Facebook: An Expanding Frontier

Mark Zurkerburg believes facebook is a new frontier of sharing ourselves with others in a more honest and open way. He views it as a gift that helps us not only reconnect with ourselves in way, but with others. Facebook, unlike myspace and other social networking sites, is homey and open. It’s openness not only makes a person able to fully show themselves, i.e. favorite musicians, movies, books, etc. but also connects those interests to other people, groups, and finding those tiny similarities between our friends.

    

A more specific thing that facebook offers is helping people find their way. This could be metaphorical and literal. Kari Tridle is an adopted teen that has been searching for her mother ever since she could remember. With no results yielding with her own personal facebook results, she created a facebook group to have her friends and their friends and then their friends to help her in her search. With the help of Shelly Rodenbaugh of Alaska, Kari was able to get into contact with her biological mother and finally meet her.

Another wonderful thing that facebook has created to bring people together was the ability for groups of people to come together for a cause that related them all together. Towards the end of the Bush Administration, 17 groups of youth run facebook groups who were antiterrorism, freedom fighters were brought together at Colombia University to exchange ideas and be fueled with the strength of knowing that their cause was heard and there are many other groups out there just like them fighting for human rights. James Glassman stated, “This is a digital democracy…” Glassman was moved by the students for being political activists by not only being open with their opinions and beliefs, but being open with those ideals attached to their real names.

The Obama Presidential Campaign was another political group who utilized facebook as a means to reach the masses, including the young democratic and the uninterested in voting demographic. CNBC’s program, The Facebook Obsession, shows how Barrack Obama was first hesitant about using the free social media site for his campaigning. It wasn’t till there was a facebook event created for his campaign with a list of 200 RSVP guests he soon realized enter the events venue greeted by more than 500 students chanting for his win.

There is a descent from all the greatness facebook offers though, there always is. June Talvitie-Siple is one of the many who have been fired over a post made on facebook. When facebook switched its privacy settings in 2010, people on facebook found themselves accessible to be viewed by strangers and unwelcomed viewers. June basically stated that her status that went along the lines of stating, “I'm so not looking forward to another year at Cohasset Schools…” She understood why she was and said she would’ve done the same thing if put into that situation as school superintendent.

Facebook is a wonderful tool that helps spread the word about people’s different ideals and connect long lost relatives. But once again, there is a loophole, and like karma, you know the saying.

Sources: CNBC show The Facebook Obsession and The Facebook Effect Kirkpatrick, D. 2010

Open to unopenness, creative and codeful

There is a faint line drawn when it comes to what is accepted and not accepted within “private” platforms. I have never thought of this conundrum when I used the downloaded apps on my iPad or the other ones I downloaded onto my laptop, which also happens to be an apple product. It never occurred to me that the apps I use on my personal facebook account had to go through rigorous test in order to see if it was acceptable and then have a written out agreement between facebook and the app creator stating at anytime they wish facebook could terminate the app. In a way it does make sense. These different platforms are looking at the integrity of the product being marketed to them and how it’ll affect the user. So does a closed platform with limited freedom make sense? It makes me wonder, “Why is it so bad to be open? Why is being closed better?” This is something that I personally will have to understand, as well as my fiancé, in hopes of creating apps in our future careers.

Through out Lawerence Lessig’s Open Culture talk I listened intently to both sides of the argument. I’ve concluded that I’m on the closed side. I feel like we live in time were we’re so connected to our technology there has to be a barrier between them and us. Them are the companies or individuals creating apps that we may think are fun but are nefarious and try to obtain our private information and us is of course us, trying to find apps or programs to fill the empty slots in our days.

