“It all started with a simple tweet . . .”
The internet, and particularly social media offers so many opportunities. As an optimist myself, I prefer to look for the positive potential in everything, but the fact of the matter is that the negative possibilities cannot be ignored.
In a report about the death of Tyler Clementi, the reporter claims “It all started with a simple tweet.” Tyler Clementi jumped to his death off the George Washington Bridge after two of his classmates, Dahrun Ravi and Molly Wei at Rutgers University recorded him engaging in sexual activity with a man in his dorm room. The two classmates then, broadcast the video over the Internet. The moral of his story could pessimistically be deemed “media can kill”, but of course it is not as simple as that. The media tools and internet especially which were used throughout this tragic story did not cause Tyler to decide to end his life. His classmates who used the media to invade Tyler’s privacy and post what they found on the web are to be held accountable for having played the vital role in Tyler’s decision to end his life.
Social networks like twitter and media devices like webcams have the potential to connect people in endless ways, ultimately building all kinds of relationships. Unfortunately they can also rip relationships apart or be used for destructive purposes. Many of those reporting about the tragedy are referring to the actions which were taken against Tyler as “cyber bullying” or some like term. We’ve seen instances of this countless times, with MySpace, Facebook, and now twitter. Two cases that I remember well are those of Megan Meier and Nikki Catsouras.
There are heinous people who chose to use the internet for insensitive acts of cruelty, but there are also people who do their best to counter these acts or at least comfort those affected by these acts. A Facebook page serves as a tribute and a memorial to Tyler’s memory, an entire website has been devoted to stopping cyber bullying in Megan’s honor, and a MySpace page is perhaps the safest place online (besides Wikipedia) to remember Nikki.
The internet is the virtual world and just like the real world “good” and “bad” entities exist within it. The world (real and virtual) is neither good nor bad, it simply is. We make can make the choice to make it a better place and use the tools at our disposal to do good.
The Flipside (of the upside) of Collective Intelligence
Let me begin by saying, that I favor collective intelligence over the individual in the grand scheme of things. I was very much in line with the views of Levy. As one of my classmates so perfectly deemed Lanier, an “elitist” has a narrow view of the collective, with an internal impression that he or she is more knowledgeable – more “intelligent” than others and that he or she ought to be privy to certain information that less well-informed people should not. Perhaps there is a fear of the stabilizing equalizer that rests in this collective intelligence, the new literacy.
Also, there is the notion that the collective intelligence values information of little to no importance and has no sense of priority. However, there are two faults with this assertion. The first is that each individual has a different set of priorities and values different things for different reasons. Importance ought not to be judged from an outsider’s parochial view – to each his own. Secondly, each individual should realize that within the collective intelligence there are specific categories that one ought to be aware of and carefully search for depending on what that individual is interested in. Lanier mentions an example of what he deemed a non-newsworthy news report on popurls. Let’s think: if anyone is looking for real news, is popurls really where they’re going to look for it? NO. That’s like walking into a hardware store and angrily complaining that the store didn’t have cute clothes. Uh . . . how about heading to White House Black Market to take care of that?
Another thing we need to realize along the line of collective intelligence is that it is about so much more than just “intelligence”. The collective intelligence online gives us opportunities to connect with people not just knowledge. When I am really getting to know someone, I’m not very interested in their intelligence as much as their experience and life stories. This is included in collective intelligence that has emerged. Forget just plain knowledge. That’s put there everywhere. Be like Oprah, who initially wanted to interview big stars, but when it came down to it found that people are interested in the stories of everyday people like themselves.
As we discussed various stances on collective intelligence, one of the conclusions we came to was that everyone has something to contribute to collective intelligence and that everyone should do so. This is the upside of collectivism as described by Levy:
“No one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity.”
I much prefer this and agree with this than the cynical Lanier’s opposing idea of collectivism.
I hope we don’t miss the importance of the flipside of this wonderful “Utopian” realization of collective intelligence: that everyone has something they can learn or take away from the collective intelligence. It might seem rather obvious, but I think that notion gets overlooked.
The wonderful web which breeds this collective intelligence in today’s society, allows us to connect with one another, but this is only beneficial, if like a circuit, we connect with one another “on both sides” (excuse my lack of better terminology). What I mean by this is that there are relationships formed within the collective, which like any other relationship can only be healthy when it runs as a “two-way street”. Just as the web allows us to be producers and consumers, (online) collectivism allows us to be teachers and students. Think of it as an ongoing group project for which you are a member. You should contribute and learn from others in the group. Although naturally certain individuals in the group will assume leadership roles (official or unofficial), those individuals are not to dominate the group or the final product. Rather, they ought to delegate and be ready to learn and accept contributions and ideas from other group members. That way everyone grows and both the people and final product are better for it.
Bieber Fever Epitomizes the Power & Influence of the Media in the Right Hands
I recently found an excuse to mention 16-year-old VMA winner of the Best New Artist award , Justin Bieber in my blog. He’s a charming teen and I’m not immune to being a fan, even at my age.
