Posts Tagged: social media

1. Will augmented reality incorporate social media and networking in the near future?

I think that augmented reality is going to huge in the future. Can you imagine having a room in your house completely devoted to gaming? You are in a virtual world the entire time you are in the room. I think that social media is growing and will continue to grow in the future. It is only a matter of time before social media is incorporated into augmented reality. Your avatar in the game will contain all of your information. This allows for tremendous networking opportunities. However, I think it also poses privacy issues with the release of private information. I think that some people do not understand how important it is to be selective of what you put online.

However, on the networking side. If augmented and virtual reality catch on the way the the predictions say it will, wouldn’t it be cool to be able to network with your potential employer in a virtual world? I think that it would be amazing to network in a gaming world. I think it cuts the edge off of meeting potential employers and going through the everyday questions. This could be a very impactful opportunity.

2. What hardware and software are required to participate in augmented reality? How advanced will this technology become in the future?

I think that the future in augmented reality will contain some pretty advanced technology. As I brought up previously, I think that augmented reality will be played in entire rooms in people’s households. I can imagine it would be the ultimate gaming experience. This technology would be extremely technical. I’m sure that the “geek squad” would have to be involved in installing it. haha. I can imagine wall-to-wall televisions, even the floor and ceilings would be involved in the game. I think this would be an amazing opportunity for the gamers to interact with. And what a great interactive media piece!!!

3. What privacy and ethical concerns arise with augmented reality?

I think that if social media is incorporated into augmented reality in the future, more privacy and ethical issues will arise. Nowadays, people just aren’t concerned with what kind of information they put online. Could there be fears of stalking involved in augmented reality? I think that it could be a possibility in the future, and this is a scary thing. I think more and more people are becoming involved with augmented and virtual reality; therefore, more privacy concern arise.

1. Will augmented reality incorporate social media and networking in the near future?

2. What hardware and software are required to participate in augmented reality? How advanced will this technology become in the future?

3. What privacy and ethical concerns arise with augmented reality?

At the beginning of the week, I raised some framing questions from danah boyd’s studies. The central theme of my questions involved privacy concerns that arise from popular forms of social media- Facebook, in particular. Transparency is an especially pertinent topic when dealing with social media use among younger generations. In class we discussed the impact of Facebook’s privacy settings on users’ online behavior. With our generation’s online presence becoming increasingly important to our every day lives, it’s certainly an issue worth exploring. The online behavior and privacy settings (or lack thereof) of college students, in particular, have becoming unavoidable subjects of concern as these individuals look to enter the workforce. It’s something that I personally consider on a regular basis, even though our iMedia graduation remains months away. For instance, I’ve always kept strict privacy settings on my Facebook page, allowing only people I choose to friend to have access to my information page, photos, wall, etc. The only information that I allow to remain public is my name, profile picture and school. With this in mind, I’m conscious of the fact that there are other ways for computer-savvy individuals to access the other components of my profile. I carefully monitor the content that I post on my page, making sure that even if my profile was public by default, I don’t have published content that could potentially harm my chances at getting a job offer.

The potential for online profiles to become transparent at any time, even without our consent, is important for social media users to be aware of. I still think that users should have the power to choose the level of transparency of their own sites, but user ignorance can be extremely dangerous. Returning to the earlier question regarding the role of educators in the social media realm: it seems that one essential role is to ensure that students, especially high school and college-age, are well aware of these important issues of online privacy and the potential negative consequences. My undergraduate classes did a great job of helping me understand the implications of transparency within my online presence, the capabilities (and sometimes, limitations) of privacy settings and the overall power that a seemingly-simple social network, such as Facebook, can have on my overall reputation. I’m fortunate to have been educated in a way that allows me to make informed decisions about my online behavior. Still, I think many social media users of my generation lack the proper education that is almost necessary in these times. In the case of online privacy issues, ignorance is not bliss, and knowledge is certainly power.

1. Does citizen journalism make Americans numb to hard facts? Do we question the validity of the news more than we used to?

