Technology can get you in trouble

Easter morning, my dad walked into the choir room at church to a long-faced choir member, Jeff.  He asked Jeff what was wrong, and Jeff told him that his sister's husband, who is Syrian and currently working in Syria as an IT support guy, had not been heard from in three or four days.  That was not like him, for he regularly updated his Facebook and Twitter accounts and Skyped or phone-talked with his wife at least twice per day.

It turns out that the husband had been captured by Syrian officials and imprisoned.  He was brutally beaten but released a few days later.  Apparently his Facebook contained some anti-government sentiments that were neither overlooked nor taken lightly.  He cannot even go to the hospital to mend his bruised/broken ribs for fear of being recapture and further abused.

What I find so interesting about this occurrence is the ability for something like Facebook to act as a double-edged sword.  He was using the medium as an outlet to vent, protest, complain, whatever.  But it turned into a weapon used against him very quickly.

Has anyone encountered something like this?  Obviously not to this extreme, but how has technology both helped and hurt you at any point?

Bert Laden & Over-sensitivity

I once heard that humor is humorous because it is unexpected.  If the punch-line to a joke is the logical ending to the story being told, then no one is going to laugh.  I feel like this is true.  One is not going to laugh if the punch line to a "Your mom is so fat" joke is "she should be concerned about future cardiovascular issues" - unless of course you were expecting an outlandish and offensive ending, in which case this might be found humorous because the listener is caught off guard.

In this day and age of political correctness and bicyclists having their own lane almost as wide as those intended for cars, I feel that people are just too sensitive.  That was my reaction upon reading this article.  Sure, a lot of the world hates America and is looking for any slip up we might make to shower us with negative press.  But does anyone honestly think that a puppet was in cahoots with a terrorist mastermind?

In this convergence culture in which we live, we must pay closer attention to the kinds of communities in which we involve ourselves and the types of people in those communities.  This attention to detail must include things such as the topic at hand as well as the other community members' religion, age, gender, sexuality, nationality, political beliefs, and preconceptions.  When you log on to the world-wide web, distinguishing these details is not as easy as one might think.  Even if you know a person's religion, age, gender, etcetera, that does not mean you necessarily can understand their motivations or beliefs because their frame of mind may be completely different than your own.

The quote from the creators of Sesame Street also concerns me.  I understand that Bert is their intellectual property, but for Ignacio to create the humorous images of Bert merely for entertainment, with no financial desires, it seems quite ludicrous for the producers to threaten with legal action.

What types of misunderstandings have some of you experienced online?  Did these stem from differences in beliefs or upbringing?  How can the framing of something affect its reception by a wider audience?

SNS - How we interact

I think that danah and Boyd's defintion of SNS makes a find distinction but one that is so true and necessary.  Facebook, for instance, I believe started out with the goal of networking in mind.  Though, today, even with all the distant acquaintances that I call "friends" on Facebook, I do not expect them to have any "networking" relationship to me in the future (i.e. for a job).  And I have some sort of pre-existing relationship with all of them outside of the internet world (even if that means we have only met once).

Sites such as LinkedIn and even dating sites were however made with this idea in mind - that forging new relationships will benefit the users in some way.  I am neither a member of LinkedIn nor any dating sites, so I do not know what these sites are doing differently, or if they even are intentionally doing anything differently from Facebook, MySpace, etcetera.

I did actually meet someone in an online setting in high school.  Keep in mind doing so is completely out of the ordinary for me, but the guy turned out to be completely not creepy - he is a first-year pharmacy student at UT's pharmacy school.  I guess you could say we had three degrees of separation, but we had never actually met, until we decided to go to Sonic one night.  After that, he ended up dating my friend for two years.

Now I am curious - what kinds of things do sites do to intentionally (or not, I suppose) act as social network sites versus social networking sites?  Are there any differences other than the ways in which users perceive the site and what they are hoping to get out of participation with the site?  Are the sites themselves doing anything to create or alter these perceptions?

Cybersubculture Report - foursquare

In their article giving the definition and history of social network sites (SNSs), danah boyd and Nicole Ellison differentiate between the terms network and networking, stating that the latter implies “relationship initiation, often between strangers” (boyd).  They argue that this is not the main focus of most SNSs.  Instead, pre-existing relationships are cultivated and nurtured.  A prime example of such a site is foursquare, a community of which I have been a member for some months now.

foursquare was founded in 2009 as a location-based SNS.  The application employs GPS-based devices (i.e. smart phones) to “check in” at various venues and, potentially, allow users to meet up with other users at the same venue or in the area.  There are many perks to using the application, some intangible and some material.  Mayorships, badges, points, and specials have all been incorporated into foursquare, making it not only fun to participate but sometimes beneficial as well.

