The Tutelage of Social Media

MIT 2371

Greg Wycliffe

April 11^th 2011

Jennifer Martin

Ever since the dawn of religion various methods of social media have been introduced that tends to construe a primordial framework within which to view and make sense of our world. In the increasingly digital age of today a significant amount of social interactions both for business and pleasure happen through a digital medium. Modern societies find themselves in a rapid transition from traditional intimate and spontaneous relations between persons in a physical space; to the new distant and standardized electronic social practices through a virtual reality. Social media has become so pervasive, aesthetically pleasing, and multi-functional allowing for specific and acute human expression of images, ideas, and feelings connecting people instantaneously across geographically and socially diverse places. These practices foster globalization along with the prevailing ideals associated with social media in developed countries such as immediacy and capitalism while neglecting the primal human practice of face to face interaction. These technologies and devices are convenient and rational when it comes to enhancing social life but our blind faith in these technologies and the ideologies we agree with by using them standardizes our thinking and can have a negative effect on our creativity, imagination, and personal growth.

The existence and use of social media especially the web 2.0 has lead to an accelerated production of all types of information. This flow that appears as a perfectly natural occurrence to the public maybe becoming progressively turbulent to peoples’ ideas of themselves and their world. Todd Gitlin in his article Supersaturation, or The Media Torrent and Disposable Feeling, explains this as a massive torrent of media constancy including everything from text messages to TV shows that becomes a “central experience to life” (142) rather than outside media accompanying life. Ray Williams describes this phenomena as fragments of media images, ideas, and sonic activity which makes rhythms of drama upon drama that are built into everyday life.

Although the media stream is modern, it draws on ancient springs. To feel accompanied by others not physically present is hardly unprecedented. We have a profound capacity to harbor images of actual or imaginary other who are not materially at hand – to remember or speculate about what they looked like, wonder what they are doing, imagine what they might think, anticipate what they might do, take part in unspoken dialogues with them. (Gitlin, 144)

As you can see this phenomena is by no means anything new, but our new instant technologies of today gives people the opportunity to become idolized household names over night similar to the gods and heroes of ancient times. For example Justin Beiber’s few semi-popular youtube videos garnered the attention from Usher’s record label fast tracking him to a North American audience in a short period of time, (Entertainment Tonight). In essence Twitter is home to the new voices of the gods we idolize: celebrities. These manifestations of drama in our, now constantly, mediated world has evolved along with the progression of social media and has engrained a hunger for drama within us. “The culture of unlimited media takes up a place in our imagination. Its language and gestures become ours,” (Gitlin, 145). Like all media, social media exaggerates and sensationalizes its content both through the medium itself and by drawing upon the social and societal imagination that has been established and that is constantly evolving. This is beneficial in making our lives more dramatic and may give the impression of giving our life more meaning, however the blind acceptance of these normative social practices and belief in them having significance to our lives may be damaging to our own personal growth and traditional social being.

A major concern to be considered with social media is the way in which it can reformulate social life in certain geographic areas. Mobile devices and text messaging was introduced to the Philippines in 1995 and by 2001 more than 70 million text messages were being sent between Filipinos every day (Rheingold, 232). Their whole hearted embrace of the technology quickly became a part of their culture with someone texting at a funeral being considered nothing out of the ordinary. The fascination with sending jokes, rumors, and chain letters served as a political force for the Filipino public in January 2001when President Joseph Estrada lost his state power because of the smart mob organized through social media devices. Their textual culture prevalently linked to political opinions mobilized over a million citizens to participate in peaceful demonstrations in January to over throw President Estrada. Virtual interactions affecting real politics essentially gives citizens their own technological means to participate in democracy. The Filipino masses avidly using these devices amplified the universal drive to appropriate politics to the way the majority of the community saw fit. Within this community its own imagination is formed based on the previous societal imagination but augmented by the interests and motives shared universally by the community as a whole. All the texts, jokes, and rumors sent within this unified community essentially turns them into a medium of their own generating expectations and a circulation of messages which in turn gives everyone a means for gathering and transforming elements, objects, people and things. In this instance social media is being used by the nation at large not only for quick convenient social interactions but also to shape a community based around the merits of political participation. These uses of social media in the Philippines constitutes the use and role of these devices in society along with the primary avenues in which to understand their world. Although text messaging revamped social life in the Philippines it also accelerated participation in democracy reflecting the main interests and motives of the users of these technologies: being political.

Social media used during Egypt’s political reform these past 4 months has served as a powerful agency for human organization of thoughts and actions. Eric Goldwin in The Limits of Cyber-Revolution praises the internet for being “great at facilitating bonds among compatriots who wouldn't otherwise feel comfortable communicating openly and assembling a critical mass,” (Goldwin). One of the major benefits of social media however falls short when considering the reality of politics and how to participate in it as citizen striving for change. “It takes physical space to connect revolutionary passions with daily life and, more important, the broader population,” (Goldwin). Strong political progress depends on the importance and magnitude of being present in a physical space to speak to the masses, hopefully make news, and essentially gain much more attention than just the private participation in the virtual world. These dispersed individuals tweeting and facebook-ing about political reform in Egypt although they make up a online community of sorts has no power unless mobilized in a physical space. In this case social media is only used as a forum to circulate discussion, news, and opinions and has not been embraced by its users as a mode of democratization.

Blogs, videos, and images all posted from digital devices can efficiently portray a thought, belief, or event online. In Surowiecki’s TED talk in February 2005, he gives examples of such postings that give a vivid and in depth look at the reality of the Tsunami disaster. Most fascinating about these joe-schmoes personal accounts and camera phone recordings augmented by American media as news, is the voluntary cooperation to post these accounts. He extrapolates this idea to the entire internet praising the communities and individuals who essentially do work to organize information on the internet for absolutely free. The danger of becoming more tightly and tightly linked is that it is harder to be independent in thinking and shaping your own views. “Groups are only smart when the people in them are as independent as possible,” (Surowiecki). Therefore, the internet has the potential to be a reliable and infinitely original tool for information retrieval, but the appealing, easy to use technology that comes along with it could turn us into docile drones unless we think and act independently.

