Comparative Post

I would have to agree with the former two articles, the idea that Google's algorithm decides to shape and tailor your results for you. I have read and would agree that it is not all bad, however; you might find yourself well armed with information on given topics. And what's more, that's not such a bad thing for this society. We are a nation of specialists. Sure, we employ a college system that teaches the liberal arts, but at the same time, once you enter the working class, that air of liberalism goes out the door. We all need to be special trained to do the jobs that we need to do, causing people to become very insular in their respective worlds. This is not all bad, however Eli Pariser does have a point. The reality of living in a world where your responses are catered to you and not default responses like, as the nybooks.com article suggests, encyclopedic entries (Wikipedia withstanding). In some ways, I suppose that could be bad, too. Two friends standing next to each other may find completely different info from one search using the PageRank algorithm, two birds one stone. Even if everyone had access to the same information, which is great from an equality stand point, it seems as if we should aspire to diversify under that blanket of informational equality.

I thought the last article was interesting for the its putting into plain terms I had always figured but never really knew. The article claimed of a study that highlights the importance of talking to what one could call "b-list" friends (my term, not that of the article) as opposed to "a-list" friends, or best friends. It is with "b" friends where one hears things with a higher frequency than that of your "a" friends, but it might seem less so because of the frequency with which one talks to "a" friends. So the article suggests speaking to "b" friends, diversifying one's friend group to achieve as many "b" friends as possible (or perhaps make them "a") in order to ensure an influx of varied information. This, however, misses the mark. One gets a bunch of good resources from friends, but the Google issue still looms. Having a friend from each country still might not get you the answer to what String Theory is or, as a matter of regional conflict, what is the best place for commodity x? What is so great about the internet is that it is a gateway to literally millions of people, a resource that no person could reasonably have access to in real life.

What remains paramount is to keep the "filter bubble" as minimal as possible, to keep an open avenue for the dispersion of information and knowledge on the internet, so that one can gain access to an unmediated wealth of knowledge. If Google continues, if we ALLOW Google to continue, refining our search results to what either they or their robots thinks we want, than it seems to me we may need to consider another source for collecting and sifting through information on the web.

Obama's Social Newtorking Campaign

Did Obama's camp fail to realize what a horrible title “MyBO” is? How? I thought this to be a particularly pro-Obama article, beyond the article's aim of praising his campaign team's ability to fully utilize social networking as a campaign strategy. I can’t imagine an unbiased source not at least pointing out, in someway, how unfortunate "MyBO" stands as an abbreviation.

The article seems to place Obama’s campaign success on his use of social networking, but can that really be the case? Traditionally, older people vote more than younger people, and people typically tend to become increasingly conservative throughout their lives. So how is it that, given there are far more babyboomers than millennials (otherwise, why worry about where social security is headed?), Obama won his campaign on clever campaigning strategies that were ostensibly directed at a younger fan base? I suppose to answer my own question, but also further critique the article, I noticed it mentioned nothing of the change in political scope that occurred from Bush to Obama. After dealing with what many people considered to be, politely, a roller-coaster term, or more vehemently, a failed presidency, it was a natural shift for the people to elect a democratic leader. Such a thing is not unusual; these shifts have occurred in the past. I simply consider it a failing on the article's part to not at least in someway address these as possible factors in the outcome of the elections. 

The article was useful, however, because I did not realize Obama had such a strong political campaign that took place through social networking. I was not made aware of MyBO (see?). It was interesting to learn of the great minds that went into the campaign and the clear edge that made Obama ascend to such a strong political candidate, seemingly overnight (and it is perhaps possible that this is because it DID happen overnight, in a manner of speaking).

I suppose the greater lesson to be drawn out of this is the power that can now be generated through the use of the web. People are now co-operating in numbers that are simply unprecedented throughout history. Instead of the typical 100,00 humans needed to make something happen, we can now have ten to as many as one hundred times that coming together to generate a greater effect. It all can come down to simply a collective will, and someone to organize the event. As long as at least those two motivators are there, I believe a surprising amount of change can be made.

