Category: Caitlin Smith

After learning more about the copyright debate, I’m more and more convinced that we’ll never really have an answer to the question: How do we balance copyright protection and creativity?  I wonder who, in the end, is going to maintain control over all of this digital content. When will there ever be enough people to monitor the amount of digital content on the web? I would be interested in seeing the percentage (if this can even possibly be measured) of information on the web that’s monitored and the amount that’s not. I bet it’s something like 5% monitored and 95% unmonitored. That leads me to questions whether it’s worth it, in most cases, to stress so much over copyright or, on the flip side, if it’s worth attempting to produce something new based loosely on a previously created piece of work. I think there has to be a balance of the two.

One of my framing questions was about how there’s a very fleeting desire to obey copyright laws and how this may impact the next generation’s inclination to respect other laws. I need to do more research into this to get an accurate answer. I do wonder what the RW culture will be like when they’re older adults (with a greater understanding of business economics). The law is important, but is going after 11 year-olds who download music really the answer and a good teaching tool? It certainly didn’t stop everyone. I’m under the notion that the younger generation has been de-synthesised from obeying the law. On the other hand, I do wonder how many kids know that what they’re doing is illegal in the first place.

In class, it was interesting to hear that the producers of the Hurt Locker (such a good movie) went after and sued a lot of people. I’m surprised I didn’t hear about this and even more surprised by the time, money, and effort that went into tracking these people down. What exactly are the costs of pursuing people who download free movies and music?

We’ve grown up with the mentality that once we own something, we are allowed to share it. We’re taught this at a very young age, and we’re also taught to share. I can just imagine a conversation among 3 year-olds of the next century. “Here, I’ll share my toy truck with you,” says Kid A. “I don’t know. I really want to play with it, but do I have the right? So before I accept this gift, do you have permission to share the toy? Did you create it?” says Kid B.  “No, but my Mom bought it, so technically I believe I own it,” says Kid A. “I’m not sure. My friend JoJo said his pre-school buddy Sammy was sued by Toyco for sharing his trucks. Maybe we should get permission first.” I know this is an extreme example, but I just saw a video of a 2 year-old playing with an i-Pad. We need to instill this permission/sharing hoopla (once we have it figured out) with kids at young age so they don’t end up in a lawsuit as a pre-teen.

1) What are the implications of new generations knowing that “remixing” digital work is technically illegal but choose to do it anyways? Does this downplay the importance of abiding by other laws and refraining from other activities that are illegal? If something like remixing is illegal but so many people don’t understand or agree with the logic behind that law, does this open the door to debate other laws?

2) What are some methods the advertising industry is using to accumulate information about their target audiences? And how are they tailoring messages to those audiences while remaining broad enough to engage new audiences?

3) What are the key components of a successful shared economy? Which of those key success factors can be applied to community and collaboration spaces as well?

1)   Lanier makes an interesting point about our “circles of empathy.” How does this circle of empathy influence the way we interact online?

2)   Besides Google searches, what other ways do we lower our standards to make computers “smart?” When we see an aesthetically pleasing site design, do we really like it or is just better than most we’ve seen (i.e. are we just lowering our standards)?

3)   How can we change the way we interact online so we become a culture of action instead of reaction? Lanier is adamant about each of us being an individual instead of “a source of fragments to be exploited by others.” Is “being individual” one way to help us become a culture of action?

4)   Jenkins talks about participatory culture running ahead of the technological developments necessary to sustain it. How did this happen? More specifically, what made media consumers suddenly want to become media producers?

After yesterday’s class, I became more interested in intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.  My framing question asking why financial incentives lowers levels of activity was answered really well with the example of the Israel daycare. I guess when I was asking my original framing question, I was assuming the worst in us: that we will only do things if there is a financial incentive.  My assumptions were  somewhat correct, however, in that we do things because we are motivated in some way. After hearing about how the parents of the kids at the daycare would pick their kids up even later since they felt like they were paying for the extra care, it reminded me that another trait of human nature is that we all think someone owes us something. Plus, the amount the daycare was charging per fifteen minutes is way less than what the teachers/caretakers would really charge if they billed an hourly rate. So  the parents were still inconveniencing the daycare, but they used their payment to validate why they should not feel guilty.