The capabilities of social media accelerating information flows and learning are undisputable. Todd Oppenheimer in his article The Computer Delusion explains the possible pros and cons of using computers as teachers in the classroom. When confined to a computer screen and a couple of input devices computer use is quite a one dimensional experience. We need to learn the conventions and rules of both the machine and the machines software; and after programming our minds to be in sync with the machine, we can finally learn what we are meant to learn or do with it. One study found after prolonged exposure to an elementary reading computer program, students “were no longer able to answer open-ended questions and showed a markedly diminished ability to brainstorm with fluency and originality.” This one example shows how by immersing ourselves in computers and applying rules and conventions to the ways we think and invent can alter the way our brain functions on its own thus stagnating creativity and personal growth. In respect to social media we learn the basics of how to use the program quite easily but continue to add and innovate to them in more deeply entrenched ways. We incorporate the functions and laws of the social media into our own thinking further solidifying the legitimacy of these devices and further digitizing our social imagination. Also in Oppenheimer’s article he mentions Alan Lesgold claims that any computer is an amplifier of what interests and motives the user has either towards “enlightened study practices or thoughtless ones.” For the reading program example above the program in question could have been designed by an amateur software designer and was thus not effective, forcing the students to comply and essentially figure out the program themselves, amplifying their confusion of the program and the lesson. In respect to social media it amplifies the very people participating in these social interactions (as potential F-List celebrities), their ideas (as the latest news report), interests (as ‘the next big thing’), and motives, along with the importance of the very social practices and devices in use. Ie. the Filipino’s who desired political reform in the 3rd paragraph.

The television show Gossip Girl follows a blogger (narrator) who follows and reports on the lives of the New York Elite (sons and daughters of the CEOs of large corporations). In this show social interactions are amplified and made more dramatic reducing the show and their existence in the shows universe to the social interactions they have and its significance to their lives. This show sensationalizes social life to the extent that it implies there is no life beyond the social life. The show refuses to bring up concepts such as democracy, equality, diversity, self actualization giving way to the full force of fashion, popularity and sex. This show reflects the dangers of embracing social media and its conventions, norms, and devices. Simply put: we lose sight of what is really important in our lives, rather we our pervaded to believe that other things, such as the world of celebrities, take precedence in giving meaning to our life. Social media does this: while connecting us constantly and instantly it isolates us from actual face to face physical interactions with others.

The incorporation of technology into learning is viewed as dangerous to some especially with a population of children. Jane Healy from Oppenheimer’s article explains: “Visual stimulation is probably not the main access route to nonverbal reasoning. Body movements the ability to touch feel manipulate and build sensory awareness of relationships in the physical world are its main foundations,” (Oppenheimer, 184). This is especially important for children who are the most impressionable. Hands-on experience is believed to imprint knowledge into our minds more effectively. Oppenheimer says its essential for children to have a broad base for learning including intellectually and emotionally before being introduced to a computer because “the human and physical world holds greater learning potential,” (Oppenheimer, 185). Being intellectually and technically inclined is not always a positive in the working world compared to someone who works emotionally and creatively according to Hewlett-Packard spokes-woman who says that they desire instead of, “predominantly computer experts, those who have talent for teamwork and are flexible and innovative.” Therefore the constant learning and engraining of social media as an effective substitute for physical interaction could have, or is having, a profound change on the way we structure and make sense out of our social world both virtually and in general. In fact if these social media practices are introduced early and consistently enough to young children they may already have a deeply engrained sensory awareness of touching buttons corresponding to a flickering screen. This may sound harmless but it silently gives consent to these technologies being ample substitutes for genuine social interaction, while promoting the use of these devices and the ideals that go with it (capitalism).

So what is being lost when social interaction is mediated through digital devices? With innovate new methods such as Skype and FaceTime from Apple it is hard to argue that there is a difference, however consider this: you are not inhabiting the same physical spaces, you are less in-tune with the other persons subtle body-language reflecting their true thoughts and emotions, the slight delay from technological imperfection can make the feeling of rapport hard to grasp when the two of you literally are not experiencing the same moment. These two methods DO however again further exaggerate and amplify the social interaction with a video accompaniment. These two recent developments in social media however do not lose nearly as much as the more simplistic methods of texting, and chatting online. “We chat without speaking, smile without grinning, hug without touching,” (Stoll, 189) From Clifford Stoll’s article, Further Explorations into the Culture of Computing he believes this reflects the ways in which we have learned and incorporated the non-obvious rules and conventions of social media devices while essentially unlearning social conventions in a physical face to face scenario. This prevailing practice of conforming to the computers rules, norms, and problem solving strategies “limit(s) our ability to recognize other solutions,” (Stoll, 190). Like standardizing our thinking as I said before, the more we use social media devices to point click and type to have a social experience the less creative and innovative we are in assuming new social roles and ways to interact both digitally but more so physically.

Take me for example. Over the past 2 months my friends have been telling me about multiple alternative texting platforms for smart-phones. I’ve downloaded for free both KIK messenger and Live Profile. Both essentially serve the same purpose with the same basic conventions. They both have profile pictures you can add, they both inform you when your message has been read by the recipient, and they both are a simple way to quickly text message your good ‘friends’ for free. Live Profile however gives you the ability to have a profile page similar to facebook to put your birthday, location, and PIN number to quickly share contacts with others. At first I saw this as an opportunity to become more connected with my peers and meet new people more easily. Obviously the reality is far from this. The truth is all this time I have spent setting these applications up, learning how it works, and wondering how my profile will look to other people I could have been doing things much more productive for my actual social life. Since realistically all I have done with these devices is rationalize my thinking about how to see social relationships as another back and forth instant message conversation or another PIN number to add to the ‘friend’ list. My point is these new social media programs ended up standardizing my thoughts and actions towards social interactions while distracting me from what I truly believe is really important which is making genuine connections with people in an personal and physically intimate setting. I still use Live Profile to text my friends who do not have a free texting plan. Worth noting is the feature introduced originally by BlackBerry messenger, is the “received” notification when you see someone has read your message. The very idea of this reflects the ideals of sustaining social media as a legitimate grounds for a real relationship. The social idea that it is rude not to respond to someone who says something addressed to you (even though they did not say it they just typed it).

Throughout this paper I have been addressing specifically social media, being software and devices that are used to maintain a social relationship with someone who has already something in common with you whether it be knowing of them, agreeing with them, or sharing motives. I have neglected the thousands upon thousands of online communities who are dispersed geographically but maintain close relations through mutual interests usually pertaining to a common website(s) or hobbies. Communities like these can foster the learning and teaching of technical abilities, beliefs, practices etc. very efficiently. These are very beneficial to the individuals involved who learn what they are seeking to learn: it’s convenient in that they do not need to leave their house and confront a stranger in person asking if they can help them. For example I used to frequent the Newgrounds.com Flash forums back in 2004 when I was still learning the ins and out of Adobe (Macromedia at the time) Flash. I would recognize users and their personality/posting style but more than anything I remember how helpful they were and the advice they had to offer. The primary motive of these community users (for me anyway) is to stimulate their rational mind. But that’s not to say people on these communities can develop strong emotional relationships through a digital medium, but I believe it is only a suggestion of a genuine relationship unless you are at least Skyping with them. Furthermore, I believe a long term, non-physical relationship with someone between someone and an able bodied, mentally sound, human being is not at all beneficial for them physically, emotionally, or mentally.

