Category: Meghan Gargan

In light of Wednesday’s discussion, I wanted to create a response that continued addressing some of the questions brought up by my classmates (instead of just answering my three questions).

One of the most interesting aspects of Wednesday’s class was the idea of amateurism versus professionalism and looking at Lessig’s model for who should be paid and who should be copyrighted. I thought the chart brought up some interesting questions such as:

1. If you are an amateur, using this model, how will you ever make money?

2. What defines a professional versus amateur?

3. Using Lessig’s model will this influence the piracy of copyrighted materials?

I feel like Lessig’s model is a good start to further investigate the idea of copyright, payment and professional versus amateur; however, I also think that it’s not detailed enough (hence the questions above) to be put into action. I do appreciate the thought process though, and believe that this model is the first step in the right direction when it comes to redefining the laws of copyrighted materials.

Another issue brought up in class has to do with copyright laws and how as society we have outgrown the ones currently in place. With technology quickly evolving at a speed in which policymakers and researchers can’t keep up, the idea that copyright laws don’t fit our digital society makes since. Since copyright laws are outdated for current digital innovations, it then raises the question of piracy and how illegal is it really? During class discussion someone compared piracy to prohibition – making it illegal won’t stop it from happening and in fact may help grow the piracy business (as it did during the prohibition-era). I agree that copyright laws need to be adjusted based on current technology, but that will be a long road that we’ve just started traveling down. In the mean time, I think it’s important to educate artists about their rights and give them the opportunity to share and tag their work in ways that they deem most beneficial. Some artists like Radiohead or GirlTalk have released albums for free and asked only for donations or for fans to attend shows. I think the idea of creating a loyal fan-base who finds meaning in spending money on an artist will be more beneficial in the long-term rather than artists refusing to share their work unless they paid a price (it makes it seem more about the monetary issues rather than sharing their creative work).

Our class discussions brought up a lot of good points and issues to think about this week. I found it extremely helpful to have a more open forum where we were able to set the agenda and talk about the aspects that interested us most.

1. In the beginning of the book, the Lessig introduces us to RO (Read Only) and RW (Read Write) cultures. He explains the latter to be the traditional idea of participation in the creation and recreation of content while the former (and now the most common) to be where people consume creative content without being a creator using new technologies. However, at the end of the first chapter the author states he believes the technologies of the RO culture could benefit and revive the somewhat forgotten RW way of life. How is this so? Do you think that both RO and RW can work together?

2. In the book, Lessig states that RO cultures are driven by professionals while RW cultures are driven by professionals and amateurs. How have both RO and RW been critical to the development of pop culture?

3. In the second part of the book, Lessig discusses how Wikipedia is considered a “sharing economy.” He also goes into detail about why the website decided to forgo selling advertising space and, thus, miss out on over 100 million dollars in revenue each year. Do you think this was the right decision for an informational-based website? If there were advertisements on Wikipedia, would this affect how you read and interpreted the information?

This week I thought I’d answer one of Charlotte’s questions: Look at any newspaper website and you can see that trolling is an issue in the comments section. Lanier believes that the design is mostly to blame. On many sites you have to sign up in order to leave comments, but with the ease of making a new email address and leaving a fake name it is easy to become anonymous. How do we design these sites better so that there is interactions between users but not the constant lack of respect that takes place online?

I think this is a really interesting question that calls into play a lot of issues surrounding user privacy and how we can best utilize the Internet for public good, rather than harm. Currently, it’s simple for users to create fake email accounts, names and ways of identifying themselves for sites that require some sort of log-in in order to comment; however, many sites still allow anonymous, free-flowing comments where user identification is not required at all. I agree in part with Lanier that it is website interfaces and designs that make anonymity effortless and thus encourage and promote trolling, however, as we continue down the path of interactivity, new methods must be put into place in order to protect all users and direct conversations into meaningful areas. I don’t think “directing” a conversation can be considered censorship if the goal of doing this is to simply eliminate unhelpful, unnecessary or abusive comments. However, where the issue becomes tricky is HOW to best direct conversations. Right now a lot of websites have someone who monitors comments and deletes any that are inappropriate. Some websites also have software that flags comments that use specific words (like swears) for review. These are all good steps in the right direction, however, there needs to be more. Maybe one solution is not necessarily changing the website design to require all users to identify themselves, but to have a way to track comments back to users and be able to hold them accountable. This way users who want to comment anonymously can continue to do so and keep a certain level of privacy, but also know they will be held accountable if their comments are inappropriate or harmful.