After the reading, I do not think that citizen journalism makes Americans numb to hard facts. Citizen journalism has become a way for information and facts to get to the user even more quickly than before. Citizen journalists can post a story/video from the event they are at immediately. We constantly are craving information quicker as technology advances. I do not think that we question the validity of the news more than we used to. Blogging has certainly opened a door for more opinion pieces; however, I do not think that blogging is not based on facts.

2. What role will social media and new media play in upcoming elections? Will a “people’s president” be elected because of the ease of access to them?

I think that social media, new media, and interactivity will play a major role in upcoming elections. The candidate who is the most approachable and available to the user will more than likely be the person who wins. Americans are craving to have a great leader in office. Americans want to feel close to their president, I think. Social media will allow part of this closeness to happen.

3. Is this new wave of social change going to impact how decisions are made in the media in the future?

I think that the new media wave will definitely have an impact on how decisions are made within media in the future. I think that decisions on content as well as how to present the content will develop as technology advances.

The media and our culture are changing, growing, and adapting. Some people do not like change; however, I think that it is good for our progression. Eventually everyone will catch on to the new media wave.

Online media has changed the game of politics.  New opportunities in relation to public promotion and branding have both helped and hurt candidates in recent elections.  “Infoenterpropagainment” is a result of when politicians and the media blend political information with aspects of propaganda, including media or political bias and present it to the public in a way that entertains.  Candidates that choose to ignore this new media platform have not made it very far in their respective run for office.

Everyone knows the great example of the Obama vs McCain campaigns.  Never before had a political candidate jumped on the online bandwagon so heavily and soared to the top as an underdog, eventually taking it all with a White House win.  Sadly, McCain stuck mostly to traditional advertising and promotions, which isolated him from the younger voters found online.

Although most aspects of online political promotion seems positive, candidates need to watch their digital reputations as much as any other medium.  Before, photographers and television crews could uncover tidbits a political figure would rather keep personal about their lives.  Now, anyone can post anything about political figures and the story (true or not) spreads faster than wildfire.  The web provides new channels that keep candidates on their toes.

The public now has a new line directly to those wishing to represent them.  They can post questions on websites focused around discussions held by political figures.  They can follow tweets or “like” fan pages dedicated to those running for office.  Just as society obsesses over the whereabouts of celebrities, political figures are beginning to reach that status as well.  Using online media to promote ones self in the political arena has proved a successful catapult that all candidates must embrace in the future.

It’s an ongoing battle between citizen journalists and professional journalists.

The definition of a citizen journalist from Goode’s article is essentially the same as a professional journalist. Both know how to blog, gather news, both share video and photos, and modify and monitor other news sources. What’s the big difference? According to citizens, nothing. Ask a professional, and it’s the fact that they have training, a degree, and a respect for the profession.

There’s definitely a rift between citizens and professionals. However, with the popularity and convenience of citizen journalism, it’s becoming harder for professional journalists to shut them out of the ranks. Citizens journalists are key in gathering news information. Think of the potential.

If a downtown shooting occurs, a brave citizen with a video phone can capture the footage right then and there, and  if they have 3G network or instant Internet access, the video can be on the web and accessible to millions in seconds. A news team has to be notified of the event (most likely by the citizen) gather the equipment and travel to the shooting to gather information. By that time, the event is over, the action is gone. The  news team has to get the footage from the citizen.

It’s not fun for the professional. Especially when the professional has worked for years in the field, has a degree, and professional training, only to be usurped by an ordinary citizen with a camera phone.

Defeat.

While professional journalists aren’t loving citizen journalists, politician’s don’t seem to mind them. In fact, coupled with social media, citizens journalists are a helpful tool for politics. Think of how Obama used social media in the last campaign. He set the precedent for future campaigns, so now every politician is going to have to employ social media. If people are posting videos and photos, and information, as long as it’s positive for their image, politicians are going to accept it.

However, there’s still an editing process that has to take place. Online editors are going to have a much harder time filtering through information simply because there’s more input from citizen journalists. Should editors then be traditional journalists or citizens?