Social media provides an effective substitute for individual humanistic expression by thriving on drama and information idealized in the social imagination of those who partake, however it also standardizes the way in which we interact with one another influencing how our thoughts and perceptions are structured and rationalized potentially stagnating personal creativity, originality, and growth reducing our social existence and imagination to that provided by the prevailing social order. By prevailing social order I mean the designers and distributors of the social media and their (capitalist) ideals (consumerism, immediacy, sensationalism). Living a social life in the real world should not require too much brain power to interact with others and should be an organic experience. Mediated social experiences are always going to be repressive physically, emotionally, and mentally by the limited capabilities of the technology available and the limited choices the user has at their disposal. Communities can thrive socially online especially for stimulating rational thoughts pertaining to interests and goals. However the blind faith and embrace we have today with many of these social devices and technologies can significantly distract us and stagnate our personal growth. To close I will quote the outgoing, happy-go-lucky, sharp witted character of Ferris Bueller: “Life moves pretty fast, if you don’t stop and look around every once and a while you could miss it.”… Now we’re used to staring at screens for hours on end. Go figure.

Works Cited

Entertainment Tonight. Pop Music’s Top 6 YouTube Success Stories. Entertainment Tonight

Online.<http://www.etonline.com/music/105415_Pop_Music_s_Top_6_YouTube_Success_Stories/index.html> Accessed: April 10^th 2011

Gitlin, Todd. Supersaturation, or The Media Torrent and Disposable Feeling. Living in the

Information Age. Pg. 139-45. Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. 2005.

Goldwin, Eric. The Limits of Cyber-Revolutions; Public spaces, not virtual town squares, are

still the places where uprisings are decided. New York Media LLC. <http://proquest.umi.com.proxy2.lib.uwo.ca:2048/pqdlink?did=2310980251&Fmt=7&clientId=11263&RQT=309&VName=PQD> Accessed: April 9^th 2011

Oppenheimer, Todd. The Computer Delusion. Living in the Information Age. Pg. 181-7.

Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. 2005.

Rheingold, Howard. Smart Mobs: The Power of the Mobile Many. Living in the

Information Age. Pg. 231-8. Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. 2005.

Stoll, Clifford. Further Explorations into the Culture of Computing. Living in the

Information Age. Pg. 188-92. Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. 2005.

Surowiecki, James. When social media became news. TED Talks. Filmed: Feb 2005. Accessed

April10^th<http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/james_surowiecki_on_the_turning_point_for_social_media.html>

Overworked and Overstressed: Problems of the Technical Age

Kyle Myers

Professor Jennifer Martin

MIT 2371

March 24^th, 2011

New technologies suffer from many setbacks before they become popular; they are often slow to be embraced, and once they are, it is often still years before their full potential is achieved. Steve Lohr points out that the computer and the internet are no different than other technologies in this regard; in that the introduction and implementation of these technologies did little to improve productivity in business, with increases of only one percent per year from 1973 to 1995 (178). As of recently however, that pace has increased, with productivity growth doubling to two percent per year. Many now believe that information technologies have proven their worth in business, with Lohr stating that “the rapid spread of Internet-based computing... promises to compress the time it takes for any new technology to enhance economic welfare in general” (180). While Lohr’s article seems to promote an extremely optimistic view of information technologies and their possibilities, the reality may be slightly less peachy. I believe that while productivity increases are a positive effect of information technologies’ integration into business, the negative effects on the human worker may require us to re-examine current business practices.

Since 1996 the implementation of information technology into the workplace has given businesses “increased speed and efficiency”, which can be assumed is due to the fact that day-to-day tasks are made easier for employees. While this is admittedly an advantage, (easier work means less stress) studies are in fact showing the opposite effects on workers. Why would this be so? The fact of the matter is that when work gets easier and faster, employees are expected to do more work, and in a shorter amount of time. While a task that before may have taken a half of a day and a certain amount of brainpower, with the addition of information technology the task may take a slightly smaller amount of brainpower, yet only one-tenth of the time. This frees up a significant amount of time for the worker to perform other tasks, which can become quite taxing on the employee. Nine out of ten Canadian workers believe that stress is on the rise in the workplace, and upwards of $30 billion dollars is lost each year from the Canadian economy directly and indirectly due to mental-health issues, like stress and depression (Grant). According to Statistics Canada, “the most commonly cited cause [of employee stress] is a lack of time or an excessive workload (Williams). So it seems while information technologies are indeed effective at increasing the efficiency of businesses and their practices, this efficiency and productivity may come at the expense of employee health.

I believe that while computer and information technology have undoubtedly brought advantages to the world of business and various corporations around the world, statistics are hard to ignore, and people must always be put ahead of profit. The technology however, is not necessarily to blame in this case; it is the CEO’s of the companies which employ the technology. We have not given computers or the internet the power to control our actions or decisions (yet), and so the decisions still come from the top. The internet is not making employees do more work per day than they are comfortable doing, the managers are, and so there must be a shift in the way managers and owners think of business and how it is conducted. The heightened expectations and ridiculous demand in terms of work and hours must be alleviated or stress and depression will continue to be a problem in the workplace, and may even become a worldwide epidemic. Perhaps in this world of fast-paced life and non-stop action, we should all take a second to slow down: it’s good for our health.

Works Cited

Grant, Tavia. "Stress, depression on the rise in workplace." Globe and Mail 01 May 2008: n. pag. Web. 20 Mar 2011.

Lohr, Steve. "Computer Age Gains Respect of Economists." Living in the Information Age. Ed. Erik P. Bucy. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005. Print.

Williams, Cara. "Sources of Workplace Stress."Perspectives on Labour and Income 4.6 (2003): n. pag. Web. 22 Mar 2011.

Self Actualizing via the Internet

Greg Wycliffe

MIT 2371

The internet is a vast network that allows for anonymous communication in various shapes and forms. Whether we get a sense of empowerment or personal security from anonymous communication online, any kind of expression is healthy for an individual’s psychology. John Suler, in his article “Identity Management in Cyberspace,” describes the different aspects of managing your online self and how internet use, especially through user created avatars, can reflect very insightful things about the real self. I expand upon this here and describe how activity online and through avatars can not only help explain and reflect the core traits and personality of one’s real self but also how it can accelerate or stagnate personal growth and discovery.

