http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/04/parents.facebook/index.html?hpt=Sbin

A major negative discussed in the Jenkins article is that a video posted on YouTube can be taken out of context and viewed in a way that the creator did not intend. An example Jenkin’s refers to is a Kirk/Spock vid, set to Nine Inch Nails’s ‘Closer,’ that was viewed as disturbing to slash fans (due to its “vivid depiction of sexual violence” [117]) , but funny and comedic to others. The creator did not give permission for his/her video to be posted on YouTube, but it leaked on to the website anyway (117). All it takes is for one video to leak out and for someone outside of the specific community it targets to view it before it can be construed in a way that goes against its main purpose. This is one reason that some “vidders” post their work on IMeem, which is often friend-locked, so only people who are ok’d by the creator can view it (117-118). However, once it is on the internet, all it takes is for someone to record the movie and post it on another website before it finds its way on YouTube. This is important because it shows that any video posted on YouTube (or online that finds its way onto YouTube) is not only visible by a certain community, but public to anyone. These people will form their own opinion based on what they see, not necessarily what the creator wants them take from the video.

Another negative aspect of YouTube discussed in the readings relates back to the “digital divide,” and the fact that there is uneven access to the technology and therefore, uneven participation (124). According to John McMurria, “A glance at the top 100 rated, viewed and disused videos, and most subscribed channels reveals far less racial diversity than broadcast network television” (124). This is a very important observation because it helps to prove that a participatory culture is not necessarily a diverse one (124). So, while we may think that everything we could think of is on YouTube, that is not the case. Only the people who can afford to go onto the internet on a computer that can handle video is capable of posting on YouTube. This means that there is a sort of monopoly on videos on YouTube by the wealthier, more educated, and the poor do not get their voice heard as much was people think.

While cons do exist regarding YouTube, I think the pros clearly outweigh them. One pro that I find very important is that YouTube can be a means to improve activism. With the expansion of YouTube, Witness activist Sam Gregory says that it is easier for his organization to respond to human right’s abuses (121). This is important because it shows that YouTube can be a place where people join together to fight for or support a cause. YouTube is free, easy to access and allows for millions of people to see a video very quickly. Messages can be shared extremely quick. YouTube is essential to groups expanding by find interested people who just happen to see a video and become Interested. YouTube also helps activism groups from around the world to find each other and join together for a cause.

Another pro is that YouTube can be very helpful for education. I know many of my friends don’t have cable TV, but many news stations and citizens post news stories on the YouTube. This allows for these people to see the news without actually have a television. Also, many times people post videos on YouTube that are first hand accounts of certain events. These are both exciting and give people around the globe a first hand glance into an event without hearing the commentators or analysts. While Keen claims that YouTube is a bunch of monkeys able to do whatever they want, I find it very informational and helpful. You get to see many peoples points of view at the click of a mouse.

Lastly, YouTube also provides us with some entertainment. Many of the funny movies that become viral videos on YouTube do not seem to have many serious consequences. They just making many people laugh. They allow people to bond over something.

Overall, while YouTube does have some negatives, its positive benefits are greater. There is no other site where videos can help lead important activism efforts, give many visual perspectives on events, and make millions of people laugh all within minutes. As the “digital divide” continues to decrease as well, the benefits of YouTube will grow and everyone will actually be able to post on the site and that negative will no longer be an issue. YouTube is an important part of our culture and will continue to benefit the world for the foreseeable future.

http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/27/report-hugo-chavez-is-joining-twitter/?hpt=Sbin

Information access brings in an idea that we discussed and read about a few weeks ago – the digital divide. For the people that have access to the internet and technology, the web can be a very valuable resource for political participation. However, only a select few in the world get to experience the internet. As Dahlberg states,”the thousands of factory workers throughout the world, working long hours for low wages, producing the technological componentry of the net, are very unlikely to ever be part of the celebrated ‘global community’ (76). Therefore, it is tends to be mostly the middle-upper class that ever get the opportunity to voice their opinion on issues using the internet. According to Papcharissi, an experiment on this issue was conducted and the political debate posts were dominated by only a select few elites. So, while the internet can be open area for discussion, the fact that only a small portion of the population can use it makes the internet “exlusive, elitest, and far from ideal” (383). However, I believe that as the digital divide begins to shrink with cheaper technology and countries working to give as many people as possible internet, the web will become more democratic over time.