To use foursquare, members “check in” at venues.  That is, they can either choose their venue from a list, or they can search for their venue in a search bar.  Either way, a GPS signal is enabled to provide near-by venues from which to choose.  After selecting a venue, users can see a Google map of the location, who the mayor is, and who else is currently checked into the venue (whether those people are foursquare friends of theirs or not).  There are two screens to go through before the check-in is complete – the first being the information page described above, the second allowing you to users to personalize their check-in with a comment and/or picture as well as the option to link the check-in to Facebook or Twitter.

After checking in, users are awarded points based on various criteria.  One point is awarded for checking in at a venue you have already been to – three points if you are the Mayor.  Two additional points may be awarded if, for instance, “the Mayor is in the house.”  Three additional points may be awarded if it is one’s first time at a particular venue or at a particular type of venue.  When foursquare’s servers were overloaded a few weeks ago, and I tried checking in but couldn’t, I went back to the application a few hours later to catch up on checking in at all the places I had been that day.  foursquare has a safeguard against this kind of activity: there is a certain radius you cannot exceed to check in to a place (though I was not successful in nailing down a specific distance) and you will be rewarded zero points for that check-in.  Also, foursquare users cannot check in to more than four places in a five minute time period, thus preventing rapid-fire check-ins and building up their points.

All of the points you do earn add up on a “Leaderboard,” which accounts for points earned in the last seven days, down to the second.  So, I could be #1 on the Leaderboard at 9:59:07, and someone could pass me at 9:59:43 because a set of my check-in points no longer count, for instance.  This feature works not to discourage new users, as this is an instance in which they are not at a disadvantage in comparison to foursquare veterans.  There is no reward for being at the top of one’s Leaderboard (which is made up of only your foursquare friends, so everyone’s is, essentially, unique).  It seems to be more about the act of having the #1 spot for the personal satisfaction of it, one reason that the application is so appealing to competitive spirits.

For certain achievements, members can unlock badges – two-inch, two-toned graphics that denote accomplishing certain things.  Examples include checking in at twenty-five different venues (called the “Explorer”), checking in four+ nights in a row (called the “Bender”), and checking in at the same place three times in one week (called the “Local”).  foursquare likes to toy with its users, not revealing the action necessary to earn a badge until the action has taken place and the badge has been earned.  There are a few sites that I have found that list all of the badges and their corresponding achievements for those of us who do not like surprises.

When I checked in at the airport over winter break, I unlocked the “Swarm” badge, denoting that fifty plus people were also checked in at the Orlando International Airport.  I have not since experienced even close to that many foursquare users at any venue, so I seemed to be in the right place at the right time to unlock such a badge.  As with the Leaderboard, earning badges does not earn users any sort of material compensation.  It is, again, for the intrinsic value and the personal satisfaction of earning a badge.

If a member has checked in to a particular venue more days (only one check-in in a twenty-four hour period counts toward a Mayorship) in a sixty day time period than any other foursquare user, that member becomes the Mayor of that venue.  Not only do you get more points as a Mayor upon checking in at a venue, some places (including businesses and restaurants) have incentives for becoming and remaining Mayor of their venue.  For instance, on the 28^th of every month, the University Co-op rewards the Mayor with a $50 gift card to their store!  The only stipulation is that the Mayor comes in and proves his or her Mayorship.  For those venues that do not have mayoral incentives, to be Mayor is still a pat-on-the-back experience at the very least.

Having a lot of friends on foursquare is also a status-builder.  Friendships on foursquare are mutual (as in, you don't "follow" someone who isn't "following" you, as is the case on Twitter).  And it is possible to friend strangers, but that is not the usual practice.  There are implications about privacy when forging a foursquare relationship with people.  Those who you already know are less likely to abuse the knowledge of your check-ins, and therefore your whereabouts, to negative consequences.  This cannot necessarily be said of strangers.

Therefore, in general, foursquare friends are people that you already know in some capacity and have some sort of mutual relationship with.  I, personally, only have about ten friends.  Having more, however, can open up some opportunities to you.  If your friend is the mayor of a particular venue, you get extra points on your check-in.  This can be a double-edged sword for Mayors if their friends are creeping up on their spot on the Leaderboard.  And foursquare is not as widely used as, say, Facebook or Twitter, so the likelihood that your friend has a foursquare account is lesser.

A certain hierarchy has developed through the different versions of the foursquare application due to these sorts of status symbols.  And gaining status is so simple to do that it becomes sort of a competition.  Even without the material incentive that a Mayorship has, users are encouraged to check in frequently, wherever they are, because the higher one’s stats, the more experienced a foursquare user s/he becomes.  This, again, is more about the personal satisfaction of it all, but one must keep in mind that there are others checking in a moving their ways up the Leaderboard.  The air of competition is so thick on this SNS!