The internet is of course not a magical tool that will automatically help the user ‘find themselves’ through a series of uses; instead it is a subjective experience directly controlled by the user and thus is solely dependent on the choices of that person. For example I could go to a variety of flash game sites and easily (and quite enjoyably I might add) waste an hour of my life playing these simple, visually compelling, and addictive games. This in no way helps my personal growth as an individual and is essentially a cognitively destructive practice that I regrettably partake in from time to time. This obsessive desire to continue to stagnate my personal growth however embodies the very insecurities and deep emotions that myself as a person am still dealing with. Suler describes it as “discharging some negatively charged aspect of their psyche.” A user who is not conscious of this will continue to hinder their personal growth while only fulfilling unconscious motives. The consequences of this I believe are experiencing pseudo-happiness or temporary joy and excitement. Although healthy on the short-term it makes no progress towards true happiness and self actualization.

This catharsis can occur in a multitude of other ways online. Most predominantly in the details of avatar creation and online communications. Suler uses the example of a passive aggressive person going to online forums to argue endlessly. This is a positive experience for the user if they realize how it reflects one of their core personality traits but could also be negative if not realized by the user and leads to further online arugments . A “troll” is a term given to 1) users on any forum/chat who have nothing positive or contributing to the conversation or 2) a user who posts hoping to annoy “newbies” or “fanboys” for the sheer point of getting an argumentative reaction. Hiding behind anonymity allows users to be whoever they want to be and express whatever they want to express but I believe in general: users, other than seeking and speaking of their interests, end up seeking to fulfill their unconscious wishes. For trolls it could be ambivalence, apathy and manipulation, possessiveness respectively. For me I would tie into the passive aggressive user above who argues about how absent minded the end of the TV show Lost was until the sun comes up :D.

All of this trolling however could very well be users in the process of personal growth. The freedom of anonymity also allows an internet user to experiment again and again. This apparent “troll” making an immature insult about someone’s post might just be a usually timid, unhumorous person who would never have the courage to say such a thing to someone in person. Or it could be someone who is usually passive and repressed trying to be different by being overly emotional and impulsive. Anonymity allows for us to be very creative when it comes to our online experiences. From changing our sex with a mouse click to speaking our mind openly to an audience of potentially millions, your image and your message is completely up to you.

Other than communicating and avatar creation, any other activity online reflects the self of the user and again can be viewed positively or negatively for personal growth. Other than the unproductive flash gaming I mentioned in my second paragraph, I personally use the internet for personal growth by researching articles on my own: everything from guided Zen meditation to famous, inspiring quotations. Currently I have been surfing around to help raise my Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ). Unlike I.Q., EQ can be further developed to a certain extent after being born and it’s something I value because I view my self actualized self being gregarious through and through; and it is through self actualization, or being at peace with oneself, that one can be truly happy. Before I go on a rant about how I think EQ should be taught in elementary schools everywhere, I will just say that personal growth or stagnation online is determined by the responsibility of the user.

For certain individuals with chemical brain imbalances and other traumatic experiences haunting the core of their existence the internet is a godsend. Digital communication allows for these disadvantaged individuals with any amount or degree of social anxiety or phobia to express themselves freely without the mind freezing fear of “what will people think of me!?”. With the absence of a face to face interaction the individual can open themselves up in their communication be as honest or confident as they want to be from their peaceful solitude. There is also no immediacy to interact with someone, you can take your time collect your thoughts and communicate yourself to the best of your ability. This awesome opportunity for these disadvantaged individuals allows them to grow much more than they originally anticipated as a social being and therefore brings them much happiness.

More than anything, the internet and digital worlds where one is interacting with others, allows for the individual to explore their own mind without even knowing it. Rather, something an internet user does not consciously think about is the way (the sites) in which they frequently use and communicate online reflects their own personality and unconscious needs and emotions (one of Suler’s points). It is the users responsibility to utilize the world wide web with online activities that cultivate or stagnate personal growth. That being said it can be confusing to know what is exactly beneficial or not for the self when the self is digitized on multiple platforms and in different usernames. Our dynamic associations with each cyber-self can surely blur what is really important to the real self. I believe the key is to avoid any experiences that become banal and always try to decipher between the feelings of joy and excitement (wish fulfillment, personal stagnation) and peace and happiness (personal growth). Either way, there is no denying a round of Call of Duty: Black Ops is in my near future...:s

Works Cited

Suler, John R. (2002). “Identity Management in Cyberspace.” Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, Volume 4, Number 4, 455-459.

Why Not?

Why Not?

A look into the revolutionary online-dating scene

Cam Parkes

In the digital era we currently inhabit, much has changed due to the internet. One of the foremost leaders in this change is the social activity of dating. Online dating has become a social revolution in the 21^st century. According to our textbook, over 40 million Americans participate in online dating. A popular eHarmony television commercial pushes the fact that one out of five relationships begins online. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, theorizes that online dating is “as important as the automobile was in the 1920s and birth control in the 1960s” (Mulrine, 133). So here’s the question: will online dating become the new standard in the dating world? There are arguments for and against this notion, which I will discuss. For the record, I’m going to focus on dating web sites, as opposed to online games through which people can flirt, chat, etc.

A couple of months ago, a friend and I joined the online dating site Plenty of Fish (www.plentyoffish.com) as somewhat of a joke, mainly to see what the hype was about. While my friend has since deleted her account, I kept mine with the attitude “Why Not?” Although I don’t frequent it often, I have noticed a few things that are negative, as well as positive. I decided that, if I was going to give it a go, I might as well do it right. I filled in my ‘About Me’ quite extensively, and posted recent photos. According to the site, this was the key to attracting more messages.

When filling out your profile you’re asked to put your height, race, age, and body type. This helps when you’re searching for a specific type of person I guess. However, (and this is a negative) these details can be a little bit off. The most prevalently inaccurate results were age and body type. Age, obviously, is easy to lie about, especially for girls. From the age of 15 to 25ish, many women can look just that—anywhere from 15-25. Lying about body type is almost impossible in person, but on the internet it can be accomplished relatively easily.

The options given for body type are: thin, athletic, average, a few extra pounds, big and tall, or prefer not to say. Typically the only ones that have a uniform appearance are the ones on opposite ends of the scale—thin, and overweight. It’s pretty clear rather quickly whether these people are lying. The discrepancy comes with the proclamation of average body type. To be fair, I can only talk about what women do, as I do not view other men’s profiles. I find women are very good at taking strategic photos that make them look different than they actually are. This can be done by certain angles, or only including certain parts of the body in the photo.

Honestly, I fail to understand why people would lie online—although they certainly do. What do they expect to happen if they meet people in real life? That they’ll just shrug off the fact that their date is six inches shorter and 75 pounds heavier than they had stated? I don’t think so. And neither does Stephenie Murphy, a case sample from the textbook. She says that “the picture doesn’t have to be from last week, but when you meet up and don’t even recognize [the person]...” (Mulrine 134). So that’s one example of how online dating can be negative—probably the most prevalent one. Sites such as eHarmony have developed questionnaires and tests to determine whether people are lying, and if they are, they ask them to leave the site. According to a wise professor, about 16 percent of applicants to eHarmony have been asked to leave (Martin 2011).

