Chapter 2 of Terranova's book has been quite interesting for several readings and in my opinion has been easier to sift through than chapter 1. The first thing is when the author talks about establishing a connection, getting from point A to point B in cyberspace. Going off of my previous post, I don't think it is this easy. When we talked about noise, it makes the process of one connection difficult. IF eight people are standing in a room and they are talking about different things, but at the same noise level, how is it possible for someone to fully comprehend an individuals conversations. Relating this back to the internet, it is impossible. There is always more than one possibility when it comes to getting information, and hearing opinions and ideas. When I read the first few pages of this article, I thought of the telephone game I used to play as a kid where I had a cup with a piece of string tied to it, and on the other end a friend had a cup with the end of the string tied to it, point A to point B.
Terranova's interpretation of the internet as a "hyper network" got me thinking...something that is constantly accelerating can attain this acceleration by the amount of traffic in this universal address space we call the internet. Let's look at the net like real estate. The infrastructure provides acres of land to a limitless amount of people, and they never run out. That to me is amazing. A space that will never run out of room, and will never turn away another member. It's like a hyper club, a nonexclusive collection of hopefuls looking to spread ideas, and manipulate it to a certain extent.
Lastly, the real time of the internet allows people to connect on the same time, though they are separated by time zones in real life. Fifteen years ago, virtual reality was something used to describe a world that a human being could not live in, but in reality, the virtual aspect of the internet has been embedded into the DNA of society so deep that it is hard to establish what is "real" or "fake". If your talking with someone it's real, so I guess virtual reality is reality in this present time.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Thoughts on Readings/Class Thoughts 2/15/11
Class today provided clarity to a reading that I had trouble digesting. The concept of noise made me think about the constant streams of information coming from people and places. So many people make so much noise that I am surprised how much is translated into information. It reminds me of a ball of yarn or a ball of rubber bands, you see it as a whole instead of them as individuals strands or bands.
One of the most interesting ideas in the book so far is that network culture is constantly accelerating, not necessarily positive or negative, but it is moving forward. I am curious as to what exactly separates those that make noise from those who can interpret others. Using the internet as an example, sometimes I don't understand how so much of the same information is ranked and put in a pecking order. I am very curious as to whether the internet will become confusing because of the amount of information. Will there be more illegitimate information than legitimate? Will the trust factor always be there?
Friday, February 11, 2011
Thoughts on Readings 2/10/11
The first two readings got me thinking about ways to get some kind of balance of power in the cyber world. One quote that stuck out to me was "diversity plus freedom of choice creates inequality, and the greater the diversity, the more extreme the inequality" I was thinking how could everyone get an equal piece of pie in the dot com world, but it is not possible. The way I see it, for every web log, or blog online, there has to be a certain amount of traffic in order for it to be successful. The main reason why people know about one over another is the popularity. I'm using the word popularity here to define a rank in a search, let's say Google or MSN. Even if the top ten most searched weblogs got nearly the same amount of traffic, they would be separated by the amount of visitors to the site.
Competition is good for the internet because the people get variety. So, to answer the, question posed in the first article, yes, I think weblog inequality is fair. I compare this to rival businesses. If all the supermarket chains in one city had the same slogans, the same prices, and used the same signs in their stores, wouldn't this confuse the public? In terms of website interest among people, they want to find what best suites themselves, the consumer. How boring would it be for every blog to be on the same subject, or by the same person, with the same writing style. BORING. As I have said before, the internet is catered to the consumers, they call the shots through the amount of traffic that runs through a site. To keep it simple, it is up to the weblog to interest the consumer, and it is the job of the consumer to ensure the site's life span.
Competition is good for the internet because the people get variety. So, to answer the, question posed in the first article, yes, I think weblog inequality is fair. I compare this to rival businesses. If all the supermarket chains in one city had the same slogans, the same prices, and used the same signs in their stores, wouldn't this confuse the public? In terms of website interest among people, they want to find what best suites themselves, the consumer. How boring would it be for every blog to be on the same subject, or by the same person, with the same writing style. BORING. As I have said before, the internet is catered to the consumers, they call the shots through the amount of traffic that runs through a site. To keep it simple, it is up to the weblog to interest the consumer, and it is the job of the consumer to ensure the site's life span.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Thoughts on Class 2/3/11
Since I didn't get a chance to share what I wrote I thought I would put it up. Basically, I asked what people think led Lanier to some of his beliefs. As we were discussing in class today, many people felt that at one point they disagreed with him on something and then another part they understood. I think this is done purposely by Lanier. The difficult thing for me is determining which views in his book are actually how he personally feels. I think this book is a bunch of jumbled brainstorming ideas that incorporate some of his beliefs, but I can't tell which belongs to him. I think this is done by design in order to stir up discussion, as displayed in our classroom today. He is being purposely biased on some things and taking the unpopular side on other things in order for us as students to question and criticize his work. Yes, he is an expert on the subject matter, which is why it's clever of him to bunch facts and various points that seem biased in order for us to solve his puzzle.