The screenshot above is from Designer, blogger, and self-proclaimed superhero, Dustin Curtis, known on twitter as dcurtis. The initial Bieber tweet about Bieber’s twitter traffic roused plenty of interests from Bieber fans, twitter followers, and all sorts of people involved with the media, including the NY Times.
So once again Justin Bieber has shown himself to be a media giant. It’s a given that any celebrity has some place in the media, reaching fans, haters, and objective observers. Bieber however has shown significant prominence Even since before he was “officially” a star, the young singer made effective use of the internet. It was only two years ago that Bieber was discovered on none other than the popular video-sharing site, YouTube. Since then Bieber is all over the web. If you google his name you will get around 95,500,000 results (in .21 seconds) – that’ more than a number of current pop stars including Katie Perry.
Now Bieber’s media involvement has extended to television on morning and daytime shows, an appearance on SNL, and upcoming appearance on CSI.
Media is a broad term and Justin Bieber is all over it – t-shirts, notebooks, school supplies, clothing, posters, billboards, radio, CDs, online, on television, even boys and men alike, sporting his hairstyle – there’s no escaping the sights and sounds of Justin Bieber. The often-proclaimed pop star prodigy may be a media mastermind as well. He has learned to reach millions of fans and observers effectively.
.
The Impact of Emerging Media and Technolgy on Children
As we discuss various aspects concerning the impact of the media on our society, particularly the internet, we sometimes overlook certain affected parties. We look at how access to the internet impacts those with or without it. Countries with limited access are affected by countries with open access whom (for that very reason) have more power. What I’d like to look more closely at is an impact of internet access within our own county, that of children.
FYI: I love working with children. Before I decided on majoring in EMAC, I highly considered interdisciplinary studies, such that I could become a teacher. In fact it is still something I intend to do; right now I’ve just put it on hold.
That being said, I am concerned about the role the internet and other emerging media play in the lives and minds of children these days. Kids now are growing up a little too fast. It’s bad enough that four-year old girls are being dressed like teenagers who take people like Miley Cyrus as a role model – or that six-year-old boys are emulating rappers and looking at inappropriate magazines. What are second-graders doing on Facebook? This new generation that latches on to phrases like “that’s what she said” are being exposed to films that are inappropriate. All of this is a direct result of the media, whatever form it takes.
The worst impact by far comes from the internet. In a technogy-obsessed society, kids are empowered to do more with access to more knowledge, programs that improve work and open new possibilities, and incredible access to information. The positive effects are irrefutable, but “with great power comes great responsibility” – right? Kids are kids and they are not ready for all of that responsibility.
I do not doubt that children have the potential to be responsible with this access, but I know that part of the responsibility a person has coincides with the wisdom they have. Wisdom comes with age and experience.
There are two problems that strike me most about how children are affected by the internet (and secondly, by computers):
- Children’s access to all of the information and social networks online is unrestricted and may expose them to things that they should not yet be so extensively exposed to. The content children view online influences them psychologically, often times in a negative way. Many of the online communities they are a part of are really meant for older, more mature individuals. It is too easy to access such things. I am not by any means advocating censorship or restriction, nor do I have the solution. I’m just pointing out a problem, as a problem that goes unnoticed has little chance of being solved.
- Children without access to computers and the internet are placed at the bottom of a sort of hierarchy created by technology. Where as students used to make use of the library and were expected use books to get certain things done for school, they are now expected to make use of a computer. This would be fine is access to a computer with internet were as accessible to everyone as a library is. Kids without computers have to make do and have difficulty keeping up with other children who can afford several computers in their households. I am interested in the empowering potential that lies in technology and in growing access to information, but it must be harnessed properly and distributed fairly. Again, I’m just pointing out a problem in the hope that some great minds out there will help to come up with a solution.
These are issues I’d like to look further into.
For people like me who are just getting acquainted with blogs, a little info to help understand blogs:
10 maxims for emerging media
Thought this was pretty neat and could be useful for EMAC majors.
Initially posted by Catriona Pollard.
I went to hear Dr Jim Macnamara, Director, UTS Centre for Public Communication speak at The University of Technology, Sydney lecture: UTSpeaks: Hearing, Seeing, Knowing More – How are emergent media changing our lives, organisations and politics?
His 10 maxims for emerging media are:
• There is no mass audience
• Cyberspace is a myth
• Computers are becoming invisible
• Communication networks are becoming invisible
• Media are becoming immaterial (ie the type of media)
• Media are now primarily software
• The networks that matter are participants
• Brands & products will survive and prosper
• Web 3.0 is being built – with new challenges
• New business models are needed.
He mentioned that we are hybrids (we as in bloggers etc) because we are consumers of media as well as producers. We don’t just read the news as reported by journalists, but create it as well.
Unfair Portrayal?
It is not my intention by any means to promote this film.
Do you think this is an appropriate portrayal of facebook’s creator?
:)
First post for ATEC2322!