Another negative aspect of online dating is unwanted attention. Cyberstalkers are always a possibility, as well as people you’ve lost interest in. In class we determined that it was easier to disengage from an online relationship than one face to face, but I’d like to argue that. I think it would be just as hard to disengage from an online relationship. When you’re getting to know someone online, inevitably the relationship progresses beyond the site. For example, I few women I started chatting with asked to be Facebook friends, or to text on our phones. Once you accept that, it becomes harder to get out of the relationship. To completely get rid of them you could delete them as a friend, block their number, etc. However, that’s a lot of effort. Also, once your information has been made available online, it’s there for good. I admit the one thing that would make online relationships easier to get out of would be if there’s no chance of running into the person, i.e. they live far away, but you still have to avoid them online, whether that be MSN, Facebook, or the dating website you found them on.

There’s an opinion offered by the Mulrine, however, that says that “online dating is... more and more resembling old-fashioned dating” (Mulrine 137). Is this true? And if so, what’s to stop online dating from making traditional dating a thing of the past? Let’s examine.

In some ways, online dating is like traditional dating, but with a quicker search process. Whereas before one would have to wait to run into a dateable person—at a bar, college, church, etc.—an online dater can search through a huge database of people, and specify their preferences. People are then matched, and can commence communication. Sure, you may miss out on the movie-like moment that may have happened, but in this age of immediacy we are in, efficiency seems to trump romance. Seriously though, looking at it, why wouldn’t you use an online dating site? It’s not as if the dating takes place on the site—a lot of sites just provide an efficient way to meet people, then it’s up to the user to meet them in “real life”.

For that reason, I don’t think online dating will replace traditional dating. In fact, I think it acts as an extension of, or an upgrade to, traditional dating. You’ll still get the excitement of meeting someone for the first time in a café etc., you’ll just have more confidence that they are into the same stuff as you, you’ll like how they look (hopefully), etc.

In the future it will probably be looked upon with disbelief that people waited to meet their special someone at a bar etc. That’s not to say that there won’t be exceptions—I’m sure there will always be those couples that meet in a Hollywood moment where time stands still and a romantic song permeates through the air.

Sources

Martin, Jenn. Lecture, March 23^rd 2011.

Mulrine, Anna. "Love.com." Living in the Information Age: a New Media Reader. By E. Page Bucy. Southbank, Vic., Australia: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, 2005. 133-38. Print.

www.plentyoffish.com

Freedom Pirates: The New Regime

Greg Wycliffe - MIT 2371

I have always been a strong believer in the internet. Not just as a useful tool for communication and a vast resource of information, but ultimately as a platform that can facilitate social enlightenment and change. Lawrence Lessig writes in his article, “Free” in Eric Bucy’s “Living in the Information Age” of a dystopian future when the internet and all ‘resources’ will be privatized (controlled) through copyright, thus impeding human innovation and creativity. A captivating thesis; Lessig posits the dreaded corporate controlled future as taken for granted in the physical world and as progressively happening in the digital one of the internet. I somewhat agree, however was frustrated with this article because Lessig only briefly references and does not even describe how the internet is moving towards a privatized existence of control and cost. I support many of Lessig’s claims about the internet as a liberating, innovating, and creatively stimulating medium by describing some of my own experiences on the internet and also will point out some inconsistencies and reasons why I do not believe a regulated internet will happen anytime soon.

First and foremost Lessig mentions the increased property rights being implemented are a way to protect the old regime, “ways of life” from the new rising ways of life and claims that the “new regime has not risen to defend it against the old.” I believe this to be false and in fact quite the opposite. In this new information age two things are certain: corporations continue to prosper, grow, and seek to further privatize and control; and technology is becoming increasingly powerful giving individual human agency more and more power and reach. In this sense the new regime (young people using technology in new innovative ways) is defending this new way of digital life. Peer to peer sharing and websites that distribute and stream TV, movies and other content (controlled resources) illegally, are contemporarily published or re-published faster than the old regime can shut down these sites. Sites like ThePirateBay.org, their slogan now “The World’s Most Resilient Bittorent site,” once had their headquarters raided (site was only down for 3 days), faced legal charges from Hollywood related organizations, and have been under close surveillance and digital sabotage by the number one anti-piracy group MediaDefender. A teenager however was able to infiltrate the MediaDefender firewall – from his parents basement no less – and leak emails and files from the company who is home to some of the largest media conglomerates in the world. The new regime is not only prosperous and resilient in their new way of life, liberating information, but is efficient at defending it.

“Although most distinguish innovation from creativity, or creativity from commerce, I do not” (Lessig). I agree that all invention and creative works are valued and are thus worth money however online sites and communities can do without the goal of profit and thus innovation and creativity can prosper on its own. Most notably facebook.com started as an innovative social networking tool with profit not being a goal until its massive global popularity. Similarly Newgrounds.com was the first online Flash portal that was originally a community of users who create, share, and comment on each others’ various Flash creations, their slogan being: Everything by Everyone. I was an avid user in the past and had the opportunity to share and even collaborate with other users of the online community to create a music video where each of us contributed a 30 second frame by frame drawn animation. This is a prime example of the benefits the internet and digital technologies has for individuals to support the new regime. I was supplied with the necessary technologies to produce and distribute my own creations and innovations, the opportunity and access to participating in a collaborative creative process, as well as experiencing the ease of production and distribution the internet can offer all as highlighted by Lessig throughout his piece. Lessig also mentions however “The open and neutral platform of the internet has spurred hundreds of companies to develop new ways for individuals to interact.” Although MSN and AOL may be corporate entities seeking profit by connecting people, both facebook.com and newgrounds.com were created by kids (under 25) who at the time were essentially presumed to just be bored and feeling creative. Although newgrounds.com too has increasingly had corporate influence on their operations much like facebook.com and youtube.com they all still exemplify web 2.0 which to me is the free sharing of innovation, creativity, and knowledge; which should be a mandate for the new regime.

Lessig uses the term ‘resource’ very often in the second half of the piece without really giving it an operational definition other than some are free for the taking and others are controlled and require permission for access. In his first example he uses Einstein’s intangible ideas as a free resource and his physical residence (place where he used to live) as a controlled resource. This is an important distinction to make especially today because I believe to a large extent only physical resources are in fact controlled resources with the existence of the internet making intangible resources increasingly more accessible with only the fee of an internet connection. I mention this because as technology becomes increasingly powerful, users of these technologies become increasingly resourceful and innovative, and therefore tangible media “resources” (everything from scholarly journals to Hollywood movies) become increasingly intangible on the internet and thus increasingly accessible to everyone. My point is as these intangible resources, essentially now digital information, continue to be distributed, produced, redistributed, reproduced and never endlessly consumed the idea and attempts to privatize and copyright ALL intellectual property and successfully restrict access to ALL unauthorized personnel sounds increasingly ridiculous and impossible.