The truth of it is, journalists don’t need a degree. We might hate it, but we don’t need one. If someone can do what we do without a degree, we might resent them for it, but we can’t hold onto that forever. As long as an editor has the ability to clearly look at material and decide what is newsworthy or not, and edit material correctly and fairly, then they’re in a good place. Throw some field experience in and it’s even better.

There’s no way to avoid the merging of citizens and journalists. I think journalists will always be labeled as journalists, and that tradition will hold sway over audiences, but citizens are also gathering news. They’ve got a long way to go before they become as credible as traditional journalists.

1. Does citizen journalism make American numb to hard facts? Do we question the validity of the news more than we used to?

2. What role will social media and new media play in upcoming elections? Will a “people’s president” be elected because of the ease of access to them?

3. Is this new wave of social change going to impact how decisions are made in the media in the future?

1. Why is citizen journalism so hard for professional and traditional journalists to accept? From the definition in this article–which I can’t say I agree with entirely–citizens are painted to reflect what professional journalists are. The difference is that citizen journalists don’t have professional training or a degree in the profession.

2. How will politicians begin to use social media after seeing how Obama worked it in the last election? Will this cause younger generations of Americans to vote more frequently and consistently?

3. How will online editors continue to filter such a large influx of information from citizen journalists. Should the editors themselves be citizen journalists, or professional journalists with experience in the field?

In the past when people we less able to find information on their own, the media (newpapers in particular) could trick us into believing that the idea was the commodity. How can media outlets change “the commodity” to something we will actually pay for?

What is the appropriate role of “citizen journalists”? With no professional training, little access to venues and people and, often, no salary… are they really competition to the pros? Should they be? Why would some people think that they are?

How has social media and new technology propelled the citizen journalism movement forward? How could future advances in technology help or hinder this movement? How could professional media outlets leverage this technology to create a better financial business model?

Jaron Lanier is an old revolutionary, looking back on his radical work and wondering ‘What went wrong.”

In “You Are Not A Gadget”, he waxes quite passionately about his mistrust of ‘The Hive Mind’, his disappointment with internet mash-up culture and the skepticism he directs at the burgeoning techno-faith in computers and software. He rails on and on about the continuing coarseness and lack of creativity he sees in the arts and in programming culture. And he warns that we are being stripped of our humanity as we continue to embrace technology.

There are valid arguments. I’ve thought many of these things myself. But Lanier veers way to often into grumpy nostalgia. It’s a major turn off and it undermines his considerable experience and insider knowledge. My eyes glazed over tvery time he began to wax rhapsodic about the ‘good old days’ of the internet. I remember the ‘internet hey-day’ of the late 90’s, and the internet was decidedly worse (not better.) It was dirt slow – remember the grinding screech of that cheap ‘dial up modem? He remembers harmonious list-serves where heady ideas were bantered about. I remember crude, digital war zones, full of the same long running arguments you find in a current messageboards or comment section. This internet was a remote, barely explored place inhabited by early adopters, scientists and code-heads who loved all things technological. In the late 1990’s, to my Mom or Dad, a list serve on the internet could have been the dark side of the Moon for all they knew.

And that’s part of my main criticism of Lanier. His beef seems mostly based on the fact that the internet has changed in ways that are ‘potentially’ bad. And his man criteria for ‘bad’ seems to be ‘not like it used to be.’ But ultimately I say ‘so what.’ I acknowledge that in the long march of human history, we have lost old wisdom in the pursuit of ‘advancement.’ I am sure that the automobile made the average 20th century human a lot less connected with nature. But I am also sure that I would not exchange the automobile to get back closer to nature. I would not exchange books for the mental accuity necessary to retain knowledge in an oral culture. And if the super-specialized way we work means I don’t know how to build a house by myself from scratch, I’m fine with that if it means I can get super markets, national retail outlets and 7-11’s.

Why? Because we have time machines, there is no point in looking back, as Lanier constantly does. His whole world view seems built on the ‘primacy of the past.’ That’s incredibly ironic – I’d always believed you had to be a futurist to be a technologist. Apparently not, in Lanier’s case. He seems to believe that the answers lie ‘back there somewhere.’

My response? If the past was so great, humanity would not have struggle so hard to get where we are now.