Membership is easy and, best of all, free.  Anyone can join the site, though, as previously mentioned, a smart phone is necessary because the application has to be supported, and it is a necessary tool to perform check-ins.  While smart phones are more affordable and more widely accessible than even a couple of years ago, there are still socio-economic or class implications as to who owns a smart phone and, therefore, uses applications such as foursquare.  Also, from my experience, the types of people using the application on a regular basis are going to be outgoing, attention-seeking, and competitive people: outgoing or attention-seeking because they want to advertise their whereabouts to others and competitive because of the hierarchies created by the point system, mayorships, and badges.

For instance, I have a friend on foursquare who rarely checks in – probably once a month at most.  The other week, I got a notification that she had checked in, and I was curious as to see where she emerged.  Her check in was at Seton hospital.  This seemed kind of odd to me.  After thinking about her check-in a little bit longer, I concluded that everyone gets something out of using the application.  And I suppose what she is getting out of it is attention.  There is nothing wrong with that – she wants to advertise that she is at the hospital to get sympathy from fellow users, and she got just that.  Various people commented on her check-in to make sure she was okay.  And she responded by informing people that she “merely twisted” her ankle, but it was “swelling so big” she wanted to get it checked out.  There was more interaction after that one check-in than I have seen my entire time using foursquare.

The foursquare profile starts out very simplistic.  All a user has to provide is a name (though it does not have to be your name), a profile picture (though it does not have to be your picture, and a picture is necessary to be eligible for Mayorships), and the area in which you are active (you cannot really lie about this because, remember, GPS must be enabled for the application to work).

The rest of your profile unfolds as you actively participate with foursquare.  The places at which you check in become part of your profile.  And other statistics are built around your trends.  The online supplement to the foursquare application, foursquare.com, provides users with such stats as “days checked in,” “number of check-ins,” “average check-ins when out,” and “percent of check-ins at new places.”  All of these statistics and the venues at which you check in add something to your profile and say something about you.  For instance, people can infer about how much leisure time you have available to you, if you tend to be adventurous (go to many different venues) or have your routine down pat (go to work, school, and home, for instance).

 People can also develop their profile based on how they want others to see them.  For instance, another one of my foursquare friends checks in at “trendy” places to build people’s impressions of her personality.  Her check-ins tend to be at coffee shops, boutique-style clothing stores (such as Anthropologie), and Mayfield and Pease parks.  She seems to be selective about her check-ins to portray that she is trendy, a little hipster, and very Austin-y.

Businesses are learning to utilize foursquare as well.  Some venues offer specials on various products at various times.  Examples include discounts on tanning lotion at Aruba Tan and free chips and salsa with every check-in at Chili’s.  There is even a German dog food company, GrenataPet, who set up a billboard to dispense a dog treat every time someone checked in at their billboard (Foursquare).

My favorite example of foursquare helping businesses to bring in customers occurred at County Line BBQ.  I had lunch there with my parents and checked in.  A note popped up telling me that after my fifth visit, I would get $5 off my meal.  In the months following, I would eat dinner at County Line periodically, making sure to check in each time.  When my friend could not decide where to have his birthday dinner, I insisted we go to County Line (I had checked in four times at that point).  He complied, and I got a discount on my meal.  Not only that, but we took a party of about twenty people with us, most of whom would not have chosen to eat barbecue for dinner that night.

The language of foursquare is pretty simple – there is a short learning curve to “getting it.”  Most of the language is colloquial, modern, and commonplace (venue, friends.  Even words like "check in" have become common from other sites like Facebook using the same location-based feature).   Users quickly become familiar with the meanings of words (such as mayor) and how the point system (and Leaderboard) works.

My biggest challenge with the literacy of the application came about because I missed an app update for my phone.  The point system was installed after I had begun my participation, and after I had increased my participation for the sake of this report.  I was earning points for my check-ins, but I had no idea why.  After updating the applications on my phone, the Leaderboard feature came up – which turned out to have no real point to it (thought the competitive side of me thoroughly enjoys the feature).

For the most part, foursquare does not have hard-to-understand language, and it is very user-friendly.  The "explore" feature (kind of like a venue roulette) seemed like it would be confusing to use, but the app gives users suggestion that teach them how to use the feature.  For instance, under "nightlife," it will prompt "Try 'margarita'" in the search bar.  Once the user types in margarita, foursquare generates nearby(ish) venues that either advertise their margaritas or have specials for them (during happy hour, for isntance).  So users learn by example, making it very simple.

As far as managing and censoring the site, it is very interactive, adding another facet of “play” for users.  I have not encountered any comments being taken down or reported for vulgar or inappropriate nature.  However, the application gives users the opportunity to “flag” venues.  They can flag them as duplicates, meaning there is more than one foursquare venue set up for merely one actual building or venue.  Sometimes, I think this is an honest mistake and people add a venue by mistake when one is already established.  On other occasions, I have the feeling that people add a venue they frequent with the sole purpose of becoming Mayor of that venue (which is totally cheating!).  Users can flag the address information for a venue as wrong or as the business being closed (for good).  This utilized the theory of collective intelligence that our class discussed throughout the year, and holds users accountable.