Another reason why the internet is not fully democratized yet is that race and ethnicity prejudices find their way online. The enthusiastic supporters of the web claim that the internet can connect people from all over the globe in one location instantly, but that does not take away that people hold prejudices against each other. In Public Education Network (PEN) and soc.culture.india, users frequently intimidate other people from joining in on a discussion based on cultural backgrounds (385). This shows that people will not necessarily be more understanding of backgrounds just because they are online and will potentially just use the internet to express ‘hasty opinions,’ rather than rational and focused discourse (385). As Papchaissi states, just because there is “greater participation in political discussion does not automatically result in discussion that promotes democratic ideals” (385). I believe that as people around the globe continue to be more receptive and understanding of each other in face-to-face contact, this issue online will disappear.

The last major reason that the internet is not fully democratized yet, and actually may never be, is commercialization. As stated by Dahlberg, “a private, commercial net means that certain types of information and communication, those which are most marketable, become privileged over others” (75). I completely agree with this statement. When something is commercialized, the main purpose is to make money. Therefore, the money-making information, etc. will be the most prevalent, even though it is not the most important. Banners and portals will be added to to websites to bring in advertising revenue (386). I think commercialization will therefore skew political information and decrease information regarding to public welfare in exchange for profitable media.

So while it appears that the internet has the potential to become democratized, the issues discussed above are holding it back. I believe that both the information access (digital divide) and cultural difference issues are ones that are beginning to be addressed and solved as cheaper technology becomes available and people become more understanding. I am more worried about the commercialization aspect because it is very hard for a corporation to do something against making money. Unless the information regarding to the social welfare is the biggest money maker, I feel as though the internet will never reach its full democratic potential.

Note: I found it very interesting that the Papacharissi used John McCain as an example of a politician who used the internet to his advantage. I know this was written before the 2008 presidential election, but I find it ironic because Barack Obama was able to reach so many young voters because of his extremely high use of facebook, twitter, and his own personal website. Younger voters could relate more to Obama using the internet because of his young age, but not as much McCain. I think this is why Obama’s internet use benefited him more on election day.

When we first received this assignment, I was skeptical at best. Who really cares what I am doing? However, the more I “tweeted,” the more I got engaged. It became sort of a game. Every time I got a new follower (granted they were all from class), I felt proud as if I had accomplished something important. Every time I woke up or got out of class, I instantly thought about tweeting. Nice day out – put it on a Twitter. Going to bed early – maybe I should put that on Twitter too. Twitter became one of those things that every little thing I did, I debated putting it on Twitter to share – whether I thought people wanted to read it or not.

In respect to privacy, Twitter kind of puts a knot in my stomach. Every single thing I put on Twitter is now being archived by the Library of Congress. Furthermore, everything I put is public to every single person who has an internet connection and people can follow me without my approval. There is really no privacy. While I do not have a picture attached to my account, my name is on there and by mentioning Bowdoin in one of my tweets, I am sure that someone could really track me down if they wanted to. I tried to avoid putting anything too personal on my account, but my Bowdoin tweet, and others mentioning Boston sports teams, really allows someone the information to potentially track me down. All it takes is a couple little slip ups like that and I can be found.

Overall, I definitely think this assignment was worthwhile and opened my eyes to a very popular site that I never in a million years would have even tried. It just seems to me that Twitter is a weaker Facebook – All the status updates but no friends or other information (pictures, etc) attached. I plan on closing my Twitter account with the completion of this blog post. While it is becoming addicting, the privacy scare and the fact that I don’t really want potentially everyone to have a play-by-play update of my life are more important to me than having a form of entertainment. Good Bye, Twitter – It was a short relationship.

Here is the link…

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/16/tech/main6402630.shtml

When I was younger, my parents always told me not to talk to strangers. There reason was that it could be potentially dangerous. I feel this is a common practice, as many parents warn their children about interacting with people that they don’t know. However, with the expansion of the internet and social networking sites (eg,Facebook), these common words of caution appear to be thrown out the window (sometimes unknowingly) when it comes to online behavior and contact. A study conducted showed that many users only ‘friend-ed’ people they know, lending evidence to support “that Facebook use is more characteristic of physical relationships than that of an exclusively online community” (20). However, users don’t realize that it is not just these friends that they accept who can see their information a lot of the time. The internet is a public area and without the right privacy settings (and sometimes even with them on), information can easily be accessed by any number of people.

Privacy settings can get very confusing on Facebook, and it does not help when people don’t even read the privacy policy or terms of service statement before joining. In a recent study, 91% surveyed said that they did not read the terms of service before creating a profile and 47% did not understand the privacy policy that gives Facebook the right to give information to companies for advertising purposes (21). In addition, 26% of student users surveyed had no idea about “My Privacy,” and of the users that did know about “My Privacy,” 38% still didn’t use it. These numbers are important because these people are the ones that are basically just giving their information away without a care in the world. By not even learning about or using “My Privacy,” these users are blatantly saying they don’t care or don’t know who can see what on their profile. Furthermore, a significant amount of people surveyed were either not concerned (23%), barely concerned (35.5%), or only somewhat concerned (31.6%) with Facebook Privacy. These numbers lead me to believe that privacy is not something a majority of Facebook users think about or think is important when logging on.

