Where the Streets Have No Name (Jennifer Lien)

Sexting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexting

Have you been sexting? Don’t lie and pretend you don’t know what it means. Sexting is a play on the words ‘sex’ and ‘text’. According to the highest rated definition on Urban Dictionary, sexting is a verb meaning “to text message someone in the hopes of having a sexual encounter with them later; initially casual, transitioning into highly suggestive and even sexually explicit.”

The Wikipedia article on “sexting” has been around since 2006. It provides background information, a sociological perspective, past legal cases, legislative feedback, and its impact on pop culture. In relation to new media, I see sexting as another form of production and distribution of media. Being that the messages and/or pictures are coming from willing individuals, they are creating media to be consumed by another or others.

Not only does sexting relate to new media, but it relates to anyone who owns a mobile phone. So whether you’re looking for a casual hookup, enticing your long-distance lover, or a 13 year old girl who wants that boy from homeroom to like you, sexting affects us all in how we have transformed a technology such as a mobile phone to be more than just making and receiving phone calls.

The cited sources on “sexting” can be broken down into three categories: local news coverage on allegations and trials, advocacy groups against teen pregnancy and bullying, and opinionated blogs and articles. With that being so, this article does portray sexting in a negative light that shines on child pornography, angry parents, lawsuits, and high school drama. Nowhere in the article does it talk about the “advantages” or “pros” of sexting. It doesn’t talk about the many reasons why people might be engaging in it. Rather, it just talks about the crazy legal issues. It’s not that we should be concerned with sexting among the youth generation. You wouldn’t be able to describe “pornography” with just issues of child pornography because there’s a bigger and better side to it, too! Maybe it’s a way long-distance couples stay together. Maybe it’s a more secure way of sending sexually explicit material than e-mail. Maybe it can be a way to abstain from sex since neither party is clearly getting any that night if they’re sending sexual text and/or picture messages.

The discussion page on “sexting” was a forum for debating the neutrality of the article. While one party did not see the article as neutral since its content was from anyone “all up in arms”, another party went right ahead to remove the neutrality dispute tag.

In any case, in terms of Wikipedia as a form of technically-organized, collaboratively-produced knowledge, I think it is the fairest battlefield of them all. I like the idea of sharing knowledge without violence, war, or terrorism. I like the idea that if you disagree about something, your weaponry is to provide proof from primary and secondary resources instead of throwing punches in the air.

Rated: from 6 votes

Are people more or less informed today than they were before? Ten years ago, I was not cool enough to know any 21 year olds, or even know what they knew. I don’t think my parents would have liked that very much. So in a sense, I am not sure how to accurately determine if people were more or less informed about current events years ago than they are today. With news or anything in general, there are so many factors that affect and determine if/why/how someone cares for the right reasons.

Even though it has not been exactly 10 years but quite close, let’s talk about 9/11. I was an 8^th grader in Ms. Caccavo’s earth science class. After that day, my city was never the same again. Do you remember where you were? September 11^th changed the way Americans looked at each other, the time when we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America at baseball games, the lives of those entering/in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and the Marine Corps, and the check-in procedure when I’m visiting someone in Chicago or Paris.

In Natalie Fenton’s “News in a Digital Age”, she discussed three significant aspects of news in a digital age – increased globalization in news, increased concentration of ownership, and transformation of technology. I agree that these aspects have changed the way news and current events are shared. There is a plethora of news covering the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, and every natural disaster owned by media conglomerates and anyone with a digital camera who shared them on YouTube, WikiLeaks, Twitter, and CNN. I would also argue that many of the changes and progression of American and international media has to do with post-9/11 sentiment simply because so much of today is the result of this past.

With that being said, I bring about two questions.

Even if there is more exposure and coverage of current world events, could this also mean that there is just as much, if not more, hidden from us? And lastly, even if there is more exposure and coverage of current world events, who is to say that more people care about what is going on now than before?

People who care will inform themselves. And like I said, there are so many embedded and complex factors (race, nationality, religion, gender, experience, socio-economic background, education, personality, attitude, etc.) that determine how much someone will care enough to inform himself or herself.