I have noticed that foursquare utilized the honor system and is very trusting of its users.  foursquare users must also be trusting of their friends, believing they would not just walk by a Starbucks and check in without actually going inside merely for the points or possible Mayorship.  This also says something about the types of people using the application.  In most cases, users are honest about their check-ins, so they expect their friends to do the same.  People are expected to hold themselves accountable, and I have not run across anyone abusing this liberty.

foursquare is a prime example of an SNS according to boyd and Ellison’s definition.  The goal of the application is not to meet new people, and foursquare users would actually most likely be disinclined to friend strangers because of the privacy issues that could arise.  The interactive nature encourages both newcomers and veteran users to continue participation.  Overall, foursquare is a cyberspace community that is simple to navigate, encourages continued use, and does not consume an exorbitant amount of users’ time (check-ins only take about thirty seconds).  Plus, it is really fun to be at the top of the Leaderboard.  

Works Cited:

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

"Foursquare Check In Activated Dog Treats! | Digital Buzz Blog." Digital Buzz Blog | Digital Campaigns, Online Marketing, Social & More. 28 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/foursquare-check-in-activated-dog-treats/>.

Cybersubculture Report DRAFT

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qlDsp_vUw3ELQ51INVteEXvfDBt5TixvJx_btDv69Q4/edit?hl=en&authkey=CJLTxOcF#

The language of foursquare

Literacy on foursquare is pretty easy - there is a short learning curve.  Most of the language is colloquial, modern, and commonplace (venue, friends.  Even words like "check in" have become common from other sites like Facebook using the same feature).   Users quickly become familiar with the meanings of words such as mayor (the user who has checked in more days in the past sixty days than any other user) and how the point system works.

My biggest challenge with the literacy of the app came about because I missed an app update.  The point system was instated  after I had begun my participation for this project.  I was earning points for my check-ins, but I had no idea why.  After I updated my apps, the leaderboard feature cam up (the way the points are calculated and displayed) - a pointless feature (but fun for the competitive spirit in me).

For the most part, foursquare does not have hard-to-understand language, and it is very user-friendly.  The "explore" feature (kind of like a venue roulette) seemed like it would be confusing to use, but the app gives users suggestion that teach them how to use the feature.  For instance, under "nightlife," it will prompt "Try 'margaritia'" in the search bar.  Once the user types in margarita, foursquare generates nearby(ish) venues that either advertise their margaritas or have specials for them (during happy hour, for isntance).  So users learn by example, making it very simple.

4^2 Hierarchies

What I find so interesting about foursquare is its multiple methods for gaining status within the application.  There are three or four ways that members can be at "the top."  And they are all relatively easy to do.

One way is by having a lot of friends on the application.  Friendships on foursquare are mutual (as in, you don't "follow" someone who isn't "following" you, like is the case on Twitter).  This can open up some opportunities to you.  If your friend is the mayor of a particular venue, you get extra points on your check in (I will explain that later).  Also, I am personally impressed by people who have a lot of friends because I, myself, only have about ten.  And foursquare is not used as widely as, say, Facebook or Twitter, so the likelihood that your friend has a foursquare account is lesser.

Another status symbol of sorts is to be at the top of your friends' leaderboard.  The leaderboard is composed of all of your friends (and your friends only).  You get points for checking in at every location.  For instance, you get one point for checking in somewhere you have been before, two points if the mayor is there when you check in, three points if you are the mayor, if you have checked in at the same venue three or more days in one week, or if it is a venue you have never been to before.  The points are calculated on a rolling seven-day expiration, down to the minutes.  That means, if I checked in and got five points exactly one week ago, I will have five fewer points one at the same time this week.  Being number one on your friends' leaderboard does not really mean anything, it is just a pat-on-the-back worthy experience.

Mayorships are also impressive feats within the foursquare community.  Holding the title of mayor shows that a user has checked in at a single venue more days in the past sixty days than anyone else.  Some places have incentives for visiting and becoming the mayor.  The Co-op, for instance, rewards a $50 gift card to the mayor on the 28th of every month.  The only thing the mayor has to remember is to visit the Co-op on the 28th to show proof of the fact, which will pop up upon checking in.  At those places that do not have mayoral perks, it is another pat-on-the-back experience.

Why is competition such a driving force in our society?  Especially the kind with no driving force or end in sight?  It is merely competition for the sake of competition.  Has anyone encountered this kind of competition on their sites?  What implications does this have about our society?

