using the sites the same way their friends were. In a sense that is what we do now. We use networking sites so that we can network between people, but also so that we can be part of a community that has similar interests. These social networks have become so large that it is difficult to filter out things that you don’t want to hear about, talk about, or see.

Click HERE to go to a fun mashable site!

Response to Kleemann and Voß’s “Un(der)paid Innovators”

Something that has continued to strike me as I have been learning about new media and how different technologies and machines function, as well as their histories, is that they clearly come from things that we are able to understand. Somehow when it comes to our phones, computers and other devices and tools we are often completely clueless or have a difficult time grasping the way that our computers and phones are able to communicate using TCP/IP. Not only is it challenging to understand the mechanical and technological side, but it can also be difficult to fully grasp certain phenomena or ideas.

Found on: http://tweakyourbiz.com

Crowdsourcing was born when the technological innovations related to Web 2.0 were made possible! Part of crowdsourcing is self-service. Different companies and firms commonly use self-service as a tool to save funds and allow for users to be more involved in their own personal experience. Self-service as a tool did not just become popular, it has been around since the end of the nineteenth century in different department stores in the form of vending machines. Later it become common on college campuses, train stations, hotels, IKEA, and even fast-food restaurants. In the article self-service is talked about as it relates to digital technologies and e-commerce. Although this idea is easier than some to understand, we see how there was a point in time when self-service appeared in a form that is simpler for humans to comprehend.

Something that I find problematic in the realm of crowdsourcing and shared knowledge is that many companies and businesses are able to save (too much) money by allowing people to assist with different aspects of product configuration and development, but the people are usually receiving no money at all. Companies are able to hire less workers on top of getting a lot of unpaid help…to me it seems like the main concern lies in that these businesses could take over most or all of an industry and have far too much power, which would eventually make it very challenging for start-up companies to be successful. When new groups are unable to survive in a tough market I am sure we would see a decline within the creative community.

Image by Daren C. Brabahm

I think that these helpful consumers do gain something positive when they work together or individually to solve problems and even though they may not be earning a lot of money people are usually happy knowing that they are doing something very important and creative, while enjoying themselves. The time that they offer, whether it be sending a long email pointing out the faults of a new software, or the problems with a certain layout, they are helping to make changes that are going to benefit others, and from those changes people are given the opportunity to accomplish and create unlike ever before.

Click HERE if you would like to read Jeff Howe’s Article on the Rise of Crowdsourcing. It was the first time the term was used!

Response to Quinn’s “Human Computation…”

Even when it comes to computation systems, it is clear that there is a hierarchy, but at the same time it is still an aggregate process. When someone is working on an individual task they are still part of a larger system working together. The expert review is comparable to the “brain trust” in a sense, because they are attached to the term “expert,” and their main priority is accuracy. Not only is there a hierarchical community when it comes the people involved in the process, but it is also evident when it comes to different levels and kinds of filtering and review. In a human computation system there are naturally three roles: the worker, the computer, and the requester. The requester is the final user to benefit from the computation. Different applications require different combinations of these three roles. Each combination involves a human (hence, human computation system!) and a computer. Without one, the process would be completely interrupted.

There are different ways in which we can use human skill and they each have their own positives and negatives. It helps to have an idea of what the final outcome is going to be, or at least what the hopes are. A genetic algorithm could be used when it is not vital to have a live person working, sometimes no aggregation is required and everyone can be working on their own individual tasks, and other times aggregation of knowledge and making connections is very important. It is interesting to see how we are pulling more towards the aggregation of application values in order to keep growing more productive. It seems that although we do recognize the importance of individual work, there are instances where nothing is able to beat the impact of aggregation (knowledge collection), and this process of trying to break new ground within an aspect of human-computer interaction is not one that should be done with one individual.

Response to Henry Jenkins “Spoiling Survivor”

Found on: http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/08/spoilers-dont-spoil-anything/,
ORIGINAL from wired.com

While I was reading the first chapter of Convergence Culture I couldn’t help but think about the commonalities between Spoiling and Hacking. They are practically the same thing, except that spoiling is just a term for a specific kind of hacking! The Executive Producer of the show Survivor knows that because they try so hard to surprise the shows viewers, and essentially keep them in the dark till the last possible moment, that there will be people who’s sole purpose will be to crack all the secrets before the episodes are aired. One of the main problems is that it is becoming more and more difficult to monitor the information that is out there and who sees it. It becomes harder and harder to avoid the spoilers. Spoiling used to be something that the producers wanted because it caused people to throw around ideas and essentially get more curious and excited about the season and each episode, but then people started taking it very seriously. It turned into a kind of “let’s beat the system game” that doesn’t really feel like much of a game for the producers of the show.

Now, on many different blogs and forums people release specific names and sometimes even who the winners are going to be. It is no longer about the thrill of watching a new episode, but rather searching for any possible clues that will reveal the future of the show. It is very much about sharing theories and gathering inside information. It has become harder for people who want to be surprised to avoid all of the extremely revealing information. When it comes to hacking, there is always someone who discovers how to disable an encrypted system, and will then release how to do it to the public, and there is no way to make that information go away. Each time that happens, the manufacturers have to take the fall and work on creating a new system that is better and more impervious, but this cycle will always repeat itself. Spoiling is “held together through the mutual production and reciprocal exchange of knowledge” and the information gathered is meant for the “common good” (Jenkins 654). This idea of free ideas and exchange is the same as the gift economy. This works alongside hacking, sharing of information, files: music, pictures, books, articles, movies, and other forms of media. As Jenkins makes very clear in the conclusion of the chapter, there is no way to control the information that people have access to because we live in an “informational economy.” Problems will always exist because the interests of the producers and consumers are not, and will never be the same.