This reading gave a lot of clear data to show that many Facebook users do not know, worry, or care about their privacy on Facebook, and that is evident based on the numerous news stories that seem to appear all the time. After reading this story, I went on google to look up Facebook horror stories where someone was fired from a job or suspended from school because of what was posted on their Facebook. I found stories ranging from a teacher getting fired because of her disgruntled status update, to a man getting fired because he took a sick day and went to a concert and then posted pictures, to a New England Patriot’s cheerleader getting fired over inappropriate drunk pictures. If these stories or many more that keep popping up don’t scare people into double checking what is on their profile and who can see it, I don’t know what will.

My personal belief is that if you want information to stay private, do not put it online. There is always some way for a person to find their way to your profile no matter your privacy settings – a friend of a friend, or simple hacking could do the trick. We all know not to share private information with strangers in person, so why can’t we wise up, realize our Facebook profiles are not truly private, and protect our information from the public eye by being smart on what we put on our profiles?

Another aspect of the article I agree with is the privacy belief that everything you have on your Facebook is ok for others to see, except for your parents. In the article, Jason says it perfectly when he says:

You don’t mind [other] people reading it,but it’s your parents,you don’t really
want your parents seeing it,because I don’t really like my parents sort of looking
through my room and stuff,because that’s,like,my private space.

Today, I wouldn’t mind at all if my parents saw and had full access to my Facebook page, but when I first joined the social networking site, I definitely believed that it was only for me and my friends – no grown ups allowed. I was naïve to the fact that all the people in my networks could view it and that many people could find ways to see my profile if they really wanted it too. As the article mentions, many kids don’t know how to manage or change privacy settings or other parts of their profiles on these social networking sites. Many friends set up the profiles for the kids who have poor internet literacy, so whatever settings are originally done, remain. As the article mentions, many kids are reluctant to show how they can change their privacy settings because they just don’t know how to do it. I must admit that I have taught myself the general ins and outs of Facebook, so that I know how to control my own privacy and profile settings the way I want it to be.

One last key point that I can relate to in this article is that the information such as age, gender, religion, etc that use to be thought as private to adults is now displayed as standard on profiles. As part of the computer generation, I never thought twice about posting this information, but my parents both think that it is a little odd to be posting birthdays and religion and all on such a website that is prone to breaches in privacy. I personally don’t think it is a safety concern, and in this day and age is normal to post such information. I agree with Sophie from the article who says that I only give away stuff that I am willing to share anyway. Teens realize that posting addresses, phone numbers, or very personal family information is not safe and I am sure a majority stays away from posting such material.

In the other article, I really thought it was an inspirational story in a sense that this song, “Sophie,” has saved and changed so many lives. Was it not for the YouTube and the internet, the lives of so many people would be different and many young women would possibly be more sick or even dead. One woman wrote that she “had never heard [McEvoy’s] song ‘Sophie’ … until 10 minutes ago and [she is] now going to go and get help for [her] eating disorder instead of continually trying to convince [herself] and the counselors [she doesn’t] have a problem” (Smith). This song was extremely obscure but with the help of the internet, it found its place and has become an anthem for the anorexic. Without the internet, this song may have always been obscure and unknown to most. It is this amazing aspect of the internet that connects so many people from around the world with a similar situation or belief.

In the review of the site 2-Channeru, the racism online is clear. In Japan, there is no serious digital divide among ethnic lines as there is in the United States or other western countries. While there is no real digital divide, there is definitely a racist and ethnic line between the groups. People who are pure Japanese (Japanese Blood) believe they are the superior, while the other groups ( Ainu, resident Koreans and Okinawans) are considered inferior. On the site 2-Channeru, racial slurs and comments are thrown back and forth between these groups. Even people who are born into families who have lived in Japan for generations are looked down upon because Japanese blood and cultural competence are considered the important aspects in determining your true ethnicity and race (825). It is incredible to me that such a prejudice exists! In the rare cases, even Americans (or westerners) chime in and post something racist on 2-Channeru – calling all Asians the same, or that there is something wrong with both Japan and Korea. The internet appears to just be another means to show dominance over another group and is a place where many things can be said without any patrolling. The prejudices and racism in real-life are clearly similar to that online, and in many cases overlap.