           

Here is how it breaks down with the level and evolution of openness over the past 2 decades with platforms and programs:

1.     Stage 1: Microsoft built a dominant proprietary platform. It was originally open but then the closed the platforms ability to be changed with code. Another thing that they had done was messing with their own personal product, such as Netscape, and making it unusable to those who didn’t have their platform. This of course led to a federal lawsuit against Microsoft. In a way, they were becoming a monopoly and that of course is illegal in our nation. They were found guilty

2.     Stage 2: There was a return to open platforms because that was the cool, freedom lover way. The internet started to have open platforms ergo no control. The internet was a new creation out there on the market for a couple of years but with it being now open it was producing 2^nd rate technology. Also, Google was created and gave users a better way to search the internet. Instead of giving them results of the company who paid the most money to be the first result, either relative or not, they instead gave the best link first. The idea was to get the user what they needed quickly so when they came in, they came out just as fast. There was still that nagging thought though, if controllable there might be less innovation (less trust) but if it’s controlled, there will be more information (it will be trusted.)

3.     Stage 3: This is when there were the two; controlled/uncontrolled platforms. Twitter, facebook, iPad, and many others control what is built on top of their platform, as the should to ensure their users that there platforms are safe. The live by a code of ethics and core values. This safety doesn’t guarantee freedom though. If you create a app it has to go by the rules and regulations of what that platform decides. So in way, it would be hard to build a cross-platform app. Facebook for example will take your program off their server just because they deem it as something that interferes with their platform. Another example of a platform being “picky” is the apple iPad. They have the control to say what goes on their platform and you cannot download programs that are not authorized to be on their platform. Lawerence gave a great example of an app called MyFrame. It was a simple app that allowed you to pick your own apple iPad background with different layouts of the time, weather, and other information placement. Steve Jobs would later take off the capabilities of this app to be used on all iPads. The reason being was it interfered with the platform by altering it with code that was created by apple so it was terminated.

Now I know I gave you a lot of information to soak in, but it’s worth your while knowing what goes on behind the making of the platforms and apps. You may be thinking to yourself, “What is the big deal with having an open platform? Obviously it isn’t doing harm to anyone and you don’t have to buy the app if you don’t want it.” Here is the problem with an open platform. When an app is created by someone who isn’t necessarily tech savvy, a whole mess of terrible things may occur. Your technology may become corrupt. You may have hackers by-passing the programs security because it wasn’t put together correctly to have tough firewalls, etc. You’re device itself may become corrupt and the internal parts become ruined. It may seem like facebook or apple are jerks for taking off apps whenever they want to but in eerie, big brother idea they are protecting our information and that IS good. So,, yea you  don’t have to buy the app because you don’t want it, but there is someone out there who might who in the end may get a corrupt program or be hacked.

I’m convinced that a closed platform is better than an open one. If I know an app or program is certified by apple I feel safe knowing I’m buying something that won’t steal my private information. I don’t know how stringent facebook is with their apps, but at least I’m safe with apple for the time being.

We’re also moving into a day and age where openness can also mean sharing one’s personal thoughts about the current news, conspiracy theories, etc. Here is an openness that I’m somewhat weary of. The fact being is as an art student I’m always competing with people out in the world who think they are artists and post, I hate to say, bad work. It gives all of us art majors a bad reputation and I take it personally when people think all artists in our time are creating crappy work or all we know how to use is photoshop to make things “pretty”. Can you imagine the horror I feel when I hear someone say Art majors have it easy!? I also have a personal guff with the capabilities of flicker letting people upload their photoshop ‘masterpieces.’ I read two articles recently, both by C. Shirky, and they discussed all the possibilities of publishing one’s self out into the internet world. A statement that they had made in one of their articles completely enthralled me because it was exactly what I felt for art the way they feel about the written word.

 “…As with the printing press, the loss of profession control will be bad for many of society’s core institutions, but its happening anyways…the printing press broke more things than it fixed…the written word has no special value in and or itself.” (Shirky  pg. 73)

So, what is a perfect world to me considering we have a majority of closed platform and the openness for people to publish their bad art work? Theres a time and a place for every thing I suppose in this reality. But for me, I dream of artist websites and platforms that are not only are safe have a certification that’s visiably seen to let me know, “Come on in, we won’t give you a virus!” The best thing for you and I, whoever you are who believes in the same things I do, be honest with your friends about their photoshop “artwork” and to not be offended if they create an app that is quickly terminated. There is a rhyme and reason to all and if they are adamant about creating these original products they will learn from their mistakes via our honesty.

