Explaining Why Young Adults Use Myspace and Facebook Through Uses and Gratifications Method

I thought this article was interesting because it not only discussed why young adults use Facebook and MySpace, but it broke it down into why young adults used the internet. As the article discussed, our generation depends heavily on the internet for information and entertainment.

The article talked about how it's used "...to experience selective, efficient, and immediate connection with other for their (mediated) interpersonal communication satisfaction ans as an on going way to seek the approval and support of other people". I learned that social networking sites (SNS) such as these ones attracted millions of users allowing them to 'play an active role in the socialization process and in constructing their own identity'. What was interesting was that these users are seen as a new generation of individuals whose identities are almost entirely defined by their connection and the content they put online. SNS are popular because they're user friendly in turn making it easy to communicate with friends, family and others. I also learned that for the most part profiles and accounts are created not to meet new people but to keep in contact with old friends, those are are already part of thie existing social networks.

It was interesting to learn about MySpace and Facebook's beginnings. While MySpace began in 2003 and spread by word of mouth, Facebook started in 2004 and was only accessible to Harvard students, then college students, then high school and then finally opened access to everyone after 2005. I can't remember exactly what year I got my MySpace in but I do remember hearing about it through a close friend who begged me to get it. I remember the way she described it to me made me feel slightly weary: You just look at people's profiles, ask them to be your friend in a message and if they like you they send you a request to be your friend. I remember those EXACT words and probably won't ever forget them. Hahaha. I also remember MySpace being a place where my friends and I would add cute boys for innocent flirting before we realized our actual friends had accounts as well.

The two forms of gratification discussed were also new to me: process (creating content on one's profile) and content (acquiring information). It was funny to me to see that the majority of people surveyed said they used SNS to acquire information about new people they meet. I totally relate to this because if I meet someone I'm interested in as a friend (or before I met my boyfriend, as an 'interest' haha) I totally look them up to learn a little more about them. Funny thing is, it's kind of how my boyfriend and I got together. When I met him, I was dating a total sleaze bag and wasn't really interested. But a few months later I half heartidly sent Erik (my boyfriend) a message when he popped up in my 'People You May Know' and mentioned we had met. Message after message, phone conversation after phone conversation he asked me out and now we're living happily ever after. So yay! Facebook love story....Hahaha...pretty gross...

The last thing I learned was that the term "scene" emerged from MySpace. While I know what the 'typical' scene kid looks like, side bangs straightened and plastered to their face, unisex eyeliner, 'angle' photos, I was completely unaware that the trend emerged from MySpace. It's interesting to see how an entire subculture came from this form of mass media. Then again there are so many other subcultures that also seemed to have emerged, online gamers, 'furries', 1337 (leet) speak...fifty year old creeper man clubs...haha. Interestingly...these all  have a semi negative connotation to them...hmmm, food for thought I guess.

Have an awesome weekend!

“From Computer Power and Human Reason” by Joseph Weizenbaum

I thought the article, “From Computer Power and Human Reason” by Joseph Weizenbaum was really interesting. For one thing, I was immediately intrigued by ELIZA and the idea that you could have a 2 way conversation with a computer. Reading Sharkbyte's blog, I had to laugh that she brought up AIMBot (or whatever it was called) because I do remember doing the same things she talked about. How funny it was to be 12, having a sleepover with friends and talking to a robot on a Friday night. While Sharkbyte remembers saying 'bad' words to it (wouldn't AIMBot sign out if you did?? Haha), I remember taking silly to a whole other level and asking him to be our boyfriend, if he loved us or if he would marry one of us. Anyways, what I think is funny is that you're basically talking in circles since whether it be AIMBot or ELIZA or any other is just using what you said previously to fill in the blanks. I think, Weizenbaum touches a little on this when he talks about one's understanding of the computer, “If his reliance on such machines is to be based on something other than unmitigated despair or blind faith, he much explain to himself what these machines do and even how they do what they do. This requires him to build some conception of their internal 'realities'. Yet most men don;t understand computer to even the slightest degree” (372).

While he argues quite a few points the two I found most interesting where the difference between man and machine as thinkers and that science has become the sole form of understanding.