This makes me wonder what creative ways employers are motivating their employers, especially in ways other than more pay or a bonus. Would it be wise for companies to focus more on offering intrinsic motivations? I would assume, given the economy, companies are thinking of more creative (i.e. cheaper) ways to motivate and reward employees. I wonder how this is working out and if there are any studies on this.

From what I’ve seen in the workforce, simple public recognition (i.e. intrinsic motivators), has been one good way to motivate people. Although, this has also backfired. Now that the economy is recovering, people are expecting raises and bonuses. So how does a company strike a balance between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators?

These motivators are interesting to look at when considering the blogging community. There are bloggers who write because they’re trying to build credibility, send a message, or simply because they enjoy it—all without getting paid for. Then there are bloggers who get paid to write. I wonder which content is better and more effective. We could look at two bloggers with similar levels of writing skills and compare the hits and comments on their site.

As we’re delving further into “Here Comes Everybody,” I look forward to learning more about the power of the individual and what motivates them to make their voice heard online. And, I’m especially fascinated by the power of one’s voice.



Week 4 Framing Questions | The Rise of the Network

1) How do we measure the validity of peer-produced information? Though “contemporary society is witnessing an emergence of more effective peer production that does not rely on the price system,” are there times when it should? When a content creator is driven by payment, won’t they be more careful to ensure the information they’re sharing is accurate?

2) How is it possible that adding financial incentives to activities that were previously intrinsic (i.e. motivations from within) actually lowers the level of activity?! So it’s not money that makes the world go round, it’s our motivation for pleasure/pain?

3) Benkler talks about an advantage of networks by connecting with people who share similar interests. I agree; it’s a great benefit. But do social media networks inhibit us from connecting with people who are different than us? Shouldn’t we expand OUTSIDE our circles to those with different hobbies and beliefs? What are the negative effects of close-knit networks (e.g. exclusion, cliques)?

I’m going to try and tackle my own questions from chapters 5-8. First things first, I’ve learned that from here on out I need to stop asking such specific framing questions. I should be a little broader. I really haven’t a clue as to how I should answer my first two questions, so I’ll do my best to address my third question. A lot of what we discussed in class and from the reading was interesting and relates to this topic of how and why we interpret messages from the media on such different levels.

First, propaganda in the media: wow, there are so many ways to approach this subject.  Someone in class today said that the media’s purpose is not to sway us on a certain subject or push us any one direction. Instead, their purpose is to simply inform. I don’t entirely agree.  I think the way in which these media sources choose to inform the pubic is purposefully designed to a) make their target audience feel validated for their beliefs or b) to convince those that are on the fence politically (e.g. moderates, I suppose) to vote or lean to the right or left. Roaarr (yeah, I just roared), I hate how divided this country is! Maybe its always been this way and I was just naive.

Second, and we didn’t get to touch on this subject for very long in class so I could be off here, but the subject of “priming” really fascinates me. So much of what we receive from the media could be priming tactics.  I look at this exactly like paint primer. You prime the wood or the wall before you paint so the paint doesn’t soak into the wood (allowing the paint to roll on easily) or so the paint covers the old pattern or color on the wall. This is very similar to how the media pushes out information to us. They stimulate emotion or strong opinions  (to get us primed) so the paint—known as political agendas—sticks. Without the primer, the paint won’t last. I feel inclined to roar again! Stop priming me!

Now, my question about how we as individuals filter the media to varying degrees:  I can more clearly understand how people with similar backgrounds can develop different filters based on experience. For example, A LOT of people with a background similar to mine (especially from my hometown) have different views on life, politics, morals, beliefs, ambitions, etc.  This is great. It’s what makes us different. Life would be terrible if we were all the same. But for a while I thought maybe I was just a freak or they were just backwards. It’s neither! We developed different filters. I can look back to certain life experiences and pinpoint events that added or subtracted filters, thus changing my perception and views of specific topics. The same concept can be applied to how and why people receive and internalize media with varying degrees.

