apearson6

1.       As Lanier points out, the Internet for a lot of people is a means to download free music, videos and more. It’s also a way for a few to make bank. The income differences between the rich and poor are steadily increasing. While we’re all interconnected media-wise, we’re still separated money-wise. Is it possible that because the Internet can reveal all our secrets to the greater public that we’ve become anal about financial secrets? If a person has a great idea, and can use the Internet to share it, why wouldn’t they?

2.       Lanier also talks about musicians and the digital economy. This raises copyright questions. The lifespan of copyright is stretched out as it is, how will it be changed in the future years? How will musicians respond?

3.       Since we are so technically dependent what would happen if we couldn’t use technology? Like Lanier says, “been fast for so long it feels slow to me”. He also mentions that finance and the use of the media are connected. What will happen if certain small power groups controlled the media flow, and limited how much information others could access? How would this affect the gap between rich/poor?

People like people, that’s why we form societies. It’s also why we share our problems with everyone. If we kept everything inside, sooner or later, we’d burst from the emotions. To me, a social dilemma has to involve more than two people. If tell your best friend about the problems you have with your boyfriend, it’s hardly a social dilemma. Rather, it’s private dilemma. When society at large, like an entire community, becomes involved in an issue—town parking for example—then it becomes a social issue.

If your problem with your boyfriend turns into domestic violence, and local authorities become involved, the problem intensifies. It’s still a private dilemma, but involves a smaller part of the community. I would argue that this is a step towards becoming a social dilemma, especially if the boyfriend has prior charges of assault.

This example is not a permanent form of social dilemma. I consider a permanent dilemma one that cannot be reconciled. Or, consider politics. Every November, citizens have to vote, and there can be conflict regarding which candidate to support. These dilemmas can be solved temporarily, but when voting season returns, these dilemmas return.

A society cooperates willingly with each other. People love company. Like the book says, we go to the bar to have drinks, sure, but we go more for the human company. It’s in our nature. Society causes the dilemmas. Government enforces them. If society doesn’t like the government control, the people are supposed to rise and revolt, but come on, when was the last time that happened?

The introduction of Skype, and the Internet helps societies to expand. Now people can engage in conversations from halfway around the world. This allows for a greater marketplace of ideas, and an exchange of international social dilemmas. Take the war in Iraq. That was a national issue for the United States, but it involved other nations like Britain as well.

As the book points out, there are benefits and disadvantages to this. Mass amateurization, unregulated copying and re-publishing information, and an undermining of commercial logic.

This has huge impacts on social bargains. If people in a society can’t offer or trade services to each other, then they have a reason not to interact with each other. If companies don’t work or compete with each other, then they become individualized, and that hurts the economy. It has yet to be determined if these technological advances are going to hurt us or really help us in the long run.

Chapter 8 in Here Comes Everybody caught my attention because of the title: solving social dilemmas. What constitutes a social dilemma? Everyone has problems, at one point is a society completely involved. What are real and permanent social dilemmas, and why can they never be solved? Does a society cooperate or act separately instinctively, and is this what causes these dilemmas?

In Wealth of Nations, the chapter on culture brought up the following questions. Is everyone born with cultural freedom? How is culture intertwined with social life and political life? How has the Internet impacted cultural freedom?

Imagine having to drive an hour and a half just to see a doctor. In an emergency, such a trip can make the difference between life and death. Instead, what if the doctor was able to communicate to his or her patient by videoconference. This research proposal considers the effect of telemedicine on the social norms of people’s lives, and future accessibility with the help of government funded broadband.

Key Questions:

• What is telemedicine?
• How is it being used in rural environments currently?
• What are the social and political impacts of telemedicine?

This theory will attempt to move telemedicine forward with the help of new media. For instance, is telemedicine important enough for the government to approve spending to bring broadband to rural areas?

Living in rural areas can potentially degrade the social life of an individual. What if going to the doctors once every three months is the only form of socialization these people encounter? If access to broadband Internet, and thus telemedicine, erases the need for travel, will these people encounter any other social opportunities?  Another social aspect to consider is the quality of treatment. With telemedicine, will patients continue to expect the same level of attention from their doctors?

The interactive part of this project will aim to inform audiences about telemedicine. The major aspect will be a website that users can click through at their own pace.