Resources:

Open Culture – Lawerence Lessigs

http://lessig.blip.tv/file/3730123/

Shirky, C. (2008). Everyone’s a Media Outlet 55-80, Fitting our Tools to a Small World 212-232, From Sharing to Cooperation To Collective Action 46-54. New York: Penguin Group.

Vitural Reality. For real?

Do we really know who are facebook friends are, our myspace friends, or any other social network friends? When we follow blogs and interact with the authors, what type of human interaction do we really get from that experience? How addicted are we to this new reality, the metaverse? In Asia, facebook is trying to figure out how to make its site more user friendly for the Asian demographic. Many of the users use alias so that they won’t have to reveal themselves completely.

In an article posted by Matthew Gilbert on noetic.org, he had an excerpt from a report that stated:

“Most importantly for each of us, at this pivotal moment in human history, there are unique opportunities for enlightened corporate, political, and social leadership in Metaverse exploration and development.”

How far do we really want to submerge not only ourselves into the metaverse as individuals, but also our future jobs? Philip Rosedale would say completely. Rosedale is the creator of Second Life. Second Life is an online community were people can either create themselves honestly and openly, or create their fantasy selves. Rosedale doesn’t want you to think Second Life is a game, but as new reality of interacting with people across the world. When Second Life first came along many advertisers and companies tried to break in to the reality commerce to beef up revenue for themselves, but that plan busted. There are some things that I assume will never work in the metaverse.

Second Life is an immersive 3D universe. Many companies are now turning to Second Life to conduct meetings and meet new clients across the globe. IBM is one of those companies. The pros of working in this new virtual reality format are the cut in costs of travel, food, etc. But where is the line crossed with this tool? There isn’t any human connection that is getting made, a connection that not only bonds a deal with more sentiment but also a life experience unjustly ‘stolen’ in my opinion. One of the downfalls of the use of Second Life for IBM is there office campus is completely deserted. A campus that use to have thousands of workers coming in to work is almost empty.

Does this new reality making being alone more bearable, “We’re all out there on the internet alone. Or are we out there on the internet alone together?”

Jeremy Bailenson is currently conducting tests to see how the human mind reacts to the physical interaction of being in a virtual reality setting and how it can physically make people feel hunger, being full, confidence, etc. One experiment he conducted involved children at the young ages of 2-3 being placed within a virtual reality setting swimming with killer whales. The children later in life would believe that they had these life experiences of swimming with these whales. Bailenson concluded that many children associated the virtual realm as our physical reality when asked about those experiences.

Another advancement in the virtual reality is treating soldiers who have PTSD from the Middle East War. Psychologists have been amazed on how they watch their patients who are soldiers interacting with scenarios that show what they’re going through physically and emotionally at their most stressed moment. The army uses virtual reality as a tool for pilots that fly drones in the Middle East from the safety of our soil as well. To ensure that the pilots realize that they are still fighting a war they are made to dress in their uniforms to be in the mindset mentally and physically. It has had a huge cut back at the loss of American lives. The only con to this virtual reality tool is the feeling of detachment to the place, the constant need to think in “theater,” and the pilots are still getting diagnoses of PTSD.

A feel like this advancement on technology can be very useful with the treatment of soldiers with PTSD, connecting with a loved one that’s far away, and getting the chance to meet someone new in the comfort of your home. But where does this advancement stop? It seems the more we become connected to these virtual reality devices in our every day the more inhuman we become. This is what it all boils down to for me; we’re trying to create these human connections in an inhuman environment.

Online:

http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/technology/internet/when-virtual-reality-becomes-real-1.1023513

After effects of the interent on our minds

I never once thought about what the internet has done to my everyday thinking. And I never once thought when I was a kid how much the internet would be such a huge part of my life in the future. I decided to conduct my own little experiment and log how many times I accessed the internet. I was amazed to find out that I get onto my computer the majority of my time during the day.  Here’s an example of what I did on my day off last week:

Monday January 17, 2011

8:20 – Wake up and check my email, facebook, news, “stumble upon”, etc.