He argues that, “...however intelligent machines may be made to be, there are some acts of though that ought to be attempted only by humans” (373). It interesting how he questions where computers would be in a social order because I didn't even think of categorizing them together with people.

Another point he argues is that, “...science has become the sole legitimate form of understanding in the common wisdom. When I say that science has been gradually converted into a solo-acting poison, I mean that the attribution of certainty to scientific knowledge by the common wisdom, an attribution now made so nearly universal that it has become a common sense dogma, has virtually delegitimatized all other ways of understand” (375). He discusses how people hunger only for what is represented to them to be scientifically validated knowledge.

Facebook To Change How You Process Friend Requests

I thought this was such a fun article! This totally relates to my life right now, at this very moment, this second! The article talks about how Facebook is planning to change the way you handle friend requests. As you know when we recieve a friend request we have two options: confirm or ignore. I always struggled when I didn't want to do either. For example, the other day SharkByte sent me a friend request for a facebook profile she made. Without question I would of confirmed it....but it was a profile for her dog. Hahaha. To me pets with more technology in their lives than a large majority of people kind of make me cringe. Haha. Because I've known her for 90% of my life and she's my older sister's best friend I don't have the heart to deny her puppy's request...but because I'm so against the idea of it I don't want to accept! So what do I do in this conundrum? I guess use the new option. The new option is "Not Now" and sends the request to a hidden requests file for later. From there you can either confirm or deny but in the meanwhile it stays hidden. Sounds like my kind of change!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20100917/tc_mashable/facebook_to_change_how_you_process_friend_requests

“The Technology and The Society” -Raymond William

Williams begins by describing how common belief is that a new world, new society, new phase in history, etc, is  ‘brought on’ by a new technology. He discusses how we are so used to hearing something along those lines that we often fail to realize a new technologies meaning. He analyses television as a particular cultural technology under 3 main ideas. His three ‘headings’ are: (a) versions of cause and effect in technology and society, (b) the social history of television as a technology, and (c) the social history of the uses of television technology.
    In his heading, “versions of cause and effect in technology and society” he discusses  how each view “can be seen to depend on the isolation of technology” (293). He argues that, ‘The technology would be seen, that is to say, as being looked for and developed with certain purposes and practices already in mind. At the same time the interpretation would differ from symptomic technology in that these purposes and practices would be seen as direct: as known social needs, purposes and practices to which the technology is not marginal but central.
    In, “the social history of television as a technology” he discusses the history of television and it’s development. He talks about how, “In no way is this a history of communications systems creating a new society or new social conditions” (295). A long “history of capital accumulation and working technical improvements created new needs but also new possibilities  and the communications systems, down to television, were their intrinsic outcome” (295).
    In, “the social history of the uses of television technology “ he discusses the technological development that has led to a wider series of communication.

“Requiem for the Media” -Jean Baudrillard

Baudrillard argues that there is an inherent structure to media technology; that media serves a social function. He discusses how the situation will no get better by making everyone a producer. “Reversibility has nothing to do with reciprocity”. He believes that the problem lies in our model of communication (transmitter-message-receiver). There are several things that I learned in this reading but there were about 3 main things.
    The first thing that I learned was that “The media are not co-efficient, but effectors of ideology. Not only is their destiny far from revolutionary; the media are not even, somewhere else or potentially, neutral or non-ideological…” (281). This was interesting because you would think that media would go hand in hand with ideology rather than being something that effects it.
    The next thing that I learned was that “The mass media are anti-mediatory and intransitive”…in this they fabricate non-communication. This helped me understand communication passed the typical transmission-message-receiver idea.
    The third thing I learned was that “…the media are able to transmit without distorting the meaning intended” (282) in the sphere of politics.  I thought that was interesting because I think that the media does a fairly good job of distorting the true meanings of politics and changing meanings of what politicians often say.