I think as we continue to explore this issue a lot of new ideas and innovations will begin to pop up as to how to best “track” users and continue to improve everyone’s web experience. However, we must be cautious that we do not stifle people’s voices or censor them in a way that might devalue the interactive experience.

1. In Jaron Lanier’s “You Are Not a Gadget,” he discusses the virtual factors that play into online trolling. Lanier makes the argument that it’s the design of the user interface that plays the largest role in “nasty” online behavior due to interfaces being effortless, consequence-free and offering transient anonymity. If we attempted to modify online behaviors by requiring user identification, would this be considered internet regulation and censorship? What would the pros and cons be of demanding users identify themselves in a conversation?

2. Lanier also talks about social networking sites and lines blurring between real versus online identity saying, “We ask people to live their lives through our models, we are potentially reducing life itself.” As social networks continue to grow in popularity, how does this affect how we view and craft our online identities and does this mean that future generations will spend more of their lifetime in their online persona versus than real life persona?

3. What does Lanier mean when he talks about how math, in regards to the virtual world, will become a universal element one day, in which everyone can participate?

1. In the first chapter, the author discusses the generational critiques of the Internet, with the first being that if the Internet gives everyone a voice or a chance to speak, then no one is listening. The second generational critique said the Internet is not as decentralized as we once thought (i.e., very few sites capture a large amount of attention and far more websites go unnoticed). Based on these observations and the continuing evolution of the World Wide Web, what could be some third generation critiques when it comes to networked publics and the democracy of sharing information?

2. In the second chapter, the author explains that many outlets do not rely on copyright royalties to attain their wealth, but rather see a greater benefit in sharing the information at a low (or zero) cost to users in order to have information circulated, thus making profit that way. With companies like the New York Times debating charging users for access to their websites, how would this affect the online information community and, perhaps, the focus on using copyrights for profits?

3. How are community-based websites, such as Wikipedia and Second Life, shaping our cultural understanding of the Internet? What are the social-norms and values (or even self-governing rules of conduct) of participating in these forums and how have they developed?

Today’s discussion regarding journalism, biases and the idea of commodity was fascinating to me – and it also answered two of my three framing questions posted earlier this week (imagine that).

As a former journalist, it’s funny to think back about how these same ideas affected the way I wrote my own stories. It’s no secret that news organizations are owned by large media conglomerates that are driven by economical, political and social agendas. The news is no longer the “fourth estate” we might have once believed it to be. Now, it’s about advertisers, the bottom line and being the first to break a story (quantity over quality). However, when one is consuming the media (or even acting as part of it) this isn’t necessary our first reaction when reading or writing a story. Everyday I take in media that is biased and at times, I don’t even question it. Sure, if I turn on Fox News I’ve been programmed to know that it’s going to have a conservative slant or that Rush Limbaugh isn’t going to best friends with President Obama. There are certainly news symbols that I recognize or even play into to help frame my view of the outside world (hello Colbert Report), but, what about all the other times when I’m not necessary paying attention to the behind-the-scenes agenda setting that is going on? What about Twitter and Facebook, or even bloggers/iReporters that post news as if they don’t carry biases?

It’s as if we always need to be on guard and question everything that is handed to us, because the news has become a commodity, something that large media organizations are selling to us based on what fits their needs and agendas versus what is best for the public good. Of course, not all media organizations create their entire content based on the bottom dollar, but it is something we should all be aware of.

An example from my own experience is when I was an intern at a local entertainment magazine. I was compiling a story about hot fall hair fashions and was asked to find a handful of salons in the area and speak to their resident “expert.” After I had made my list and my phone calls my editor came back to me and gave me an entirely new list. There was nothing wrong with the list I had originally made – they were all great salons – but none of them were our advertisers who expected editorial space and coverage. While this may seem petty and in the grand scheme of things not a huge deal, it shows that agenda-setting and biases do play roles in our everyday lives – even in the smallest of ways.