Rated: from 9 votes

Facebook was once the playground for Harvard students. Then came along all college students, employees, regional citizens, high school students, politicians, celebrities, and grandparents. Like many social networking websites, Facebook will only grant user membership if a person agrees to their terms and agreements. Way back then, you checked off a box that meant you saw eye-to-eye with what Facebook expects from you and what you can expect from Facebook. And from there, you were on your merry way. But the lactivists were not.

Thousands of outraged Facebook users began joining the group, “Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding is not obscene!”, as soon as mothers had pictures removed from their profiles and photo albums. Protesters picketed outside Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, California and changed their profile pictures to them breastfeeding.

Before we point the finger at Facebook for not accepting a natural part of child rearing, there are some things to bring at the table. First, Facebook does not allow content that is obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit. Is it possible that breastfeeding can be any of those things in the eyes of conservative people or online perverts? Second, many of the photos taken down were flagged by other Facebook users. Regardless of whether or not Facebook finds pictures of breastfeeding mothers obscene, pornographic and/or sexually explicit, it can be said without any doubts that there are users on Facebook who think so.

Does this mean that Facebook has to delete every picture of a guy showing off his six pack?

In a world where double standards do not exist, that would probably need to happen. The fact of the matter is that we live in a society where seeing a topless man does mean the same things as a topless woman. Topless man = Matthew McConaughey jogging on the beach with his dog. Topless woman = a woman who objectifies herself for attention and/or money, i.e. a stripper or Janet Jackson.

And even if something is not sexually explicit like feeding a baby, there is nudity involved. The only similar scenario that I could think off is that mothers and fathers don’t put up photos of themselves changing diapers. It’s a natural part of caring for a baby but we don’t see any of that. How and why does society just know that, that is inappropriate? What differentiates this from breastfeeding? Perhaps this debate is not about whether breastfeeding is taboo. Perhaps like Jack Balkin, mentioned in “How Rights Change: Freedom of Speech in the Digital Era”, there is now a cultural clash regarding what people choose to participate in. We see here that Facebook has created new communities of interest (of breastfeeding mothers) that pits itself against existing groups (of people who think breastfeeding is taboo). This heated controversy of breastfeeding once had a forum that included state senators and state legislation. But with further technological change and digital revolution, there is further cultural participation and arenas for debate. Here within lies Facebook.

Rated: from 6 votes

Determined to inform, inspire, and act, the website www.takepart.com is an independent online community that unites users who wish to engage with others, contribute content, and learn how to take action regarding politics, human rights, and environmental concerns. The website believes in storytelling and provides news on relevant topics. Furthermore, this global community consists of citizens, activists, and non-profit organizations guided by connectedness, hope for an impact, participation, activism, and power of information.

Immediately dispersing in a positive light, the front page of TakePart displays success stories, like those of Sierra Leone survivors, and ads that promote simple engagement, like ways to support a cause physically or monetarily. The main tabs include Issues, Actions, Community, News & Blogs, and Create. Under Issues, there are topics – environment, animal welfare, global affairs, government & politics, science & technology, energy, health, human & civil rights, business & trade, arts & culture, food, education, crime & corrections, poverty & social welfare. Under each subtopic like ozone layer depletion or landmines, users can view “what you can do”, view multimedia, tweet facts and statistics, and read headlines posted by TakePart or the community members. In addition, members are able to express themselves via Community and News & Blogs. A member can join “a conversation” on Facebook and/or Twitter or start one of their own. To be even more interactive and engaging, members can create and share videos, articles, photos, audio clips, groups, and actions.

TakePart allows its members to freely express their views on a plethora of important global issues. Moreover, the website employs editors who officially present articles on behalf of TakePart. On each webpage dedicated to a specific issue, there are tabs from left to right – TakePart picks, Community picks, and Action. It can be interpreted that the TakePart articles are placed beforehand because they are more official and significant than the community articles. However, perhaps it can be interpreted that the TakePart articles introduces and elaborates on a topic and then, allows members to view what other members’ opinions. From there, members can add their own articles, engage in discussions, and/or be encouraged to take action.