The New Digital Divide

Catching up on my blogging:

The old digital divide was, of course, between affluent people who could afford the new technologies of personal/home computer and the internet and the ability and knowledge to actually use such technologies.  Of course when technologies are brand new they are going to be more expensive and less-widely accessible.  Now that this is not the case (anyone can buy a desktop computer for less than $200 and there are wi-fi hot spots everywhere), the divide has shifted.  People have the opportunity to be exposed to all sorts of information that they would not have easy access to even five years ago.  You can know what is happening in Egypt and Japan from the comfort of your living room.  People can explore different points of view and try to understand different opinions.  However, because of the technologies of such companies as Google, people are being fed information tailor-made specifically for them.

Based on search trends, Google produces sites that would seem pleasing to the user.  Other than the total creep factor, that Google software is essentially spying on our every Google move, some may argue that this type of filtering is hurting democracy.  People are not talking with each other.  Republicans are becoming more staunchly republican, and Democrats are entrenched in their ideals more than ever.  Of course, it is only natural to gravitate toward like-minded people as oneself.  Just like in high school, your clique or niche (online or offline) is going to be made up of the same type of people as you (same general socio-economic class, similar interests/hobbies, etc.).  So why would online politics be any different?  I have no idea.  And it is not just online either.  There are partisan television and radio shows as well.

If the discourse is not taking place in the chat rooms, where is it taking place?  I really don't think it is.  People feel uncomfortable talking about politics with those who are not like-minded.  They feel vulnerable and unsafe.  So they are more likely to stick with people they know won't shake their political foundation to the core.  Shows like Crossfire (though no longer on air) do very little to fix the issue.  If people are talking, it is most likely behind closed doors, one on one - an earnest discussion to discover their true political beliefs.  But I do think this is probably rare.  People don't want to question their beliefs.  It is too scary to take the Cartesian route and question everything.  So often times people do the exact opposite and question nothing.

Summary/Response #3: ExistenZ

The movie ExistenZ begins with a group of avid gamers gathering to test the new creation of game designer Allegra Geller.  The console is a flesh-colored blob that we later find out is made of animal parts and synthetic DNA, and its movements are like heartbeats.  To play the game, you must have a bio-port surgically implanted in your spine at the small of your back.  Allegra says that getting a bio-port is like “getting your ears pierced;” it is so common.  A man comes in while the group is plugged in to the game and shoots Allegra with a gun made from flesh and bone and teeth that act as bullets: “Death to the deamoness Allegra Geller,” he says.  We find out he is a realist, someone who hates video games and thinks they are a danger to humanity and to reality.  To escape the danger, Allegra is carried away by Ted Pikul, a marketing trainee who must now act as bodyguard.  They must plug into her console to ensure it was not damaged when the game was disrupted by the shooting.  Ted does not have a bio-port, however, fearing surgical modification of his body.  They find a gas station that will implant a bio-port in Ted only to find out that the gas station owner, Gas, wants to kill Allegra for a large bounty put on her head by a group of realists.  Ted kills Gas, and the two escape, though Ted’s new bio-port was intentionally infected by Gas.  Allegra is still worried about her console.  Ted’s bio-port is mended by a friend of Allegra’s, and they finally plug in.  Ted claims: “I feel just like me” inside the game.  The characters are constantly impressed by how real everything feels within the virtual world.  They arrive in a video game shop and get portable consoles to plug in further.  They are now two virtual worlds away from reality.  After pausing the game, Ted says his real life “feels completely unreal” and he is not sure “real life” is real at all.  So they plug back in and Ted notes that “freewill is not really a factor in this little world” to which Allegra replies, “just enough to make it interesting.”  Allegra then tries to plug in yet again, but the port is bad, and she gets very sick.  Ted brings her out of the game, but the couple is being shot at.  The last scene reveals characters taking off gaming headgear, revealing that the movie commenced inside a virtual reality.  They were no less than one step from reality for the entire movie.  The story closes with one of the gamers saying, “Tell me the truth, are we still in the game,” a question that persists and can never truly be answered.

The movie spends a lot of time focusing on the fusion of technology with flesh.  A prime example is Allegra’s gaming console at the beginning.  Not only does it look like it could be an enlarged human fetus, its movements are like heartbeats, and Allegra treats it like her child.  Another exhibit of this is the concept of the bio-port – you must literally let the game enter your body, though Allegra writes off that vulnerability by comparing the opening to a mouth.  Ted not having a bio-port at the beginning of the movie shows that he is less receptive to the new technology and hints at his realist leanings.  The gun also comes up multiple times in the film.  Advanced technology is used to build it, but the gun is made from flesh, bone, and teeth.  Allegra says in the movie, “there is some sort of bleed between game-life and real-life.”  This is the main point of displaying the dichotomy of flesh and technology.  When gamers are so immersed in their games that the line is blurred between virtual and actual realities, it can present a real problem.  This is especially apparent when the game must literally be allowed inside your body.  The cord that plugs into the bio-port looks like an umbilical cord, and the body provides the energy for the gaming console.  It is as though people are opting to replace their own human experiences, like have children perhaps, with virtual ones – like being shot at in virtual reality is better than anything that could happen in actual reality.  Although technology is a part of our reality in current times and cannot be separated from it, the movie warns us to constantly be skeptical and wary of the technologies and very aware of how they affect and play into our lives.

