Category: Uncategorized

Old school games from the 1980’s had an innocence. Dig Dug. Centipede. Joust. The Mario Games. They all had a simplicity to them that seems novel and maybe even boring compared to today’s games. Current video game culture still retains a place for ‘cutesy’ games, but as video games become more mainstream, the best selling games seem to be more violent, more over the top and more aggressive.

1.) Does this change indicate a change in popular culture that is reflected in video games? If video games are more violent, does that mean Americans feel more violent?

2.) Does this change reflect the increased developing capacity brought on by cheaper and cheaper computing power? Were these violent tendencies always there and just remained unexpressed in video games because we did not have the capacity to realistically render it?

3.) Is there a link between economic well being and the kind of video games we enjoy? The 80’s were a time of recession and uncertainty (relative to the 90’s) In those times, games were more innocent and ‘family oriented.’ The 90’s saw economic boom times – our games became more violent and aggressive and stayed that way through the early part of the 21st century. Now, however, as times again become rough, there seems to be a return to family oriented, ‘fun’ games. Do we crave ‘fun’ games more during hard times? Is their a psychological need these games fulfill that are linked to our feeling of existential well being?

1. We discuss video games as interactive interfaces. How does video games on video gaming consoles differ from games on personal mobile devices? Is there a difference?

2.  Video games have always been a constant advancement that continues to show progression through time. It has always be interactive because of the game controller and now the opportunity to talk to the person you are playing against with bluetooth technology, etc. What can we learn from the constant progression of interactivity within video games?

3. What are some of the larger theories around video gaming that affect us as individuals and as members of society? Do they differ from the theory we’ve been discussing such as interactivity, in general, and social media?

This week seemed to be focused on wiki-leaks. Before we talked about this topic this week I had honestly no previous knowledge or opinion of them what-so-ever. Watching the interview, I have to say that I’m torn on my opinion for what he does. In a way, I admire his struggle to discover the truth about engaging and controversial topics. I think he definitely has a point, that a lot of the information that comes from the government is corrupt. It is important that the public receive the truth. However, I have to say I feel like what he does is very rebellious, and as such really touches toes over the line of whats legal and ethical. I’m not sure that the way he approaches his field is the safest and best option for approaching hidden information.

My questions for this week dealt with privacy issues and Facebook. The first question for this week was more rhetorical than realistic. I wasn’t really searching for an answer, as much as I was providing a stance.

The second question, though, can certainly be answered. Our privacy concerns do and should stretch out to all the websites we use. Any information entered in on the internet can be hacked and “found out”. It is NOT the safest type of purchase to purchase online. You hear stories everyday about how someone’s account was purged after purchasing something from Amazon.com. I personally have never had this happen to me, but my purchases online are few and far between.

The third question I posed this week was the ethicality of employers and teachers punishing employees and students based on pictures of posts on facebook. I feel that even though my question led the reader to believe I disagreed with the ethicality of this, I do not. I think it is perfectly fine and a good idea actually for employers to have access to and view their employees Facebook page. I feel that everything posted online is public domain. If the user does not want their boss or teacher reading what they wrote, or seeing their pictures, they should never have posted it in the first place. Being professional and moral should carry into every aspect of your life, because you are a representation of the company or school you belong to.

1) Have we entered a period where people act as their own gatekeepers to determine what is private and public on a personal level?

I think that the answer to this question is a definite yes. The majority of people have now created profiles on at least one social networking site. Those who wish to lead a truly private life have chosen not to create profiles. Anyone who has created a profile on a social networking site (SSN) is at least somewhat aware that the information that they post to that profile is not private. Facebook has highly customizable privacy settings that allow you to filter your information depending on the relationships that you share with others who belong to the network. I think it’s important to distinguish between public and private on two different levels. When I talk about public and private information in terms of content on an SSN, I’m talking about what one chooses to keep private from people who may exist on the SSN but are not accepted as friends by that particular user. Public and private are an entirely different matter in terms of the companies that run SSN’s and the companies that the SSN chooses to do business with. Facebook considers everything that you post on your profile to be public in the sense that this information can be shared with third party advertisers to customize FB advertisements. Also – to use the Facebook interface and utilize some of the biggest offered tools such as “likes” means accepting that these things are public. You cannot opt out of your “likes” being public information. Although Facbeook offers many customized security settings that allow the user to act as a gatekeepr of their own information, this is really only true to a certain extent. But I think the thing to realize with this question is that the security settings allow the user to feel like a gatekeeper. That feeling contributes to the amount of sharing that takes place on the site, and therefore contributes to its popularity and usefulness to outsiders.

2) Could it be argued that mediated publics are also making life easier in many ways?

It’s certain that mediated public technology makes it easier for us to connect and stay in touch with one another. Features that include chat history have made my life easier when I ask class related questions through Facebook and I can go back and look at a response or answer that a classmate gave me. Caitlin mentioned that a potential boss said that they wanted to use her Facebook account to get to know her. This means that a SSN profile can be used as an extension of one’s resume and portfolio but presents many mixed signals from employers. I don’t know if there are any features that make life easier for us besides making it easier for us to connect with one another. The rest of the potential benefits are still being weighted as we try to balance public and private information.