As an online community that serves as a forum for discussion and activism, I am not surprised that TakePart.com provides so many ways to express viewpoints via words, pictures, videos, and action. Once a person joins the community, he or she possesses the freedom to do those things limitlessly. Although the presence of TakePart articles and community articles co-exist, one does not appear to dominate the other quantitatively or qualitatively. The freedom of expression and passionate concern of TakePart and its members enables the presentation of political information and political discussion.

Rated: from 0 votes

According to Papacharissi, the Internet possesses characteristics, such as an infrastructure that supports unlimited and unregulated discourse among users regardless of geographical and political boundaries, which would indicate that it reflects the attributes of a public sphere. However, in Habermas’ perspective, this may not be possible if the public sphere is in the presence of commercialization and media conglomerates that compromise and taint the public discourse by their intentions behind advertising and public relations. Furthermore, these media conglomerates and private entities on the Internet do not emanate the public sphere in relation to access to information, reciprocity of communication, and commercialization of the online space. Paracharissi argued that greater access to information does not necessarily result in greater participation, political engagement, or trust and creates an illusion that activity is involvement. Though this finding may have been the general consensus on a global scale, the concept of greater access for greater participation worked for President Obama during his presidential campaign that used social networking sites and several new media platforms to garner followers (Talbot, 2008). Furthermore, Paracharissi discussed that reciprocity does not occur on the Internet because the two-way communication on shared interests do not assure trust among users. Although this may be true to some extent, the notion of democracy entitles people to disagree with another and strive to reach more reasonable and efficient solutions. In regards to commercialization, the author proclaimed that “the internet has gradually transitioned into an online multi-shopping mall and less of a deliberative space, which influences the orientation of digital political discussion”. The desire for profit by media powerhouses explains the existence of commercialization within the Internet and the numerous collaborations over the last 30 years (Hesmondalgh, 2007). The media conglomerates may bring about the platforms and technologies that construct a public space though not necessarily a public sphere.

It is determined that the Internet does not replicate the public sphere model when considering access to information, reciprocity of communication, and commercialization of the online space. However, the Internet has created trends of civic narcissism, selective usage, and a hybrid of commercial and private spaces. Civic narcissism, in which blogs and vlogs are considered to be a form of, engages in introspection and self-absorption through the reflection of one’s ideas and opinions. Although blogs can span from personal diaries to more mainstream ones, the effect of their publications can lead to more awareness on a particular topic. Because these blogs and vlogs possess the potential to voice opinions and be heard by many, the concept of “produsage” is transpiring media consumers to become media producers (Bruns, 2008). The Internet allows its users to share their opinions, and seek information and entertainment, and media conglomerates to put forth those services with their financial objectives. Paracharissi stated that the selectivity of media and content does not adhere to the Habermasian notion of a public sphere promoting democracy because of the inability to interest certain groups, such as a young American generation aloof toward politics. This inability could potentially be solved by allowing a more two-directional channel for feedback and mutual communication. Furthermore, perhaps the basis of selectivity of certain media platforms over technologies is a sign of democracy in choosing what is relevant to oneself. The concepts of target marketing and the segmentation of consumers embrace customization and personalization rather than mass production (Turow, 2005), which can be liberating and democratic for consumers. Lastly, the hybrid of commercial and private spaces has emerged through media conglomerates’ recognition of the changing market and audience structure and their demands for receiving and producing content. According to Papacharissi, media scholars view consider the transition of public spaces to commercial spaces as a compromise to democracy as media conglomerates continue to collaborate with each other. However, a hybrid of commercial and public spaces may cater to audience demand and create a more efficient structure of sharing content. These hybrids include Hulu with providing videos of past content or YouTube with political satires. The hybrid may not reflect a public sphere but it does reflect the public’s desire for discussion and sharing.