9:00 – Been on the interent for the past 40 minutes

9:20 – Drafting emails to professors, The PEEL, checking submissions

9:30 – Take a break to make breakfast, leave computer on with music playing

9:40 – Computer is still open to the browser, scroll through it while eating breakfast, watching tv, making a to do list

10 – 3 - Been on the computer the majority of the day, looking at wedding planning ideas, checking my email obsessively, working on graphic design homework, recipes, mostly “stumbling upon” websites

For the rest of the day it was the same. I took time to do some Pilates mat work and cleaned my apartment some, but I was still connected to the internet and technology by sending text messages, playing music and movies on my laptop, checking my emails, etc.

What scares me the most about being on the internet for so long everyday is I not only limit my activities outside in nature, but I’ve become less personal. We all pretend everyday that we’re interacting with our friends and family but in reality, we’re interacting with our computer screens and keyboard. We’ve become a society of the impersonal.

Here is an example of my own experience of living in the impersonal society that we have today. My fiancé and I live together. When we were moving into our apartment we were under the assumption that we would have more time together, but as it turns out the further that we got into our degrees the more time we spent separated from each other and becoming more attached to our computers. It’s still the same even now. We both have degrees that require large amounts of time on the computer, me being in the graphic design program and him getting is graduate degree in computer science.  Jugglers Brain states it perfectly, “What you see is a mind consumed with a medium. When we’re online, we’re often oblivious to everything else going on around us. The real world recedes as we process the flood of symbols and stimuli coming through our devices (Juggler 118.)” Every night Sage and I find ourselves pulling away from the computer and soon realizing that 5 hours have just flown by and we haven’t sat down to eat dinner together or have even spoken more than 2 sentences.

Never being someone who enjoyed multi-tasking, I know that if I don’t concentrate on one project it’ll take me more time to complete it. In a recent PBS documentary that I’ve watched it had a statement that is still echoing in my ears, “Multi-tasking could be called ‘dumbing down.’” For me, as soon as I heard that, I stopped going back in forth listening to the video, checking my email, and reading the news. I realized that not only am I not taking in all this information about how the internet has changed us into thinking we are multi-taskers but how it has also limited our attention span. It also affects us thinking deeply and creatively (Juggler 119.)

I can at least say our brains are amazing by being able to adapt and create new pathways for our thoughts. Neuroplasticity is constantly in action according to the article Vital Paths. Through all the experiences that our minds go through and interact with we have developed pathways to create these newly learned experiences easier to understand. We are constantly changing the way we live, changing not only our paradigms according to whatever we interact with but also our though our processes and rationale. Another way neuroplasticity works is not having to interact with something new but thinking about the process of doing it works just the same. In Vital Paths it talks about an experiment that was created by Pascual-Leone.  The experiment was to have participants learn a simple melody that he showed them on a piano and one group would practice 2 hours a day practicing on the piano, while the others would sit in front of the piano and imagine how they would play the melody. Pasual-Leone discovered that the participants who imagined playing the song developed the same changes in their brains just like the participants who physically practiced (Vital 33.) Not only can neuroplasticity offer new pathways that can be optimal but that can also be very negative. An example could include OCD and depression (Vital 35.)

Even the New York Times is recognizing what’s happening to our society today with all this easy access to the internet and technology evolving.  They followed the Campbell family, the father being a computer programmer of sorts and the wife being a homemaker, bookkeeper, and local school librarian part-time. Everyone in the nuclear family had an “obsession” with technology. Mr. Campbell, being a very busy computer programmer, multi-tasks his everyday. He faces many consequences of accidently missing emails a week or even a month late and spending most of his time on family trips or his second honeymoon on a computer. Mrs. Campbell said she messed up 2 batches of cookies because she was distracted by the telephone and facebook. Her son, also an avid user of the internet, started getting C’s as a result of using the internet instead of focusing on his studies. Here we have a very modern day family realizing the challenges of raising a family in the digital age (NYTIMES.com).

The closer that we get to new technologies and gaming capabilities, the closer we are to creating a society that becomes socially awkward. Its now in my opinion and belief that we are doing a disservice to our intelligence and ourselves. It seems like we must treat ourselves like children by grounding ourselves from the computer and go outside of our comfort zone to live.

Online source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html