Deep Thought: Better now or later?

Congratulations, classmates. I firmly believe today's class discussion was our strongest yet this semester. I think it seems most people did most of the reading, or briefed themselves in the appropriate topic. Also, everyone seemed to have something to say and no weak points were really let go. This shows how far we've come this semester in the class.

I think the most interesting tension discussed today regarding Nicholas Carr's book is the one between "slowing down" and ignoring distractions. Carr implies that he thinks today's brain make-up is designed for a too quick environment. John's driving example is a great analogy here.

My point comes from the idea that sometimes people are more efficient by going quickly, because it helps eliminating the noise or the distractions. In the scenic driving analogy, if you see a Robin (bird) once, do you really need to focus on the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh... I think you get my point.

I'm playing around with the concept that technology may remove the effort in the early stages of the thinking process. Why waste hours in the library looking for information in books, when you can do a Google search and be offered hundreds of thousands of results (this is not supposed to start another argument about Google, by the way).

The trick is to use the help offered by technology and let it lead to deeper thought in the more elaborate points of one's intellectual process. Because you got to that point quicker, one might have more time and energy to develop more significant ideas.

This reminded me of the Jaron Larnier's argument on noise. I'm going to reread that portion of his book to see if I can elaborate on this idea.

How do you think I'm doing?

This could be dangerous for any person, to open themselves up to their peers for criticism.

I think Professor Dean and you, my classmates, would agree that sometimes I'm overly celebrant of things like Twitter and Facebook, and their positive affects. You all have respectfully scolded me for ignoring the many negative affects these services may have, including the safety aspect of Facebook or Google.

The biggest skill I have learned from this class is to analytically criticize more accurately than I have in the past. I discovered that I am improving this skill, especially as I wrote my paper. Basically, I argued that Facebook and Twitter can't be entirely given credit for a revitalization of democracy.

What are your thoughts on how you've developed in this class? What do you think of my arguments over the past semester? Do you think I've improved in critically analyzing digital media?

If you're wondering I think that Mark Andrejevic got through to me those most of any of the readings. Also, in hindsight, Jaron Lanier's argument is more convincing to me now.

#Revolution?

Yes, I meant the # in the title. That's to the affect of how Twitter and Facebook are being credited with political revolutions in the Middle East.

How significant do you think social media is at making these revolutions happen? Would they have happened without social media?

As I discussed in my paper, social media is important recently of starting these events, but it's not the end all. You need the physical passion and tension in order for any revolution to occur. The radical rhetoric has to leave the digital space and spill out into the streets for any activism to come of it.

Egypt is an example. Sure, social media gets credit. But THOUSANDS still poured out into the streets of Tahrir Square to protest. Look at the violence, that couldn't have happened without tension in the streets between actual human beings.

Andrejevic says, “The technological capacity of interactivity will not, on its own, dismantle social, political, and economic hierarchies. It will not on its own foster a version of democracy based on collective control over the sharpening of political goals" (49).

WikiLeaks Good or Bad?

I think the debate on WikiLeak's affect on journalism is very interesting, as being a member of the industry.

First of all, when it comes to looking for government documents as sources, it's a significant resource. Again, as discussed in class, the legitimacy of the documents might have to be taken into question. That is especially essential in traditional journalism. Lovink and Riemens define old fashioned journalism as unearthing facts, crosschecking these and backgrounding them into an understandable discourse. 


So if the "old" style of journalism wants to use the "new" style as a source, they better make sure it's accurate.


Of course, traditional journalism is criticized for gate-keeping, and keeping stories private due to influence from outside sources. WikiLeaks helps ease this, as it is a flaw in a true democratic process. On the other side of the argument, news organizations may need to withhold information when it comes to a matter of national security or international diplomacy. 


Some argue that the decline in investigative journalism due to budget cuts is what makes WikiLeaks important. Where WikiLeaks fails is putting it into context when presented to the public. It is important that the public knows why something is important or what it means, and WikiLeaks does not do that.


WikiLeaks also has the benefit of no moral code or journalistic policy, so it does not have to consider ramifications of the what it presents. That easily makes them at risk for inaccurate information.


Of course, I am a proponent of traditional journalism, so I am working hard to see both parts. 

Bifo and ADHD

I think Bernardi's discussion regarding ADHD and other disorders is interesting. I'm not fully convinced that the dense amount of technology that affect children can give them a disorder.

I do think it's important to realize that habits children grow up with affect their education. Teachers now need to make their lessons more interactive and less-information dense, so it satisfies the short attention spans of the younger generation. That can be very dangerous.

Is there science that says ADHD is developed after birth or is it a genetic disorder?

Not Critical Enough of Facebook

In my class presentation today on Social Media, I was criticized for not being critical enough of Facebook and other such networks.

Just to let everyone know, the presentation part was supposed to be on the positive impacts of Facebook and Twitter. It was the debate part where my group wanted to bring in the negatives.

I really do think Facebook is an incredible invention that transforms communications. For the first time ever, you can have a database of your contacts that gives you immense amounts of information. It transforms politics, journalism, education and business.

Individual politicians have found social media as the most useful tool at reaching their constituents, communication that is essential to democracy. Journalists now have an instantaneous way to communicate information whether it be a breaking news story, weather or discussion. Education should begin to utilize the popularity of social media among their students. And in business, there is not better form of brand messaging that  getting your customers to like you on Facebook. A business is given equal real estate opportunity as one of their customer's siblings or neighbors.

Sorry that I'm not more critical of the advertising or surveillance Facebook supposedly is guilty of. Advertisements are something that people need to learn to deal with or ignore. When it comes to information-keeping, simply don't offer Facebook the information you never want know. But on that point, what it so secret?

Is Google a Monopoly?

After the discussions over Google today, do you think it's a monopoly?

We have Google, Google Buzz, Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Books, Google News, Google Shopping, Gmail, YouTube, Chrome, Android, so on and so forth.

Think of those outlets... search engine, navigation/GPS, social networking (mild attempt at), academia, journalism, business, email/communication, video (popular), browser, mobile device operating system, and soon it's own operating system.

That's what I call vertical and horizontal integration. It was the monopoly robber barons of the early 20th century who got good at vertical integration, which is controlling multiple levels of the industry process.

What do you think? Since organizations can't compete with Google, or a Google entity, is it a monopoly?

Here's what Siva Vaidhyanathan had to say: "So Google, which rules by the power of convenience, comfort, and trust, has assumed control, much as Julius Caesar did in Rome in 48 B.C."