Rated: from 1 votes

The World Summit on the Information Society took place to discuss the creation of a world “where everyone can create, access, utilize, and share information and knowledge, enabling individual, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life”. This was the goal of the many countries who gathered in Geneva, Switzerland in 2003.

Prior to this assignment, I had never heard of the World Summit on the Information Society. After reading their Declaration of Principles, it seemed like there was nothing missing from their list of challenges that they hoped to face and reconcile. I mean, they see the potential in information and communication technology to obliterate the issues of poverty, hunger, disease, and sustainability.

Though these issues are significant and integral to the well-being and survival of our species, the whole concept of information science and communication remains futile without the ability for one to freely express thoughts, ideas, and questions. The Information Society directly supports this ability “to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” while “securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others” with morality, pubic order and general welfare. Of all the major concerns that the Information Society want to tackle, the notion of free speech is the most fundamental yet most important. Not only is free speech a basic human right, but it is the foundation of progression and innovation. Without free speech, we would still believe that planet earth was flat, have not founded the country of the United States, and have no civil rights for women and minorities. Altogether, it is free speech that will enable information and communication to be effective factors in acknowledging the existence of, discuss options and strategies, and finally, eradicating poverty, hunger, and disease to begin with.

Because the liberties of free speech and access to information are not embodied by all international governments, there will be countries and peoples who are left behind while others are learning and exploring new media and society outside their own. These processes of learning and exploring are how people find if a movie will be shown in local theatres or how much corruption has plagued the country of Somalia. It is the collaborative effort of the individual and another to initiate discussion, discover truths, invent vaccines, or support political uprisings. Without free speech and access to information, the digital divide separates people even further and makes it more difficult to obtain perfect information. Information science and communication can only positively affect those who collaborate and share knowledge. Thus, the world that the Information Society aspires to build becomes a fantasy as long as the digital divide exists.

Do you concur?

Rated: from 5 votes

It doesn’t take an Applied Economics and Management or a Communications undergrad at Cornell University to observe that media firms and marketers have progressed from defining its audience with mass media and marketing to a more segmented customized world. As Joseph Turow discussed in his article, Audience Construction and Culture Production: Marketing Surveillance in the Digital Age, media firms are positioning themselves to attract certain kinds of people based on personalities, family backgrounds, social relationships, context of viewing, and class positions.

However, it should be made distinct that technologies such as data mining and marketing surveillance are not the causes of this segmented market. The cause of targeted advertising is deeply rooted within the concept of customer relationship management (CRM), which is direct marketing and a selling approach that follows the needs and desires of a particular niche. Turow does not state the practices of consumer surveillance as the reasons behind behavioral marketing. More appropriately, I think of consumer surveillance as a really handy tool that media firms and marketers hold dearly onto in order to perpetuate the CRM model.

Customer Relationship Management

Instead, Turow glorifies and embraces an underlying symbiotic relationship between advertisers and consumers of media content as the driving force behind a more targeted market. I view this symbiosis as a delicate struggle and balance for power. Turow defines power as an equivalent to the possession of resources. As consumers allow researchers to collect and study data on their particular media consumption, marketers hope to produce advertising content that actually matter and be relevant to so many fleeing and saturated minds.

Follow it.

These attempts give way towards the so-called “industrial construction of audiences”. The media industry wish to develop a most meticulous and elaborate blueprint of the who, what, and where of each beloved consumer. It is within their hopes to further construct a more detailed and efficient roadmap for the yellow brick road to their audiences.

Rated: from 4 votes

My tweet:

Twitter stole a fundamental part of the Facebook model, capitalized from it, and convinced people that anything posted on the Internet is worthy of sharing.

Rated: from 3 votes

Before I decided to catch some zzz’s yesterday, here was a snapshot of what Twitter’s homepage looked like.