AR

We live in a society in which ever-changing technologies are almost necessary, for people get bored with the current ones in the blink of an eye.  Some of the aspects of augmented reality are kind of cool, but others just seem to encourage laziness on the part of the consumer.
For instance, it would be nice to point your phone at a building to see what shops or restaurants are held within, for such an act is only slightly quicker than searching your location on Google then finding nearby venues.  The same goes for real estate.  What an idea to find a building in which you want to live, and instantly know if that dream is even possible, without having to look through the classifieds or Apartment Finder magazine or contacting a realtor.
On the other hand, how difficult is it really to go to the post office and find the box that fits your package before shipping?  Not difficult at all.  Besides, you have to physically go to the post office anyway, so why bother spending the time downloading the app, situating your package in front of a camera, and waiting for it to process the image and its dimensions before spitting back the size of the box (no matter how "instantaneous" the creators say the app is)?
Creepy was exactly the word I thought of about half-way through this piece.  That, and "big brother."  One "might learn just where in a foreign ministry building a potential source's office is."  No matter how simple it is to locate someone's address or whereabouts on the internet, it does not need to be made easier by creating an app that will access just that information with minimal effort, especially in such an increasingly volatile world.  This merely seems to me to be a way of making journalists' jobs easier.  But the digging and getting your hands dirty has always been a part of the job.  So that when you uncover something really juicy, you can break the story and get both the recognition and personal satisfaction from the hard work.
I suppose overall, some of the stuff seems neat and useful, but most of it seems novelty and unnecessary.  While it won't necessarily narrow people's experiences, it will change them in a way that does not seem for the better.

Neuromancer part II

One prevalent theme in the story of Neuromancer is Gibson's playing with the idea of humanity.  He has some very interesting commentary on what it means to be human.  More often than not, though, he raises more questions than he answers.  One example is Case.  From the outside, he looks like a normal human, but once we learn more about his character, we find out that he has been greatly influenced by technology.  Both the mycotoxins that originally damaged him and the surgery to reverse the damage are technological alterations.  And it only gets more robotic, mechanical, and computerized from there.  For instance, Molly has the blade implants under her fingernails; even Ratz has a prosthetic arm.
From there, the idea of "human" becomes more skewed and blurry.  For instance, Dixie's ideas, knowledge, and memory are preserved in a ROM.  But he is unable to feel, create new memories, or gain any knowledge.  He is only able to organize and reorganize what he already knows.  Is he human?  His body is dead, but the memory of him carries on.  Further, he begs Case to destroy his ROM so he can, essentially, stop being trapped in a memory.  Therefore, he is able to feel.  It seems as though that is a truly human emotion, even if he is only a computerized shadow of himself.
Another human-bending concept is the idea of Wintermute and Neuromancer.  Both RAMs (random access memory), the two entities can create new ideas and memories themselves with the vast database they to which they have access.  This is very similar to the act of human thinking, though they do not have human bodies.
Further, the idea that Dixie and Case "flat-lined" (meaning their hearts stopped and they were dead) and then came back to life shows that humanity can come in different forms.  While Dixie is dead but preserved in a ROM (does that mean he's really dead?), Case is very much alive through the end of the story.  Is he less alive because he has once died?

S/R 2: William Gibson's Neuromancer

In Neuromancer, Gibson shows us the world of the matrix and how the advancing of technology is a dangerous game.  The main character, Case, is a former computer hacker, a cyberspace cowboy, who angered the wrong people and had his nervous system damaged by mycotoxins.  He is now unable to “jack in,” the term for logging into the matrix (37).  He resorts to making deals on the black market.  Meeting Molly, however, changes that.  She tells Case that her boss (Armitage) wants to fix his nervous system in order for him to complete a job within the matrix.  Though neither knows what his job will be.  Armitage, former Colonel Corto, informs Case that sacs of mycotoxins have been put in his body and will be removed upon timely completion of his tasks.  First, Case and Molly must steal the ROM (read-only memory) of his former mentor, Dixie Flatline.  Flatline is tired of being preserved in non-expanding memory and asks to be erased as soon as possible.  After traveling from Japan to the United States (the Sprawl), the team enters Istanbul to recruit a “certified psychopath name of Peter Riviera,” a drug addict who can create hallucinations with the use of implants in his brain (51).  We find out that Wintermute “is only a part of another, a, shall we say, potential entity,” that is, Neuromancer (120).  It was Wintermute who convinced Armitage of his alternate personality.  Riviera turns on Case and Molly in the matrix, trying to kill Case, but is run off by the bodyguard of 3Jane, the owner of the technology that is Wintermute and Neuromancer.  Something is built into Wintermute, “the compulsion that had driven the thing… to unite with" Neuromancer (269).  3Jane gives up the password to unite the two, creating a greater, stronger, smarter entity.  After having the mycotoxin bags removed from his bloodstream, Case destroys Flatline’s ROM (per his request).  Case talks to Neuromancer, who has found another AI like himself in another solar system with whom he can communicate.  Case finds a new home, new work, and a new girlfriend but never forgets his adventure or Neuromancer.