While it may seem a bit cold-hearted, the news is a business after all, and while many stories are legitimate and news-worthy, we as viewers should recognize biases and understand the symbols we are letting shape our perspective of the world.

Social Media, Privacy and Youth: How Online Sharing Could Impact Future Generations

Research Description

With recent debates involving social networking giant Facebook and its privacy features, it’s not surprising that social media has become a focus for discussion, analysis and research, especially in regards to online sharing and information privacy. While much of this recent research has spotlighted the general uses and impacts of social media in addition to touching upon the current privacy issues, one area that is relatively unexplored is how social media and its privacy regulations will shape and impact future generations as they mature into digital-savvy adults. The purpose of this research paper will be to explore the concept of social media’s long-term impacts on today’s youth in relation to privacy and online information sharing.

Understanding how social media and privacy will influence future generations is an important question to consider as society continues to go digital. With more conversations taking place online, friendships developing virtually and the idea of learning about a person via profile, it’s more important than ever to understand how these developments will shape the next generation of decision-makers and society leaders. Exploring the next generation’s understanding of privacy and long-term effects of social media will better prepare influencers to ensure that youth’s privacy and personal information is protected now, before it is too late.

In regards to social media, privacy and youth, this paper hopes to support the idea that today’s youth lacks the understanding of privacy issues surrounding social media sites; therefore, today’s youth is unable to recognize and process the long-term effects of sharing private information. Private information can be classified as name, address, phone number and photos, among other qualifiers. This paper further hopes to discuss that since children lack the understanding regarding privacy features, they are unable to develop an analytical thinking process before sharing information through social networking sites.

Considering the statements above, this paper intends to investigate the following questions:

Is today’s youth, defined as children ages ten to eighteen, aware of and understand the privacy issues surrounding social networking sites and the long-term effects of sharing private information?

The question of long-term effects is an important aspect to consider regarding this topic. This paper assumes that based on previous research studying current users and the consequences of sharing private information, it can be inferred that it is imperative for children and young adults to comprehend the potential life-altering repercussions that may result from sharing information through social networking sites. However, discovering if today’s youth understands and is aware of privacy issues is not enough to determine if this will affect how they use and behave with the medium. Therefore, a second question must be proposed:

Does the knowledge, or lack thereof, of social media privacy regulations affect how youth, defined as children ages ten to eighteen, use, interact and behave with social media?

Using a different angle to re-examine previous research, this paper will begin to explore the ideas of social network privacy issues and long-term impacts in relation to today’s youth. This research will break-ground within an unexplored topic and help predict the future of social media and the next generation’s attitudes and beliefs towards the medium.

Methodology

This research paper will consist of a literature review with content analysis. By looking at recent research, ranging from social media use to long-term effects to youth’s interest in medium, a new insight on how this media will impact upcoming generations will be discussed. By dissecting relevant research with a different angle, new results and correlations will appear. In addition to the research component, this paper will also include interviews with social media experts who will discuss where social media is today in regards to privacy, where we can expect it to go and how this will impact future generations.

Since this paper will be based in literature, expert interviews and suggested theory, there will be no formal communications science component. However, in order to understand where to start such an experiment this foundational research will prove pivotal in directing future studies regarding the subject matter.

Conclusion

Social media is forever changing the way people communicate, which includes the next generation, even at young ages. For many children, social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn have always been a part of their background noise. In other words, social media is not new or novel for them like it has been for current mature audiences. Children are growing up knowing how to inherently use these mediums and their usage will start at younger ages, but the question remains – do they use social networking sites wisely? In order to do so, children need to be educated on privacy regulations surrounding social media and the long-term implications this usage will have on their futures. This research paper is designed to explore this concept and draw conclusions about the knowledge youth carries in regards to social media and privacy as well as the knowledge of long-term impacts through online information sharing.

1. In Chapter 5 the authors argue that the mass communications experience will differ from person to person based on the symbols each is exposed to and through the media in which those symbols are distributed. Therefore, this experience will be, to an extent, selected and constructed with certain biases. Looking at my own media use, what are the symbols that construct my mass communications reality and what biases might play into my user experience?

