Patty

On page 21 of “You Are Not a Gadget,” Jaron Lanier states some ways he believes modern Internet users should strive to be considered, ” a person instead of a source of fragments to be exploited by others.” He goes on to explain that there are many dangers in letting computers becomes smarter. He believes in some ways, such as when windows auto corrects something that the user did not want corrected. Everyone has had this happen to them, and it’s not only annoying, but as Lanier points out, actually more time consuming.
My question is – What is better? The old way of having to do everything for yourself? Or this new way we’ve become accustomed to? Obviously every way has it’s pros and cons but are we better for all of the technology that we have?

On page 68 Lanier discusses “personal reductionism,” on Facebook. He talks about how people choose their statuses and which information they put into to represent themselves. He argues that this makes the info less personal because it essentially being put into a system and organized based on “common interests.”
My question is, in a world where online dating has become such a popular phenomenon, how does this work? Answers on dating websites seem to me to be just as impersonal. In this regard, according to Lanier they should fail miserably, but they seem to be pretty successful. How is that?

In that same section Lanier discusses how Facebook has become a somewhat fake world for the “Facebook Generation,” to hide behind. Their words, emotions and relationships are all identified by “statuses.”
My question on this is, are these feeling and emotions any less dynamic of important than past generations? What I mean is, are teens feeling becoming more mainstreamed to fit into a little box on their Facebook page? Or are they just as they’ve always been dynamic and meaningful, just shared differently than before?

According to Benkler, ” The first-generation critique of democratizing effect of the Internet was based on various implications of problem of information overload, or the Babel objection. According to the Babel objection, when everyone can speak, no one came be heard, and we devolved either to a cacophony or to the reemergence of money as the distinguishing factors between statements that are heard and those that wallow in obscurity. ”

Benkler basically says that many site go unnoticed, which is true since there are billions of sites, but is it really true that with every speaking, no one is heard? Or does the speaker just need to express themselves in a different way?

I think a little bit more about this and I definitely think that the speaker just needs to speak in a clear and or unique way.  With all of the voices in the world it is hard to hear just one but it is possible.  Look at phenomenons like popular blogs or YouTube videos.  While there may be millions of people on the Internet fighting for everyone’s attention there has to be a reason why certain blogs are known by everyone and certain YouTube videos have millions of views.  Since most of these posters are everyday people, they embody the idea of ‘everyone speaking.’  These people, however, were able to be heard so I think that it is more about the content of the message and the way that it is portrayed that is really important.

Benkler also says that because of the Internet, free information is available everywhere, and easier to put out by anyone.

Thinking ahead to my research project, how does this affect advertising? Does a multi-billion dollar ad campaign run by coca-cola or a small internet run campaign, such as “The Story of Stuff,” gain more attention, if the message is for the betterment of society?

I think that this question directly relates to my first question.  Since a company like Coca-cola can afford to get their message and their brand out everywhere consumers look from television to movies to billboards I think that Coca-cola would gain more attention just because they are a globally run company and a household name.  Where as a smaller campaign such as “The Story of Stuff,” will be seen by less people but that may be okay.  “The Story of Stuff” doesn’t necessarily need to be a worldwide campaign to make the impact that it needs, while Coca-cola does need to be seen worldwide.  The Internet lets the general masses put their opinions out there no matter how valid, and a smaller website may be able to reach thousands of users at once, and before the internet it would only be able to reach  dozens.  For marketing and advertising purposes, the Internet lets smaller companies and causes get their ideas out there.

Benkler discusses Wikipedia, and how it is a site governed by the people. He discusses how the website is so well policed by the people that even when acts of vandalism are committed they are reverted back to their original format very quickly. He suggests that this keeps the group on track. Is this true? Is that really why Wikipedia is so successful today? It seems to me that such a website would fail because there are so many people in the world to edit out or edit in content so that it is to their liking. Do social norms really help to police the website?

According to Benkler, ” The first-generation critique of democratizing effect of the Internet was based on various implications of problem of information overload, or the Babel objection.  According to the Babel objection, when everyone can speak, no one came be heard, and we devolved either to a cacophony or to the reemergence of money as the distinguishing factors between statements that are heard and those that wallow in obscurity. ”

Benkler basically says that many site go unnoticed, which is true since there are billions of sites, but is it really true that with every speaking, no one is heard?  Or does the speaker just need to express themselves in a different way?

Benkler also says that because of the Internet, free information is available everywhere, and easier to put out by anyone.

Thinking ahead to my research project, how does this affect advertising?  Does a multi-billion dollar ad campaign run by coca-cola or a small internet run campaign, such as “The Story of Stuff,” gain more attention, if the message is for the betterment of society?

Benkler discusses Wikipedia, and how it is a site governed by the people.  He discusses how the website is so well policed by the people that even when acts of vandalism are committed they are reverted back to their original format very quickly.  He suggests that this keeps the group on track.  Is this true?  Is that really why Wikipedia is so successful today?  It seems to me that such a website would fail because there are so many people in the world to edit out or edit in content so that it is to their liking.  Do social norms really help to police the website?

1. How is communication theory applied to new technologies?  That is, how is the new research that is discovered used in new media platforms to strengthen their message?

2.  Is qualitative or quantitate research more useful in communication theory, or do they each have their own pros and cons?

3. With up to the minute news updating how relevant are the readings that we are doing in class to the real world?