For every one business lawyer attempting to further privatize intellectual property on the internet and control access to certain information, I guarantee there is at least one teenager in their basement at their computer discovering new ways to control and manipulate the very technologies that enforce and dictate those very copyright restrictions. I would like to believe that this prevailing information society is working towards a free flow of all digital information similar to the H.G. Wells ideation of the World Brain but realistically that utopia is far in the future. For now the new regime of dispersed anti-corporate pirates seeking to liberate all knowledge will only be subject to more capitalist ideals of privatizing intangible ‘resources’ and controlling consumption. So amongst this clash between corporatized bureaucratic rule and liberating technologic rebellion to do my part in supporting the new regime of the information society I will continue to peruse the contents of my portable hard drive and save my $8 this month on Netflix.

Global Media: Pro or Con?

Kyle Myers

Professor Jennifer Martin

MIT 2371

Living in the Information Age presents several different views on key issues in global media, one specifically being that of media convergence and concentration. While some, like Robert McChesney, believe that increasing concentration causes media content to become stale and homogenized, others, like Benjamin Compaine, believe that it can instead have the opposite effect, and in fact encourage competition and unique programming. Compaine makes several points which I believe to be either false or misleading, and this paper will critique Compaine’s arguments, namely those that claim that consolidation of power diversifies content, that globalization and consolidation do not affect local content, and that unregulated markets act in the public interest.

In his piece Global Media, Compaine argues against those who believe that the deregulation of the media, and the corresponding growth of enormous media conglomerates have left the global media landscape a world of monotonous and homogenized content. Compaine argues that the global media landscape we live in today, dominated by media conglomerates, does little, if any, to drown out local media outlets and influence. Compaine believes that “media – like politics – [is] inherently local”, and uses the example of MTV in Brazil, which “plays a mix of music videos and other programming determined by local producers, even though it shares a recognizable format with MTV stations elsewhere” (Compaine 99). While this fact may be true, and Compaine may be correct in saying that some media types, like music, are local, he ignores the fact that it is only local content which agrees with the overarching view of the media conglomerate which will be reproduced.

Since Compaine has used MTV, I will follow his lead. It is an oft-cited fact that MTV (the music television network) has strayed far from music programming, opting instead for brainless reality shows such as Jersey Shore which rely on ethnic stereotypes for entertainment value. Jersey Shore is an effective example to use, for it is produced in the U.S., and ridicules Italian culture in New Jersey for our entertainment. Does Compaine truly believe that if an Italian MTV outlet proposed a new reality show which parodied Americans living in Italy, that said show would be picked up and aired on that network? If he does, I would vehemently disagree. This is the problem with a single group owning networks which produce entertainment for a wide range of views: not all viewpoints get along. There is an inherent need for producers who work for American networks abroad to appease their American bosses, and sometimes this can mean censoring content. I find it highly unlikely that a program airing anti-American sentiment, no matter how harmless, would be aired on an American network, regardless of what market it was produced for. In this sense, while it may appear that consolidation and globalization do not affect local content, it in fact does, albeit in a way so subtle that it may not appear so at first glance.

Another argument Compaine puts forward in defence of consolidation is that it can often result in a diversification of content, and cites the example of News Corporation finally bringing a fourth broadcast network to the U.S. as evidence of this. Compaine believes that without the deep pockets provided by consolidation, News Corporation would not have had the funds required to begin the network (Compaine 99). While this is undoubtedly true, the fact remains that without the pre-existence of consolidation in the media, the required funds to create a network would in fact have been substantially lower. It works like this: consolidation has made media conglomerates significantly richer, thus making the cost to join the conglomerates much richer. Without consolidation padding the pockets of the media companies, the cost to own a major media network would be significantly lower. The market then has been inflated due to the ability of major corporations to team up and keep smaller companies from challenging their dominance.

Finally, Compaine believes that deregulation and consolidation can increase the amount of media which is produced in the public interest, and uses newspapers as examples. He states that “media concentration may be in the public interest if it provides a publisher with greater profit margins and the wherewithal to spend some of that on editorial content” (Compaine 101). Compaine in making this argument ignores another side-effect of consolidation: homogenized content. Simply having more editorial content does nothing to aid the public interest if they are all subscribing to a single ideology. A healthy public sphere contains many different views all receiving equal time and consideration, and when one organization owns the majority of newspapers in a city or country, their viewpoint will likely be the one which is most often reproduced.

While Compaine does make some valid points about possible advantages of consolidation in global media, in making these points he often ignores other downfalls of the process, and thus his arguments often fail. While there are some advantages of the way that contemporary media organizations are aligned, these advantages are all too often only monetary, and when one takes into account the negative effect it can have on the public sphere and public interest, one sometimes wonders if worldwide society will ever realize the dangerous slope they are on towards complete monopoly of the media.

Works Cited:

Compaine, Benjamin. "Global Media." Living in the Information Age. Ed. Erik P. Bucy. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005. Print.

Private Ownership

Cam Parkes
MIT 2371

Private Ownership

Ownership has always been a thing easily defined. The man who holds the deed to the house owns the house. The woman who has the license and registration to the car owns the car (with the obvious exception of a thief who stole the aforementioned documents, but let’s stick to the topic here). These things, however, are examples only of physical property. In his article “Who Will Own Your Next Good Idea?” Charles Mann makes the distinction between physical and intellectual property when it comes to ownership. He defines intellectual property as “knowledge or [an] expression that is owned by someone” (Mann 1998). Throughout the article, Mann discusses different types of ownership, ranging from CDs to books, and how they’re apt to be controlled in the future. He does not, however, offer a definitive opinion on how ownership should be moderated. While Mann outlines the main issue surrounding ownership as copyright, he doesn’t give any foolproof methods of enforcing it. He offers suggestions, such as a ©-chip, which would be present in every television, telephone, computer, music player, and electronic book, and would moderate how one reads/lends it, as well as copyright boxes, which “let copyright owners subdivide usage rights, creating new markets for information” (ibid.). Mann also touches on both pros and cons of copyright. He states that last year, copyrighted material contributed more than $400 billion to the national economy (ibid.). This implies that copyright should be enforced, as copyrighted materials are the country’s most important export. On the con side, Mann talks about piracy. Obviously it’s much easier to pirate something on the Internet, and according to Mann, it costs firms up to $20 billion a year.