3) Are we really aware at how much privacy settings do in safeguarding our information?

I think that this answer depends on who you ask. Older adults using SSN’s like Facebeook tend to be more aware of which privacy settings are offered and how they safeguard because they are generally more concerned about personal privacy. Younger generations do not care as much, although studies indicate that they engage in at least moderate information management in terms of what is posted to their public profiles. I think that most people are only aware of privacy settings on a surface level as far as what friends versus non-friends can see. I don’t think that most people are aware of privacy settings that you can opt-out of in terms of who Facebook shares your information with.

1.) How has socializing changed over the years, and with the introduction of SNSes?

2.) Why DOES everyone use Facebook? It doesn’t matter if it’s a 12 year old, or a company. Why does everyone feel the urge to Facebook?

3. Privacy: do people have a right to complain if their privacy is violated on SNSes, when they have control over such privacy features?

1. When thinking about privacy issues with Facebook, I can’t help but think that everything put onto a profile is really up to the user. So, can someone really complain when their information is made public, when its put onto a public domain? And who really cares if people can go on their to find out their favorite movie or quote? If people don’t want more private info like phone numbers and email figured out, they can simply just not include it on their profile.

2. How far out do these privacy issues stretch? How vulnerable is our other information when we visit sites like ebay or amazon, or other sites that ARENT social networking sites?

3. Yes, it is legal. But, is it ethical for employers to be able to use information on our Facebook against us? Pictures with alcohol, vulgar language, a negative statement in reference to work or school, if no specific name is mentioned?

1. Everyone complains about their lack of privacy online, so it seems. 1) Should we just accept that there are some lines of privacy that will inevitably be crossed online? 2) Assuming people are smart enough not to share personal details, do we really care about our movie and music preferences being seen by strangers?

2. What are the privacy issues outside of the world of social networking? The majority of discussion seems to be about Facebook and similar technologies, but what about other sites?

3. As students, we’re encouraged to maintain a clean Facebook page with no party pictures or other evidence of debauchery. Do potential employers have a right to investigate the people they are hiring through sites like Facebook.

1) Have we entered a period where people act as their own gatekeepers to determine what is private and public on a personal level?

2) Could it be argued that mediated publics are also making life easier in many ways?

3) Are we really aware at how much privacy settings do in safeguarding our information?

4) How customizable are privacy settings?

My questions for the week were:

1. How do we separate valid information from hearsay in our digital age?

2. Is the future about collaboration rather than competition between news sources?

3. How reliable is the citizen Journalist?

In our time the divide between traditional media formats and the public is rapidly closing. Today the average person can generate content, place it on the web, create discussion forums, and other social attributes. We also have to question just how reliable the average person can be.

The issue has been raised about whether the citizen journalist, individuals that often do not have the training or funds for producing news, can be considered infallible. We must keep in mind that news has existed for centuries without centralized news agencies. I would argue that the presence of independent news providers are a new method of interacting with one another as well as larger news organizations. We must never forget that in Burma and Iran, individuals on the ground posted content that was later displayed on network television. Also in Mexico, twitter users are now informing the public of dangerous areas frequented by drug traffickers. In all, the citizen journalist fills out the niche as a sort of secondary information source on the local level.

My questions of the week were:

1. If infoenterpropagainment is the order of the day for political media platforms, is the constituency just as complicit in allowing out-of-context information to stand in for the truth?

2. Doses the advent of Web 2.0 technologies truly mean that the political due process is in the hands of a community-by-community basis rather than a centralized political machine?

3. Are grass-roots social networking sites more powerful than the traditional central governments in regards to making immediate, localized social change?

The current trend for political parties, both established and grass roots is to rely on digital communication to rally their constituencies. While the use of media isn’t new, the speed of organization and mobilization has changed dramatically. Since new technology is controlled and personalized on a user basis, there is also a greater emphasis on responsibility. For instance, the rise of infopropagainment by organizations such as the Tea Party has lead to the skewing of facts and blatant usurpation and distortion of the truth. This type of behavior is not only irresponsible but should also be a criminal act. Another example that has come to mind on Web 2.0 politics is Gunnar Grimmson’s lecture on his country’s political machine. The rise of the Shadow government was to mobilize the facebook oriented population towards libertarian goals. Iceland and other nations have led to a form of community activism that  has never been heard of before. There are several concerns that come out of this reliance on digital technology.

Since today’s social activists rely on social networks to get out the word they are also at the mercy of the private companies that own the said site. For instance, Grimmson mentioned in his lecture that the established political parties in Iceland immediately complained to the offices of Facebook that their opponents site was spreading unsubtatiated claims about the economic policies of the incumbent parties and the effectiveness of central government. As a result the Shadow government and other activist sites were closed by facebook. All on hearsay. What will happen to activist organizations in other parts of the world?