Young Cyclists Use Mobile Tech to Break Away

http://www.wired.com/playbook/2010/09/cyclists-mobile-tech/

This article caught my eye immediately. The article is about the Verizon cycling team and the 'gaggle' of tech and social media that they will be using this season to train; among the tech media there's

"Motorola Droids, portable MiFi hot spots, netbooks and Twitter handles". They'll be using these devices to follow GPS routes, track heart rates, speed, distance, etc so that they can improve their ways.  I think it's interesting when something simple is turned into something very complex. For example, cycling is turned from a very simple sport where basically no form of technology is needed into something that depends on it. I'm definitely not saying that cycling is simple in that it is easy. My boyfriend (a very avid road cyclist) rides easily over 100 miles a week between training on his road bike and doing errands on his commuter. I understand the degree of difficulty that goes into it. What I'm commenting on is the idea of cycling. It's simple and efficient, there's no need to bring technology (at the level the article talks about) into it. My boyfriend has two palm sized computers that he attaches to his handle bars to track distance and time. I have to roll my eyes at the juxtaposition of the whole thing...he rides his bike for a long time, comes into the house, plugs the devices in and sits at the computer for an even longer time digesting and pouring over the information his little tracker things collected.

Annnnd, speaking of cycling.....my boyfriend is currently practicing for this 100 mile ride:

Do it also! It's fun and for a good cause...I won't be doing it but I'll be cheering everyone on! Haha. So do it, donate, support, go, do something! I think there's also an easy 12 mile 'fun ride' that goes from the Santa Cruz Boardwalk to the Capitola Village (mine and Shark Byte's stomping grounds!). Ummm...okay...great! Hahaha. Thanks guys!

http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=90263d0a2e4e48d9147f785d8&id=7028e6ef9c

Be Who You Want To Be: The Philosophy of Facebook and the Construction of Identity

Who are you? Such a simple question and yet so complex. Simply, I'm Emi Nell, I'm 21 and I live in Capitola. But really, past that...who am I? Of course, I'm still Emi, still 21 and still live in Capitola. But I have passions and fears and hopes most people don't even know about. Do I write those things on my Facebook? Maybe...but mostly not. I show my Facebook friends and fellow bloggers and Twitter followers, my social identity; my personal identity is 90% of the time kept off of the internet.

I thought this article was interesting because it discussed social and personal identities and how they influence each other. Although the article says we're mostly entirely ourselves on Facebook because of it's questions and prompts (age, relationship status, school/insitution, hometown, etc, etc), I believe that our Facebook selves and somewhat socially constucted. What we put on Facebook is what we want people to know about us. We want to seem friendly, interesting; we want people to friend us. Everything we write about ourselves is so that we're precieved a certain way, "I'm a vegetarian" could read something like, "I like animals", "I'm healthy" or even "I want to look like I like animals and live a healthy lifestyle". Attending numerous 'events' could show that we're either popular, in the know, or once again, just like we want to seem like those things.

I think it's really easy for us to construct a social identity; we want people to perceive us a certain way so we mention things about ourselves that make us seem that way. What's interesting is when someone lacks the ability to create a social indentity seperate from their personal identity. For example, while we write to let our friends know about our whereabouts or activites, we (generally) don't update on our hygiene or bathroom habits. My boyfriend has a childhood friend who has Asperger's syndrome, a form of very high functioning autism. What our friend lacks are social skills. His Facebook is filled with things many of us would rather shield our eyes from. He has one album only viewable by 5 or so friends but by it's title 'The Bathroom' we can all imagine what kind of pictures it contains. His about me is so simply and straightfoward, "I am a 21 year old high school graduate attending *** **** ***** and trying to relax and for the most part happy go lucky and down to do anything. Well, except for S&M domination shit and intentionally slaughtering animals of any kind. No I'm not vegetarian, but I don't like to think about where the meat I eat came from". He could literally care less about what anyone thinks about him and has no desire to create a social indentity seperate from his personal identity...and for that reason I appreciate him as a friend who is always there to put me into check. Haha :)

Constinuents of a Theory of The Media

Like I've said before, I dread reading long texts and thought this was going to be another one that dragged out...but instead I was actually suprised by how interesting I found it! It was interesting how Enzensberger theorized how every form of technology was coming together to becom one universal system. I mean, look at something like Skype. You can instant message, communicate via voice computer to computer, communicate via voice computer to telephone, or use a webcam. You can contact almost everyone through one universal system!

The section that stood out most to be was 'The Supersession of Written Culture". Like Enzensberger says, almost everybody speaks better than he writes. He then goes on to say, "Spelling mistakes, which are completely immaterial in terms of communication, are punished by the social disqualification of the write" (273). I completely agree with that. I can't stand reading something where the write has awful grammar and can't spell. In my opinion it totally reflects poorly on the writer. I understand if someone has a learning disability but even then there are so many resources to go to, to get work edited.