Rationale/Motivations
With the emergence of the Internet came a flood of information that, frankly, I don’t think we were all ready for. Companies frantically created an online presence and have evolved over time to become more interactive (some just in an effort to “keep up with the Jones’).” I seek to uncover why companies and individuals should be cognizant of the signals they’re sending to consumers through their online presence.
With every design, piece of content, photograph, tweet, and status update, a signal is delivered. I want to understand how audiences internalize those signals so companies can better focus on reaching their target audience.

I’m interested in this topic for a number of reasons. Here are the two primary reasons:

First, I’ve learned first-hand from someone in the interactive communication industry that developing a personal online brand is key to drawing attention from potential employers. But how much of our online brand (i.e. our online selves) is an accurate reflection of who we are? How much can you really learn about someone by the way they tweet or write their LinkedIn profile?

Second, I might pursue the interactive communications/advertising sector myself, so I’m interested in why some online brands are more appealing to others and what the key influencers are. More specifically, I want to understand why and how audiences engage with online brands and upon which signals they build their perceptions.

Engagement With Social Theory I’ll be drawing from the work of Judith Donath and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, just to name a few.

My first step will be to research the process of identity, both in terms of one’s personal identity (i.e. brand) and a company’s online presence. I want to dissect the strategy behind those online signals. Donath said, “Signaling theory…shows how the cost of many seemingly extravagant displays is no wasteful expenditure, but useful for ensuring the reliability of the display as a signal.” But what makes a signal honest? What are the methods signal receivers use to sift through the dishonest signals to find the true meaning?

Twenty-first century technology has given all of us a keen BS detectors. I’d like to know what signals trigger that alarm. I also want to understand why some signals are more reliable than others.

Methods
For my secondary research, in addition to the sources mentioned above, I’ll investigate research that focuses on the following topics:
• The history of online branding
• What makes people trust one brand over another (specifically, what about their web presence seems more honest)
• What about the company/organization captures audiences
• What about the design/content of a site means to the consumer (i.e., what’s a turn-off and what’s a hook)

I may also conduct primary research via social media networks (facebook, twitter) and interview people in marketing/advertising leadership positions.

Outcomes/Novelty
This topic is considered novel because the avenues and technologies by which we communicate and present ourselves online is always changing. At the conclusion of my research, I’d like to be able to give insight to companies and individuals on what their brand may be signaling to target audiences.

1) There’s so much discussion about over exposure to violence and its effects on people, understandably. But as I read about the disinhibition hypothesis, I couldn’t help but wonder if anyone has taken the time to research the positive effects of our exposure to such violence in the media and entertainment. Does it help us stay calm when we otherwise would not? If I saw someone get stabbed, instead of freaking out, throwing up, and going into shock, maybe I’d call for help and apply pressure to the wound (because I’ve been watching movie stars do this since I was 12).

2) If children become media-dependent at a young age (between ages 7-14), what cognitive and behavioral effects does this have on their development and psyche (the instant gratification of being recognized on social networking sites, finding quick and easy answers to complex questions)? Is an inpatient generation of narcissistic know-it-alls imminent?

3) How can the media influence us all in such varying degrees? I understand that perception is linked to a filtering process, but what specifically (beyond the generic biologic, cultural, educational, and religious differences) make those filters so dramatically different? Does this mean siblings raised in the same household start off with similar perceptions but gradually develop different filters the more they experience? I have a difficult time understanding why some individuals allow the media to take such firm root in their value systems.



1)  Since social scientists haven’t figured out how to adequately measure human behavior, how do companies like Twitter and facebook–who rely so heavily on behavior–even begin to brainstorm methods to advance their products?

2) Does quantitative research via surveys only reach a certain demographic? Unless there’s honorarium involved, I’d think there’s only a handful of personality types that actually participate in surveys (these are the same people who collect your newspapers for you when you go out of town).

3) Some industries value quantitative research over qualitative research any day of the week, and vice-versa. How are we as researchers supposed to know what our audience will hold in higher regard…qualitative or quantitative research?