While Mann covers most aspects of ownership, he doesn’t relate it to privacy, so that’s what I am going to try to do. My view is basically, the amount of privacy one has with information dictates the ownership. For example (I hope anecdotal examples are allowed), in the lab last week we went on a scavenger hunt to see how much information we could find on ourselves. When searching my name, I found a startlingly large amount of personal information. Although my personal Facebook page does not appear in searches, my name appeared as a friend of someone, so if someone were to go to their page a link to my profile could be found. My Twitter profile was also readily available, and after a thorough inspection, I could find no way to make it less so. To me this calls in the question of ownership of information. When I, for example, create a Twitter profile, the obvious assumption is that it is my profile, that I own it. I enter information, such as my email and name, maybe the school I attend, a brief description of what I do, etc. Now I’ll bring up two scenarios. The first would be one where all the information I entered was private. Perhaps a screen name could be seen, but no one would be able to find the profile unless provided with the screen name by me. In this case, I would say I have ownership of my information, as I am able to moderate and manage who has access to it.

Unfortunately, that’s not the sort of scenario that is likely to occur. A much more realistic one is what actually happens. As soon as I click “submit” after entering my information for a Twitter account, I lose ownership. This happens because it’s posted to the web, where anyone can see it. Perhaps one could say Twitter owns it, or the Internet, but it certainly isn’t me. As Simson Garfinkel defines it, privacy is “about self-possession, autonomy and integrity” (Garfinkel 2000). Self-possession implies ownership, so one can see a correlation drawn here. The obvious implication is that, if I do not have ownership, or self-possession, I do not have privacy.

I feel as if though Mann could have touched more on this when he was rambling on about ownership. I mean, there is an obvious correlation between ownership and privacy, as discussed above, but so many more questions. Does ownership ensure privacy, for example? Can ownership be had without privacy? I don’t know, but I do know that in this new digital age, new rules are going to be made regarding ownership and privacy—and I don’t know that we’re going to like them.

Works Cited

Garfinkle, Simson. “Privacy and the New Technology: What They Do Know Can Hurt You” Living In The Information Age. Ed. Erik P.Bucy. 2nd ed. Belmont: Thompson Learning Inc. 2005. 322-327.

Mann, Charles. “Who Will own Your next Good Idea?” Living In The Information Age. Ed. Erik P.Bucy. 2nd ed. Belmont: Thompson Learning Inc. 2005. 285-291.

Companie’s Opposing Stance on Global Media

Lauren Charley

MIT 2371

Jennifer Martin

Wednesday March 9th 2011

Companie’s Opposing Stance on Global Media

“Big media barons are routinely accused of dominating markets, dumbing down the news to plump up the bottom line, and forcing U.S content on world audiences. But these companies are not as big, bad, dominant, or American as critics claim,” (Companie 97). In his article entitled Global Media, Benjamin Companie takes an opposing standpoint to what is generally taught in media courses regarding the concentration of the world’s media by a small number of large firms. I enjoyed, but do not agree entirely with Companie’s claims, however, he offers reasonable arguments in his article which in turn builds a strong ethos for himself as an author.
Contrary to what Robert W. McChesney argues in his article, The New Global Media, Companie stresses that foreign broadcasters choose to broadcast American media content and that “ in most of the world, decisions of what programming to buy traditionally lay in the hands of managers who worked for government-owned or government-controlled broadcasters,” (Companie 98). McChesney makes it seem like some foreign markets try to fight away American conglomeration by “keeping their small, domestic film production industries alive with government subsides,” (McChesney 93). Companie however claims that “data suggests there is little foreign direct investment in the media sectors of most countries,” (Companie 98).
It is interesting to see how these two articles contradict one another, but I believe
Charley 2
Companie’s article to be much more convincing. This is due to the fact that he highlights several strong arguments in an organized fashion, versus McChesney’s expansion on a smaller few arguments in an less organized way. For example, Companie’s article is easier to follow with the bold-face headings and sub sections, where as McChesney’s seemed to blur arguments from one idea to the next. I only know the authenticity of McChesney’s claims from previously studying about the political economy of media.
Contrasting these two articles was similar to our class lab entitled Political Economy and Power, where we researched convergence, media biases, variety and diversity, and how to seek alternative sources on the internet. This lab demonstrated the clear effect of media consolidation in the case of the proposal for usage-based billage on the internet. Because CTV, a new source, is owned in part by Bell Canada, a sevice provider, the stories given by CTV on the topic of usage-based billing were written in a non-negative way towards anything that may harm Bell’s reputation with its customers. However, when the same topic was searched on the CBC website, Canada’s only national public service broadcaster, stories seemed to be far more judgmental towards Bell’s position in its stance on usage-based billing. This lab clearly demonstrated the power of consolidation when joining a television network like CTV in partner with an internet service provider like Bell, and how they have control over which news stories to display and how to portray their message.
The lab would ultimately go against Companie’s arguments, but what is ironic, is when we searched for alternative sources for articles regarding the given topic, there were few to be found beyond CTV and CBC articles. This is similar to how Companie’s
Charley 3
opinion that media giants are not as bad or dominant as they seem, is often an opposing view not highly studied, especially by students of media with regards to political economy and power. Therefore, this proves against Companie’s point about consolidation and media biases that “with so many media outlets today, readers and viewers can get more and better news from more diverse perspectives,” (Companie 99). This is due to the fact that when we try to find opinions similar to Companie‘s, it is much harder to find articles which don’t express the damaging impact of media consolidation, much similar to the one written my McChesney.

Companie, Benjamin. Living in the Information Age - A New Media Reader. 2nd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005. 97-101. Print.

McChesney, Robert W. Living in the Information Age - A New Media Reader. 2nd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005. 92-96. Print.

Intellectual Property

In an age where information is power, nothing becomes more sought after than ownership of intellectual property. Copyrighting, trade marking, and patenting information that was thought to be intangible expressions of creativity and intellect brings up certain issues, both legal and ethical. On the one side of the argument, copyrighting information is a way to protect one’s own ideas from being copied, or being taken as someone else’s. Assuming that the idea or product has cost money in order to be produced and distributed, copyrighting that knowledge or information makes sense, so as to protect the producer’s assets. However, one of the main issues that arises out of the cost of this information is the fact that, in a digital age, copyrighted materials, such as music, do not have nearly the same level of production and distribution costs as they once did. The standard fees for copyrighting and distributing are very heavily based in an archaic mode of production and distribution, and therefore do not have as valid of a position in today’s copyrighting costs. As Charles Mann argues in his article “Who Will own Your Next Good Idea?”: “manufacturing and distribution costs collapse almost to nothing online: zeroes and ones can be shot around the world with a few clicks of the mouse” (Mann 286). The proof of this overpricing is evident in the dollars, as copyrighted materials contribute to almost 400 billion dollars annually, while the cost of piracy and illegal copying is only a deficit of 20 billion dollars (Mann 286,7). The fact that producers are still greatly profiting off of an outmoded protection of assets proves that these laws mainly favor capitalistic endeavors over creative freedom.