Speaking on the effectiveness of advertising, I think it has a great influence on people's thinking process. I see this most effective with commercials. Whether you like whats being pitched or not, I guarantee, love it or hate it, you will see it enough times as to where your going to purchase it or its going to be embedded in your brain. I have seen plenty of commercials with annoying jingles, but its the amount of times I see it that will make me at least remember it and have me thinking about it, even if that means thinking about how much I hate it, you've still been had. Coming from someone who wants to go in the advertising industry, it is obviously effective. The only thing I fear, especially with online advertising is instant gratification. Ten, twenty years ago, if you saw a commercial for a coat, you had to walk outside, burn gas, walk in a shop, and spend the money to buy the coat. Fast forward to today. If I see an ad for Kobe's new sneakers on the side of Facebook, I can look at them and purchase from the convenience of my couch. Yes, your not burning gas, but it makes people's decision making process a little faster. I would think if I don't have to go out in the cold to spend money and can sit in my heated house and run up my credit card it makes it more difficult to not at least consider purchasing. My point is, advertisement one way or another is effective. Yes, you as an individual still have a choice, but it's so hard to say no when the internet is tailored to your interests and desires.
Speaking on the effectiveness of advertising, I think it has a great influence on people's thinking process. I see this most effective with commercials. Whether you like whats being pitched or not, I guarantee, love it or hate it, you will see it enough times as to where your going to purchase it or its going to be embedded in your brain. I have seen plenty of commercials with annoying jingles, but its the amount of times I see it that will make me at least remember it and have me thinking about it, even if that means thinking about how much I hate it, you've still been had. Coming from someone who wants to go in the advertising industry, it is obviously effective. The only thing I fear, especially with online advertising is instant gratification. Ten, twenty years ago, if you saw a commercial for a coat, you had to walk outside, burn gas, walk in a shop, and spend the money to buy the coat. Fast forward to today. If I see an ad for Kobe's new sneakers on the side of Facebook, I can look at them and purchase from the convenience of my couch. Yes, your not burning gas, but it makes people's decision making process a little faster. I would think if I don't have to go out in the cold to spend money and can sit in my heated house and run up my credit card it makes it more difficult to not at least consider purchasing. My point is, advertisement one way or another is effective. Yes, you as an individual still have a choice, but it's so hard to say no when the internet is tailored to your interests and desires.
Thoughts on Readings 02/03/11
I think the coexistence of people and machines will always be. I don't believe there will ever be a day when technology, or machines will make the human race obsolete. In the work place, I believe machines will take over because developers can create them for the purpose of carrying out a specific task. In this case, I think the number of people employed will decrease greatly. I don't agree with Lanier's statement" improving technology is the only way to expand wealth for many people at the same time". I think improving technology will only decrease the amount of employees, especially in fields where manufacturing occurs. Alongside Lanier's terms of "open culture" and "free culture", another term should be "lazy culture". Why pay someone to do a task, or better yet waste the energy to do a task when you can create a machine to do it for you? The beginning stages of this are already happening before our eyes: Downloading free music as opposed to buying it, and downloading movies as opposed to going to the theaters. I think this is the first roll of a snowball effect that will relieve those who work in hands on industries.
This is not good because nothing is full proof, technology is not something that is flawless, or something that will correct it's mistakes when it screws up. People need to stay in control and keep technology in a realm where it can always be controlled. How do we do this? Honestly, i'm not sure, but keeping the reigns of control is crucial for going forward in the next century.
This is not good because nothing is full proof, technology is not something that is flawless, or something that will correct it's mistakes when it screws up. People need to stay in control and keep technology in a realm where it can always be controlled. How do we do this? Honestly, i'm not sure, but keeping the reigns of control is crucial for going forward in the next century.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Thoughts on Class 2/1/11
I enjoyed our discussion today from the readings because it was intense and informative. I thought it was interesting that though we broke up into groups, group members still criticized and agreed with their own members on certain points. Going off of my groups chapter and argument about validity and credibility of information on the internet, I think it will only get worse. The term "World Wide Web" is being used in it's literal sense. Anyone with internet access can and will at anytime write something opinionated or their idea of an answer on the web. One main place I see this happening is when people ask questions online through Google or Yahoo Answers. You enter a question, and what a person may get is a bunch of answers that may be somewhat right or people criticizing the person asking the question because they have nothing better to do. Even with this said, I still have a hard time pushing myself to be one sided because there is legitimate information on the web, but it is often difficult to muddle through the "free write storm" that is constantly picking up speed. I think ten years from now, something will have to be done in order to reestablish honesty in cyberspace. I compare this situation with the saying "you take two steps forward, and five steps back", for every two informal pieces of information, there are several others that devalue the overall legitimacy of the factual ones, which I think will slowly shy people away from using the internet as a helping tool.
Readings Response 2/1/11
I don't agree that technology necessarily changes the way people are, but I believe it does change the way they think. The interesting thing is that we as human beings feel empowerment over the internet and current technology, but we are the ones that created the technology. I think since things in the digital world are "man-made" then we shouldn't have to worry about being outsmarted or manipulated by our own creation. This sounds similar to how humans were made. We were supposed to be created in the likeness of God. When developers and scientists come up with technological breakthrough, I think they are meant to provide convenience to people using them. Yes, that may change them by making them lazier, but humans won't be controlled by technology, it's the other way around. Unless were talking about those who can become addicted to something, yes, that is cause for concern. A person would be controlled in this case because they have no will power to allow their bad habits to be broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)