William Gibson spends much of the novel playing with the idea of humanity.  He forces us to look at the characters and ask ourselves what makes someone or something human.  There are countless examples of how answering such a conundrum is nearly impossible.  For instance, is Case truly human, inside or outside of the matrix?  Inside the matrix, he is mentally experiencing things, but he is physically in a lab or private room hooked up to trodes and a computer.  Outside the matrix, he, as well as Molly, Riviera, and even Ratz, have as a part of their anatomy some sort of technological advancement.  Does this fact mean that they are robots rather than humans?  Then, we are introduced to the concept of Dixie Flatline, whose memory is preserved in a ROM.  He is incapable of forming new thoughts or memories; he must rely on the information he had when he died in order to communicate with other characters.  Is he really dead? Is he still human?  He has the ability to request to be destroyed, to be able to move on, into the afterlife, seemingly.  That is a very human characteristic, to will, to desire.  The concept of the cloning that the Tessier-Ashpools have achieved also questions what it means to be human.  3Jane can think, feel, act; but she is the third clone of Marie-France.  She does not have a mother who bore her, but she has genes, thoughts, and a company to run.  Lastly, Gibson questions the humanity of such people as Wintermute and Neuromancer.  These personalities are not derivatives of actual humans, nor do they have tangible human bodies.  Case must be continually reminded that these personalities are “its” not “hes.”  This exemplifies Gibson’s opinion about what it means to be human.  In this world of technology a distinct line must be drawn between Molly and Case, actual humans, and the projection or memory of humans (such as Wintermute and Dixie).

Neuromancer

Gibson does quite a job of using adjectives that relate to technology rather than nature.  This is very fitting for a book about cyberspace and matrices.  I notice this at the very beginning of the story.  Gibson's opening line is "the sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel" (1).  The use of this image rather than saying it was foggy, drab, or grey, shows Case's jaded opinion about technology and the real world.  At another point, the narrator describes a suit as being the color of gun-metal.  I thought to myself that he could have just as easily called it a suit of charcoal, one of the most fundamentally natural and earthy things.  Even when talking about Molly, Gibson always refers to her burgundy nails, which "looked artificial," alluding to the technology of acrylics (24).  It is as though her nails amaze or enthrall Case in some way.  The mere mention of nature, as in chapter six, is immediately followed up by an unnaturalness: "dead grass tuft[ed] the cracks in a canted slab of freeway concrete" (85).  This image argues for the superiority of advancement, development, and technology over the natural world.  Another thing that the story does is truly date technologies and support how quickly new technologies can become old technologies.  For instance, when discussing Ratz prosthetic arm, it was described as antique and cased in ruddy pink plastic (4).  But at one time, such a prosthesis was the best there was or all that was available.

Cybersubculture Comparison

I really enjoyed doing this paper.  It was fun immersing myself in two worlds that I never necessarily would have been involved in otherwise.  My biggest problem getting a sound idea of the two sites was my socializing skills.  My friends do not use MySpace anymore, having replaced it with Facebook many years ago.  And I am a textbook introvert, so I was unlikely to befriend new cyber-pals just for the heck of it.  (I, in fact, did not befriends new cyber-pals just for the heck of it.)  Long story short, my descriptions of the social aspect of MySpace were more from personal experience and my memory of actively using the site three+ years ago.  From what I can tell, though, the main features are unchanged.  Likewise, with foursquare, I have only been able to acquire a handful (six to be exact) of friends with whom to socialize.  I'm using the term socialize loosely here, as I do not really see the merit in foursquare being called a social networking system/site.  It seems as though the creators made it purposefully difficult to communicate over the foursquare waves.

My favorite aspect of the project was learning the technical things that made the paper so interesting.  I never knew about text-wrapping, inserting hyperlinks to pictures, or creating thumbnails before formatting my paper.  Adding the visuals was fun and helped make my paper's points better.

I was disappointed, though, that when I uploaded my paper to GoogleDocs it broke my hyperlinks and would not let me reestablish them, even though the images I wanted to link were in my GoogleDocs folder.  Does anyone know why this happened or have a solution?