This issue of creative freedom is said to be greatly inhibited by limitations of copyrighted materials. In his article, Mann outlines some of the main reasons why information should be free in order to endear creative producers of new content to take and re-configure past information. He quotes poet Northrop Frye by saying that, “Poetry can only be made out of other poems: novels out of other novels” (Mann 290). He notes that many aspects of our current culture rely on the reproduction of others’ work, in a way that both highlights their classical qualities, but also reconfigures them to reflect a changing culture. For example, many popular songs feature clips or “riffs” from older popular music. This idea of remixing music is heavily reliant on previous creations. If we aren’t able to take from the past, of course giving credit where credit is deserved, innovation will suffer. Lawrence Lessig’s article “Free” also touches on this subject of intellectual freedom, and he reveres technology for being the medium on which creativity will thrive: “Technology could enable a whole generation to create—remixed films, new forms of music, a new kind of storytelling, writing, a new technology for poetry, criticism, political activism…” (Lessig 299). While capitalists state that innovation is spurred by the competition created by copyright and ownership, there is an argument to be made that it can actually be hindered by this same process, as many people who wish to create and innovate do not have the financial means to use and share information of the past. Ultimately, if people do not have the means to access intriguing and inspiring information from throughout history, our culture will come to a standstill.
This is the issue that the Creative Commons wishes to solve. Like Lessig, producers involved in the Creative Commons project believe that creativity and digital information cannot be entirely free, as there is always the cost of production, as well as the fact that many creators rely on profit to make a living. However, their belief is that creators of content should exercise their right to display and share their content, within a realm of reason. By setting certain standards of use and rights, creators of new content can now decide how their information is to be used by others, and to what extent. This creation of a ‘common wealth’ of information contributes to the overall richness of cultural content. By creating a ‘best-of-two-worlds’ atmosphere, people will be less likely to settle for less than greatness when it comes to reforming new ideas from the old.

Works Cited
Lessig, Lawrence. “Free.” Living In The Information Age. Ed. Erik P.Bucy. 2nd ed. Belmont: Thompson Learning Inc. 2005. 296-303.

Mann, Charles. “Who Will own Your next Good Idea?” Living In The Information Age. Ed. Erik P.Bucy. 2nd ed. Belmont: Thompson Learning Inc. 2005. 285-291.

Analyzing “Second Life” through the theories of Weinberger

Lauren Charley

Analyzing “Second Life” through the theories of Weinberger

“The internet represents a new world that we are just beginning to inhabit. However, unlike the real world, cyberspace has few rules of behavior and fewer lines of authority,” (Weinberger 42). My experience with Second Life in our Cyber Communications lab was very different to anything that I had really experienced before. Although the avatars and world looked similar to the online Sims game, the fact that I was one character who lived and communicated in a functioning, virtual world was a unique experience. A lot of the characteristics and operations of Second Life related very closely to both the concept of immediacy discussed in lecture, and also to David Weinberger’s article A New World (Small Pieces Loosely Joined).

In the commercial advertising Second Life that we watched in class, the website is advertised as, “A place to connect, a place to shop, a place to work, a place to love, a place to explore. Be different, be yourself. Free your mind, change your mind, change your look, love your love, love your life,”. The second life experience ties in very well with the concept of “immediacy”. Immediacy erases reminders that the media is a representation of what you are experience, and makes the audience feel like they are part of the experience. Second Life advertises itself as a place to “love your life” and creates the illusion that your fantasy life in an online world is your reality. It is necessary for online users to be critical of their online surroundings and make sure that it does not consume too much of their real lives, as sites that portray this immediacy often become very addicting.
Weinberger states that the web is an unnatural world, one we have built for ourselves,” (Weinberger 43).When in second life, it is easy to get caught up in what is happening and the virtual surroundings, and you become immersed in what appears to be reality. This fantasy cyber world is almost like a perfect version of how the users envision a perfect reality to be. When I became frustrated with Second Life and trying to figure out how to get a job, it was overwhelming until I leaned back in my seat and looked at my classmates around me. It was like snapping back into the real world.
In Weinberger’s story of Michael Ian Campbell who sent a girl a cyber threat as a joke threatening to shoot up her school, the idea of the web as a new world means that “new worlds create new people,” (Weinberger 45). Campbell had never been the type who would ever send a threat, even as a joke, but with being so involved in cyberspace, he adopted a new personality. This is similar to Second Life in the way that we can choose who we are and who we want to be. Users can even use their real money to buy space, commodities and clothes in the virtual world that they can’t buy in real life. What I find interesting about Second Life is that you have no idea who is on the other side of the screen. A rich, good looking, entrepreneur in Second Life could be the guy who pumps your gas in real life.
Weinberger also brings up the question of whether being sociable on the web is different from being sociable in real life. He uses the example of .Zannah, a female user with a web-blog who is very mysterious about her identity online, but has many online friends and followers. “Is she being sociable on the web?” (Weinberger 47). One could argue the same about Second Life. Are these relationships that we have with other users in the world real relationships, or are they something else? Is there anything different between someone who lives an extraordinary life in reality, and someone who lives an equally extraordinary life on second life? Different people may have different answers. I personally do not think that virtual worlds like Second Life are real experiences or real relationships, because it is all fake. Your husband on Second Life may have an entirely different ego; but you’ll never know.
As Weinberger quotes, “Just as the opposite of democracy was aristocracy, the opposite of the virtual world of the web is the real world,” (Weinberger 48). I agree with this statement one hundred percent. The real world and the virtual world are two binary oppositions, yet it is very easy to confuse the two when we are so immersed in these types of virtual realities like Second Life. The tougher question is also when we consider social networks like Facebook. Do our conversations and time spent on the website count as experiences? Although Facebook provides a link to a sort of virtual world and the real world, the defining borders of what exactly counts as a virtual reality become very unclear. As users of the web, we need to be very critical of what we are experiencing and to not let it consume our lives. Of course we need to enjoy the web for all the unique ways of digitally communicating that it has given us, but we must not let ourselves fall too victim to immediacy.


Works Cited
Second Life - The Online 3D Virtual World. Dir. Kerria Seabrooke. YouTube. ILL Clan Animation Studio for Linden Lab, 25 Aug. 2009. Web. 30 Jan. 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3gHCupXSMs.

Weinberger, David. "A New World (Small Pieces Loosely Joined)." Living in the Information Age - A New Media Reader. By Erik P. Bucy. Second ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005. 42-49. Print.