I think it is great the Twitter wants people to share and discover what’s happening right now, anywhere in the world. It almost sounds like I’m about to learn something educational, even meaningful. But instead, I’m learning that people really care about a pre-pubescent Canadian singer (named Justin Bieber), free pancakes (from IHOP), divorce allegations between the sizzling hot Cheryl Cole (though soon to be Cheryl Tweedy) and Chelsea footballer Ashley Cole, and the acceptable conventions and music in the year 2010. This sounds like a pretty sad and boring world if this is a snapshot of what millions of people are buzzing about. Topics start off as a slight buzz before word-of-mouth kicks in. It becomes this massive bubble just ready to pop into obliteration.

But I will judge not their taste in music, food, or gossip. Perhaps that is really what Twitter is all about. Anyone can say whatever they want about anything, and (maybe) someone out there will care. In that case, thank God it’s only 140 characters. This is why the Twitter model works for politicians, athletes, celebrities, wannabe celebrities, and just anyone in general. Twitter doesn’t judge those who want to share and/or discover. How selfless and noble is that?

A lot of people have a lot to share and discover.  Tweets could be creative.

Or they could not. Some call it pointless babble. Others call is social grooming.

Whatever the case may be, thank God it’s only 140 characters of (mostly) crap.

Nevertheless, the concept of 140 characters works. Anymore more characters and you will have a blog. Blogs require attention. Can you imagine Tila Tequila getting anymore attention? The concept of 140 characters embodies the “thesis” of an individual’s thoughts and news that s/he wishes to share.

When I woke up this morning, here is the snapshot of what Twitter’s homepage looked like.

Apparently, Justin Bieber and free pancakes can be popular topics into and throughout the night. The only topic that was even slightly related to politics was Haiti. Those tweets were mostly expressions of support and concern towards Haitians and further needed aid. In terms of political discourse, tweets can be like the poster of an advocate, picketer or protester. It can be the way that a politician who represents us can simply speak out to us without having to deal with red tape, prepared speeches, and big SAT words.

Rated: from 5 votes

The father of virtual reality technology, Jaron Lanier, makes the claim that digital collectivism spawns little originality and quality of content.

“If you want to foster creativity and excellence, you have to introduce some boundaries.”

 In our Web 2.0 digital age, we find ourselves with very little boundaries. Who are we? You can call us users, producers, and amateurs. Lanier is quick to judge what you and I might believe to be creative and excellent. We live in a time when the shot heard around the world is now the YouTube video seen around the world. We still believe that a New York Times article is a reliable and esteemed source of news. Excellent? Yes, very much. Creative? Not so much. We also believe that video clips of Jay Leno, Stephen Colbert, and a random YouTube contributor can inform us of the same news story in less than two minutes with a little entertainment. Excellent? Maybe or maybe not. Creative? Definitely.

 The lack of boundaries has enabled web users to find and/or make a digital comfort zone where information of any kind can be transpired. This supports Bruns’ idea of “produsage” and the recurrent blurring of the producer and consumer boundary. I am more comfortable with the idea that if you want to foster creativity and excellence, you have to introduce some choice. As far as I am concerned, being informed of a news story through a rant on YouTube does not take away from the excellence of a New York Times article, and nor does the article demote any creativity on behalf of the YouTube user. Creativity and excellence are like apples and oranges.

1.  
   1. You can’t compare them to each other.
   2. There are many kinds of each one.
   3. Not everyone seeks both at the same time.
   4. The levels of intake of each depend on the individual.
   5. They’re both good for you.

 As a business undergrad with concentrations in marketing and strategy, it is imperative to understand the delicate relationship between the consumer and choice. Free will and choice are some of the greatest, most priceless gifts to humankind. However, in a paradoxical sense, if you give someone a plethora of television channels, lovers, job offers, and movie premieres, etc., the guarantee of complete satisfaction and confidence in a final decision is hardly ever likely. Caterina Fake, the co-founder of Flickr, states it very simply.

 “Everyone agrees that 99% of everything is crap.”

 When Twitter hosted the battle for the most followers between Ashton Kutcher and CNN, we saw this neck-to-neck showdown between the amateur and the professional. The end of the story is that it’s harmless to have a little of both. It is the personal responsibility of consumers to determine what content is important to him or her, regardless of whether an amateur or a professional generated it.

Rated: from 2 votes