Animated diagrams, with simple text will allow for various users to understand the topic. If professional interviews are recorded, posting those to the website will allow users to interpret information for themselves with a little guidance from the author of the project. A blog, detailing the process of this project will link to the website.

Ideally, there would be an open discussion board for professionals to use to converse openly about the topic. Hopefully, this would generate new ideas between media and health experts.

1. Chapter 5 discussed propaganda to a great extent using Nazi Germany as an example. There are several ways for media to use propaganda to set an example, or agenda, to the audience. As an audience, are we smart enough today to realize what’s propaganda and what’s not?

2. Media violence and social interaction is very interesting. After the shootings at Columbine, everyone said violent video games pushed the gunmen to execute their violent plan. Yes, we learn from experience, and as a visual race, it’s hard to ignore the violence on some media channels. It didn’t seem like any of the media violence theories took a person’s homelife into account. Are there other factors that contribute to a person’s high emotions besides violent video games/news content?

3. After reviewing the 8 step model for attitude change, I can’t help but wonder what happens if a person makes it through steps 1-7  but doesn’t accomplish step 8. What if there is no attitude change? Can this model be applied to people who are stubborn and stick to their guns? Is there a different model for them to make them change their attitude?

1.)   The book discusses semiotics and how the use of symbols can determine documentary analysis. Semiotics, the study of signs and symbols, is open to interpretation. Like the example given in the book, C-A-T has different meanings for different people. Do you interpret this as a domestic pet, or maybe the wild animals in Africa? My question regarding semiotics is this: if people will interpret things independently, is there a universal message construct that can be used to mean one thing only? How does culture impact this message?

I’ve started watching Stargate SG-1 in my free time (which has been non-existent lately) and I realized during one episode that I could apply this TV show to answering my first question.

In this episode of Stargate SG-1, Jack O’Neill and his team head out to a planet to recover a long lost man, Ernest. They find Ernest in a crumbling castle by the sea, where he’s been alone for 50 plus years. More importantly, the team discovers a meeting place of four alien races that are represented by four different languages written on the walls.

Then, the anthropologist Daniel Jackson makes a discovery. How are these four races able to communicate with each other?

Through a universal language.

This leads back to my question: is there a universal message construct that can be used to mean only one thing, and does culture impact this message?

I argue yes to both. Maybe our society isn’t that advanced yet, but I believe that it would be possible with a lot of discussion and cross-cultural study.

For instance, in this episode, these four alien races communicated by using an interactive map of elements from the periodic table.  In the episode, Daniel Jackson argues these elements, combined or broken down, help make up everything that the world knows.

Therefore, we can conclude that this can be a universal language. Even if one race calls Hydrogen a different name, they still understand the component. By sharing  their culture with other races cross communication can formulate.

Yes, people may remember things independently, based on what their culture has taught them, but this knowledge is transferrable to other cultures to help form a universal understanding.

As of now, there is no universal language to my knowledge. By universal language, I mean a single language that everyone knows how to speak. I’m hopeful that someday, there could be a true universal language. Imagine how that would help in foreign relations. Stargate SG-1 has given me hope.

1.)  The book discusses semiotics and how the use of symbols can determine documentary analysis. Semiotics, the study of signs and symbols, is open to interpretation. Like the example given in the book, C-A-T has different meanings for different people. Do you interpret this as a domestic pet, or maybe the wild animals in Africa? My question regarding semiotics is this: if people will interpret things independently, is there a universal message construct that can be used to mean one thing only? How does culture impact this message?

2.) There is a correlation between two main points in the book when it comes to journalism. On one hand, the book says that the media reflects the more influential persons. Then, on the other hand, the book says that in applying media theory, the media strives to enforce “the right to know”.  Most likely, any breaking news about a politician, or a celebrity will make the front page because the audiences need to know the truth. With Internet privacy becoming more of an issue, when will the elite members of society break through and clamp down on the media? If the media reports reflect them, where will they turn to next?

3.) The media determinism theory was mentioned briefly in chapter 13. Overall, the theory states that the “medium people use to interact with each another contributes to how society ends up being structured”. Nowadays, the medium we’re using the most to contact each other is arguable the Internet. With Skype, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media resources, will society begin to unstructured itself? Will we eventually no longer go outside to talk with someone? I’ve seen people text each other even when they were in the same room. Is our reliance on technology hindering our ability to socialize, and think creatively?