Another quote I found thought provoking was "Microphone and camera abolish the class character of the mode of production...", hahaha, I wonder what he'd have to say about online classes! Where we don't have to manually write anything, face to face communication with our professor and classmates are minimal and our 'classroom' could be a coffee shop, our bed, the library, a bus, where ever we have internet connection! Like he wrote, "Electronic are noticeably taking over writing; teleprinters, reading machines, high speed transmissions, automatic photographic and electronic composition, automatic writing devices, typesetters, electrostatic process, ampex libraries, cassette encyclopedias, photocopiers and magnetic copiers, speed printers..." (273). There are so many more technological advances that we could add to that list. Texting, word processors, instant messaging, emails, etc etc! When talking to my boyfriend about this article he gave me one I didn't even come near to thinking about...a GPS; no need to read directions, write them down or even look them up. Type in the address and a GPS sends you where you need to go!

Have a great weekend, everyone!!!

HUGE: Facebook Testing New “Subscribe To” User Feature

http://www.allfacebook.com/facebook-subscribe-to-2010-09

Ok, I'm not going to lie...sure I'm one of the thousands of people who absentmindedly scrolls through my Facebook newsfeed clicking profiles of people I haven't spoken to in years and snooping their lives but this new feature is creeperrrr if you ask me. Apparently Facebook's currently testing out a new feature where you can subscribe to individuals and I guess receive notifications the second they post or update their profile. Um, hi...welcome, stalkers! I mean, are some people that interested in someone else's life that they have to have notifications alerting them!? CREEPER! Someone in the comments of the article wrote that they don't miss anything if they just scroll down through the "live feed", so what's the point of getting a notification every time they update? 

I get it. Sometimes we get the urge to snoop on an ex (haha) or check an old friend's profile but peoples lives CANNOT be that uninteresting that they have to 'subscribe' to friends to get mobile notifications giving updates!! My question now is, do we get a notification that we're being stalked subscribed to?

The Medium Is The Message

This was such a hard read for me to follow. I read the first page over and over again trying to understand. Although it was hard for me to follow with all of the varying examples, I think I now understand what he means by “the medium is the message”.

The basic idea that I pulled from the article (and after reading everyone’s responses!) was that the message varies based on what medium is used. Once I understood this I was able to follow his essay a lot more clearly and understand he examples when jumping from light bulbs to Shakespeare to airplanes and burglars. Blogger Goldie really helped me understand what he meant with her example about celebrities selling perfume. I mean, if an acne stricken teen is selling acne medication the message we’re going to pull is that the acne medicine clearly doesn’t work. But if a blemish free model is selling it, we’re going to be influenced into thinking it does work because of his or her flawless skin. After reading other interpretations of ‘the medium is the message’ I was definitely able to understand what he meant, especially with the example about the light bulb. It gave me something to think about and once the message of the article was described through other mediums, I got a clearer picture.

Man-Computer Symbiosis

To be honest, I was a little nervous to read the article. As soon as I picked up the book I knew I'd be in for some heavy reading. :)

  Like a few of my fellow bloggers, I too thought it began a little dry but as soon as I got into it I found it to be a good read. To start I found it pretty fascinating that Joseph Care Robnett Licklider had a background in engineering and behavioral science. I mean, who better to lead the program than someone who understood both the interworkings of a computer and of a human being. Reading the article was interesting in that there were all of these predictions for the future that are now things of the past! I found his quote, "In a few years, men will be able to communicate more effectively through a machine than face to face" especially true to that. I can't imagine his what his reaction would be to all of the different technological outlets humans have to communicate with via the computer, especially since his article with Robert W. Taylor hinted at the possibility of cyber romance and that's something that is so prominent now!

 

Another quote that got me thinking was "The hope is that, in not too many years, human brains and computing machines will be coupled together very tightly, and that the resulting partnership will think as no human brain has ever though and process data in a way not approached by the information-handling machines we know today". To me, that thought is a little terrifying. As human beings we can only predict what would happen if we began to reply too much on technology and it never seems that it's a good thing!