Extra interesting info: This article is great if you are interested in learning about when hacking, cheats and spoiling goes too far when it comes to gaming.

Response to: Designed to ‘effectively frustrate’ by Tarleton Gillespie

This article caused me to think about a lot about the different issues pertaining to all the rules that users have when it comes to using their TV’s, computers, phones, tablets, etc. Although consumers are being sold a computer there is actually a very limited amount of things that can be done on it. We can search the web, write word documents, LISTEN to music on the web or purchase it. Even with the few abilities that we do have as users, there are still limits. The reason that most people only do those few things is because we don’t actually understand technology at all! This scares me a little bit when I think about how much of our day we spend on our computers and phones. Everyone should know its inner and outer process and even how to fix their devices.

The DRM tries very hard, along with all the software engineers and manufacturers to make sure that we stay completely clueless about the technology in our hands, or at our fingertips. Our inability to truly know how to use and to understand the way that these technologies function, is the DRM’s ultimate tool when it comes to security. The moment that a hacker discovers how to circumvent the system, they will most likely show other people or even give it to the public, and once it is there is it not possible to remove it. From the title, ‘effectively frustrate’ I was able to get that the whole point is to constantly make things more and more difficult.  The most care has to go into the design in aesthetics, because it can be a useful tool in preventing users from being able to understand what is going on inside the computer.

Many technology companies tried to push for a slightly lower standard of control so that the costs wouldn’t be so devastating. This was taken into account and the term ‘open-source’ represents the biggest change that was made. This means that rather than commercial software being designed by one corporation, it is now “freely made public” to anyone who is interested in assisting with the software’s development (Gillespie 659). It would be interesting to see if the companies would actually make more, or equal by having a lower standard.

This HERE to read a brief article written by a woman who advocates for open-source technologies!

Found on google images!

Pinterest Boards: Steampunk and Augmented Reality/Human Perceptions

I was inspired to learn about augmented reality because when I first read it I imagined it being something similar to technological imaginary, ideology of technology, and technological determinism, which we have already touched on this semester. I hoped that it would be similar to the ideas listed above as well as Alberti’s Window, because I found those ideas very interesting and stimulating to think about. I wanted to examine this topic for one of my boards. Although these are not directly related to augmented reality, it does have to do with perception. The difference is that the others are more theoretical and having to do with mental perspective and augmented reality is visual. It does have a lot to do with perspective, but it is more of a direct connection between the eyes and the brain.

When I was looking through different ideas, I knew I wanted to focus my boards on something I did not know about previously, that way I could really get the most out of the assignment. When I started to look for information on the topic I found that steampunk had risen out of a literary genre and had multiple parts to it. It has become a unique interest that is becoming more and more popular each year. I wanted my boards to show all those different aspects, such as clothing, sex, and gender roles and how it became what it is today. The sites and different media that I found and chose to pin, I did so because I felt that they portrayed and explained the topic of steampunk the best and did so in a way that I thought would make most sense to the class, to myself, and also to other people on Pinterest who might enjoy the board and have an interest in the topic.

I tried my best to look at all different kinds of information that related to the topics. I wanted to give more broad information as well as more specific articles, news and videos. I think contextualization is important in no matter what assignment one is doing, whether you are writing a critical essay, reading a book, or reading another form of text. I wanted to give my followers and classmate’s access to many different sites so that they could do a bit of contextualizing. When I was looking for different things to pin I would usually check to see if I recognized the website, but I often did not because this assignment is different than anything I have ever done before. Because I haven’t researched either of these topics before I wasn’t familiar with most of the authors or online resources that dealt with the topics. If something didn’t sound scholarly I didn’t post it, but I was consistent on checking to see what their credentials were, what else they had written and their job titles.

In one of our classes we talked about how collaborative filtering actually deteriorates community, individual tastes and decreases user diversity. I think that Pinterest does this for sure. People are constantly just pinning things that other people have pinned, and then eventually people are just going around liking everything. Although it can be addicting, when I think about it it really seems like a huge waste of time and I don’t really see the point in it, or how it actually benefits its users at all. I am not exactly sure how to create a more diverse space within Pinterest because part of what makes it fun for people is that it is easy for anyone to use. It would be nice if Pinterest became a site where more people commented and shared ideas, from my experience that isn’t really what it is about. It would be a more complex and interesting place if there would be more people who use it to learn new things and discuss those new ideas with people. From this assignment it is clear that people using Pinterest have the power to change it and do something more stimulating and thoughtful with it. I think it is possible to make it a place where people can continue to use it as they have been using it, or to try something different! One way to help foster that change would be to somehow get more male users, as well as a more diverse age range.

Found on: http://augmentedtomorrow.com/the-social-implications-of-augmented-reality/