2. The idea of using propaganda to influence public opinion is an issue that’s extremely interesting to me. Although, we may not have as blatant media materials influencing the public as we did during the world wars, in what way are propaganda techniques still used today? What are some modern examples of this?

3. In Chapter 8 the commodification of culture is discussed where the media “treats information as a commodity and is ‘selling’ it through the mass media.” What does this mean and how do media conglomerates and advertisers play into this idea? If news distribution is highly diluted by third-parties, can the news process still be considered as serving the public good or just serving the public a biased reality?

Below are the original framing questions I posted for Week 1 and my responses after today’s discussion.

1. Although quantitative research methods are the most popular when it comes to gathering and analyzing data, there are many benefits to the qualitative approach as well. As a researcher, which method appeals to you most and why? Is there one particular aspect/component you find compelling?

As a researcher the qualitative method appeals to me the most. While I appreciate hard data and numbers to help support qualitative analysis, I feel that tools like observation and interviews give research a certain warmth and make it more relatable. I also feel that it gives research an opportunity to explore the “human” side of an issue rather than just base it on numbers. Qualitative methods also allows for flexibility and exploratory research, which can be beneficial when first tackling a new issue. The component I find most compelling within qualitative research is the interview aspect, or using other people’s experience and knowledge to help shape the results. The interview process (and the flexibility of this kind of research) allows the researcher to ask follow up questions or go in-depth about certain aspects in regards to whatever issue is currently being studied. While I prefer qualitative methods, I do believe that both methods are needed in order to understand communication theories in today’s society.

2. In chapter 13 the authors assign certain theories to communication professions demonstrating real-world use of theory. Pick one of the industry-related fields and decide if you agree with the authors suggestions. For example, do you agree that in Public Relations the theory of framing and agenda setting would be useful/applicable? Why or why not? If possible try to tie in work/internship/classroom experiences that help demonstrate this.

Having worked in PR for two years I can see how I used the framing and agenda setting theories in my everyday work experiences. The way I would word or frame press releases, pitches and media materials was based on what I thought would grab the media’s attention and thus result in a story being written. For example, one client I worked for was an auto insurance company and we developed an annual campaign for them testing driver’s knowledge based on if they would pass a standard DMV test today. Based on the findings we would frame headlines to read XX Insurance Company Finds  Americans May Be Unfit for Roads*. With this headline we wanted to convey that our survey results indicated that many would not pass the DMV test, however because it was not a “scientific” study (more entertainment based) we had to be careful about phrasing, which is way we used “may be unfit.”  By keeping the wording vague we were able to avoid backlash from those who would measure it by scientific standards and challenge the methodology. What’s interesting is that while I was using the theory to help launch the campaign and make it successful,  at the same time I was completely unaware that I was doing it – it felt natural and almost obvious. I think this is a great example of how we use theory in our daily lives and that it’s become an ingrained part of our thinking process.

3. This last question doesn’t directly involve the reading, but as I’m interested in using interviews as part of my research paper I thought it would be beneficial to discuss. The authors suggest that interviews are a strong qualitative measurement when it comes to communications research and theory. What is the best way (email, phone?) to secure an interview with a source who the researcher may not know? How can researchers frame their idea in such a way that will excite a prospective interviewee into participating?

While we didn’t discuss this in class, I believe the best way to start a “cold” conversation is to first research the person you want to interview and see if there are any commonalities. Did you both go to school in the city? Does he/she have a masters in Interactive Media? I would then compose a brief email with using this information and also about my research project. I’d request to have no more than 15 to 20 minutes of their time and give them all my contact information. Depending on the source, if I hadn’t heard back I might try a follow up call, but again this would depend on the source and on the research topic. To help engage the source in my research I would talk about the importance of their expertise and also how their work has influenced this topic (it’s a little brown nosing, but it never hurts, right?) I’d also explain why I think their contribution would be valuable. However, if the source isn’t interested I would move onto a new potential source and continue until I found someone who would be able to fit my research purposes and provide useful insight to my topic.

* I omitted the client’s name for privacy reasons (should someone stumble across this blog).