PBS Special

Social networking, as a whole, creates a divide between most millennials and their progenitors. Halfway through the aughts, most parents were rather technologically illiterate, but their children had already become savvy enough to learn how to interact with the web and several computer programs. As a result, millennials have found, in the web and social networking, a haven where they can express themselves in a vehicle that is mediated not by adults, but by their own peers.

It is not without its own set of borders that are closely related to the same social borders that are in place in reality, however there seems to be more room for class mobility online. Ex: 3 girls talking about who could get the most friends--a direct microcosm of high school social politics.

Conflicts of personality, in this example, seem to have moved onto the web. Many altercations took place over Myspace, but in once instance these actions came to a head manifesting as a fight in the school cafeteria. A 21st century fight finds itself with 21st century repercussions. Kids immediately captured video on their phones, the media found its way to YouTube.

Of course, the traffic of intimate pictures are mentioned twice in the documentation, that implicitly call into question the age all question of "art or porn?" In the subject of Sara, the girl with the eating disorder--and might I mention this example neither falls in the subject of either "art" or "porn"--she remarks on sending a scantily clad image of herself, no big deal. In a modern world, however, that sort of reasoning elides the idea of a faux pas with the advent of "revenge" sites and other image boards where intimate content may be shared publicly. 
As for the other instance of intimate pictures, Jennifer posted pictures that were probably more along the lines of what Sara had in mind when she took hers. In one case, the pictures were intimate, but with Jennifer, these were intimate pictures being shared publicly. So what are they? Whatever the answer, the internet makes it highly easy to share content (but thankfully impossible to share other things, if you catch my drift), so much so that one might not consider the possible objections of such a reality.

It seems one of the parts to the whole store that must be reckoned with is the idea that websites of social media make it easier for children to become who they wish to become. A picture lasts for ever, so in that moment, they are able to communicate a certain edginess, bravado, or perhaps more realistically, a banality to it all. These pictures, these words, these bits of media shared, that is who these people believe they are, and want others to think so as well. The internet makes the quite easy, which may not be a bad thing. Like in the case of Jennifer, the internet made her. Okay, well, she is the self, but she was able to support and validate this self through the internet, through the idea of peer review.

Part of the reality, albeit a small part, of being on these websites is the “online-predator.” While this is a very real concept, one that may be exploited by parents and the media, children are not as coy nor doting as they might seem. The students interviewed in the Frontline special all readily know how to handle the idea of a predator. That being said, the difference is not unlike the difference between these same children’s physical and online persona. What they might broadcast in the real world, where they seem to wear something of a shell, when that armour comes off with the pretense of a watchful eye and expectation, the odds are perhaps more likely for them to be a little more trustworthy. Also, sexual relations can only happen offline, so…

Ryan Halligan became the subject of a “cyber-bullying campaign” which resulted in his killing himself. Cyber bullying is also a direct link to all of this because it is for the same reason as many of the aforementioned subjects: the internet is an unmediated playground. Bullies were able to have their way with Ryan for an unmediated amount of time; gone are the days where bullying stops at the playground. Today's reality is that school comes home with you. While that can be a blessing for some kids, for others, it can break a situation. 

The PBS special was quite informative. It was made with enough distance in order to have a handle on the world we have come to live in, and were living in, during those times. I will admit, however, that it is by now a little dated; I was able to see certain phrases coming and was aware of where the entire special was headed throughout. I am only two years younger than the featured graduating class, so I was there with them, more or less. It is my reality, and hardly anything seem skewed by some sort of higher agenda. I believe PBS told it like it should have been and also captured the right view points. Many a parent was like that of Evan Skinner. There were many an internet model sensation like that of Jennifer, who also utilized the alternative image in order to find a niche follower of appreciators, or perhaps, fetishists. If time travel were possible, I would definitely recommend this special to those living at the time of its publication.