Hermeneutics

Pierre Lévy’s dream of an achievable utopia seems more and more out of reach the more we read commentary on the subject.  Like with the Bert Laden episode, there will be people on either side of any debate.  On the one hand, people take it for what it is, a comedic attempt by a guy with PhotoShop and too much time on his hands.  On the other, though, there are the people who are highly offended by the image.  The problem with our convergence culture, now, is the fact that the people who are insulted and offended by an image such as this one have full and easy access to it.  Staunch conservatives and extreme liberals find themselves in the same communities, which can create a very volatile space.

My argument, then, is that, just as with TV, we are able to edit and refine what we watch, surf, and explore to fit our beliefs.  So, why aren’t people doing that?  If seeing a cut-out of a beloved children’s character next to a terrorist who is unidentifiable to most small children is so awful, change the channel, go to a different website, visit a different forum.

Further, I appreciate Mark Poster’s defense that cultures who find other cultures blatantly insulting are, in most cases, merely ignorant of the latter’s motivation.  True, in some cases, individuals are trying to make a point against another (the only thing that comes to mind is actually intracultural: Natalie Maines’ insult of George Bush’s being from Texas, given his involvement in the Iraq War).  In many cases, however, misunderstandings stem from the fact that a cultural or religious difference cannot be placed in a single cognitive compartment in our brains.  Sometimes things just do not make sense, and it is possible they never will.

How can different frames of reference affect communication?  Can you say someone's interpretation of something you say, do, or blog is wrong?  Merely because their interpretation differs from or clashes with your own?

S/R 1: Jenkins' Convergence Culture

Henry Jenkins has two main focuses in his book  Collective Culture– collective intelligence and its relationship with and pathway to an achievable utopia and the relationship between capitalism and commodification and trans-media marketing. For the first, he relies on an example with the TV show Survivor, which was the first major series that people tried to spoil. The fact that not everyone could know everything invoked the need for the collective intelligence that was found in spoiler blogs and chat rooms. “A collective intelligence… assumes that each person has something to contribute” and “people work together, put their heads together” to discover something that no single person could know by himself (53). Author Pierre Lévy believes that this continued conversing and sharing of information will result in an “’achievable utopia’… when the sharing of knowledge and the exercise of grassroots power become normative” (246). The evidence for Jenkins’ other main focus comes from such brands as Harry Potter, The Matrix, and American Idol, as well as in political campaigns. Jenkins says the success of Harry Potter came from its use of various media – literature, film, toys, and merchandise; but the brand is also making it possible for people to fully participate in convergence culture by pooling knowledge with others, sharing and comparing value systems, and circulating what is created via the internet (185). Political campaigns also take advantage of trans-media marketing. Before the “Dean Scream” went viral, Howard Dean used new media (namely the internet) in ways never used before the 2004 Presidential campaign season, which was important, Jenkins says, because he got young voters excited. Both The Matrix and American Idol linked trans-media marketing to capitalism and commodification. According to Jenkins, the Wachowskis “integrat[ed] multiple texts to create a narrative so large that it cannot be contained within a single medium” (97). Fans had to play the video games, talk with their friends, and read blogs or they would miss much of the point.  Jenkins also gives various examples of how the “layers upon layers of references… may require you to move through the film frame by frame on your DVD player” (100-101). American Idol did the same thing with brand recognition. Many times, viewers would have to text votes in on their AT&T phones; otherwise their vote would not go through.

The most prominent aspect that Jenkins discusses is his concept of collective intelligence. Each chapter has its own interpretation of what the collective intelligence means for convergence culture and how it plays in to each medium. For instance, in the chapter “Spoiling Survivor,” Jenkins quotes Lévy: “’No one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity’” (26-27). However, Lévy believes that eventually this collective knowledge will result in an autonomous culture. Neither Jenkins nor I truly believe that. There are people that will argue merely to argue. And there are people so entrenched in their beliefs that no amount of collective intelligence will yield a consensus. Another example comes from Keanu Reeves telling TV Guide: “’What audiences make of Revolutions will depend on the amount of energy they put into it’” (97). And Jenkins interprets that “viewers get even more out of the experience if they compare notes and share resources than if they try to go it alone” (97). Jenkins further stresses the importance of collective intelligence in regards to such stories as The Matrix, stating that “’Joe Popcorn’ can pool his knowledge with other fans and build a collective concordance on the internet” because although the film is difficult to just get, “the emergence of knowledge cultures made it possible for the community as a whole to dig deeper into this bottomless text. Harry Potter also provides a good example of collective intelligence. When discussing the fanfic sites, Jenkins introduces the beta-reading, which not only improves children’s writing skills, it also takes unnecessary focus away from “what can be counted on a standardized test,” which, I feel is not the best way to gauge a child’s intelligence nor scholastic success.  An example from class is the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.  People fear that, because people can post whatever they like, it will be unreliable.  However, because so many people post to the site, it is a sort of self-correcting machine. The collective intelligence of the millions of users weeds out the fallacies and leaves almost as much accuracy as Encyclopedia-Britannica.  Now that is collective intelligence at work.