In this weeks workshop Dr Emma Short, a Psychology lecturer, came in to discuss with us our opinions on Facebook and other social media sites. She is working on gathering information from students on their opinions and usage on these websites. For me it was a really interesting workshop, not only was it one we could all become really interacted in, it was also useful to see just how much we use Facebook and whether or not we use it in the right way. It was also useful in pointing out some serious problems to these sites that we go blissfully unaware of.
Looking into some background of Dr Emma Short she has recently done alot of research in Cyber stalking and published, 'Cyber stalking in the UK: Analysis and Recommendations International Journal of Distributed Systems and Technologies (IJDST) Volume 3, Issue 4.' Clearly there is a link between the idea of Cyber stalking and Facebook, as alot of those who are victims of Cyber stalking it can stem from sites like Facebook and Twitter.
But in her most recent research she is looking into our behaviour, as students, on Facebook. The discussion came onto the topic of Bullying and inappropriate comments that get posted. Do we actually do anything to stop them? Do we encourage them? Or, do we read them, ignore, and carry on? At this point it was apparent the room was very quiet. I cant speak for everybody, but certainly for myself I was ashamed to realise that I probably do read horrible, nasty and hurtful comments and on almost all occasions I read them and ignore it. Probably because it isn't aimed at me...but it has been aimed at somebody, somebody will have been hurt by the comments and at this point I probably should intervene. I know I can say that never have I ever wrote anything offensive to anybody else, but is it just as bad to sit there and do nothing?
We went on to discuss Facebooks rules and regulations, do we ignore those to? Unfortunately, yes. This is familiar territory for me as I have previously wrote a blog post on this topic, http://torirutherford.blogspot.co.uk/- "Stop Ignoring The Important Stuff." Look at this for more information and my opinion on the matter. But it was obvious that 100% of my class all use Twitter or Facebook, or both and ALL of us accepted the terms without reading. Does this not raise issues and tell us alot about our generation? This lead us on to think about rules and policies on a bigger scale. For example, when at the University of Bedfordshire we can use their wireless access on our phone, I do this regularly. But every time I do so, I have to type in my password and accept their rules and regulations, http://ps-mx-200-01.beds.ac.uk/aaa/student-index.html?wbaredirect=http://www.beds.ac.uk/wireless This website shows the full regulations that I agree with every time I log in to use wifi.
The whole workshop was really quite eye opening to alot of things, and it was interesting to find out just how other people my age use the web and social media websites. It's always important to remember what we agree to, and important to remember, in a society where the media is changing and evolving everyday, just how to use the internet and social media properly.
Friday, 1 March 2013
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
Globalisation and the Digital Divide
Globalisation as a definition is, "Globalization' is commonly used as a shorthand way of describing the spread and connectedness of production, communication and technologies across the world.” http://www.infed.org/biblio/globalization.htm
This weeks lecture was all about making us think about globalisation, and how it happens on so many levels and with that to begin thinking about the digital divide.
It is important to remember that although with globalisation we get many benefits and we are able to connect all over the world, but it also brings many inequalities.
When I think about globalisation I automatically think about Mcdonalds, a company that no matter which country you go to you can almost guarantee you will find a Mcdonalds. Therefore this is a prime example of a company who have globalised successfully all over the world.http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/country/map.html This link tells you just how Mcdonalds have taken it, it enables you to see which countries have at least one Mcdonalds branch, quite startling if you ask me.
This diagram we were shown during the lecture really put things into perspective for me.
This diagram really made me think about Globalisation and the negatives of it. It encouraged me to remember the inequalities that come from it. Here we can see just how much people get in the chain of production, proving just how unequal things can be. The worker gets minimal, because we can get people in countries such as India and Asia to do the job at a quarter of the price it should be done at. So although it is obvious that globalisation does create connectivity all over the globe, it all creates a massive divide amongst countries.
This leads me on to the Digital Divide, and to be quite honest I'd never really considered it in any depth until today. I have always been quite content, in my household I have one main computer and as many as 3 laptops! This probably isn't unusual for most large families in England. Our access to the internet is unbelievably easy, if I want to do a bit of research i can quickly get up google and with the touch of my fingers could probably get any information I wanted. So what about the people who don't have internet or computer access, what do they do? This diagram shows the amount of computers per 100 people all over the world, I don't think I need to go into too much depth about what this shows. So when looking at Globalistation and how great it can be connecting us all together, I think it is even more important to think about how it is dividing us as well.
This weeks lecture was all about making us think about globalisation, and how it happens on so many levels and with that to begin thinking about the digital divide.
It is important to remember that although with globalisation we get many benefits and we are able to connect all over the world, but it also brings many inequalities.
When I think about globalisation I automatically think about Mcdonalds, a company that no matter which country you go to you can almost guarantee you will find a Mcdonalds. Therefore this is a prime example of a company who have globalised successfully all over the world.http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/country/map.html This link tells you just how Mcdonalds have taken it, it enables you to see which countries have at least one Mcdonalds branch, quite startling if you ask me.
This diagram we were shown during the lecture really put things into perspective for me.
This leads me on to the Digital Divide, and to be quite honest I'd never really considered it in any depth until today. I have always been quite content, in my household I have one main computer and as many as 3 laptops! This probably isn't unusual for most large families in England. Our access to the internet is unbelievably easy, if I want to do a bit of research i can quickly get up google and with the touch of my fingers could probably get any information I wanted. So what about the people who don't have internet or computer access, what do they do? This diagram shows the amount of computers per 100 people all over the world, I don't think I need to go into too much depth about what this shows. So when looking at Globalistation and how great it can be connecting us all together, I think it is even more important to think about how it is dividing us as well.Wednesday, 13 February 2013
You've got to let it Flow.
In particular this week it was important for us to see how we could improve flow within Education. For me education and my school life always seemed to be one or the other, I was either really bored or really stressed. So how is it possible to have a state a flow, where boredom and stress is in a state of balance.
I think it is extremley important to get the balance right, and this i think can be assumed when "your challenges meet your skills." http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/blogs/flow For me this website was very helpful in explaining what you might need to do in order to meet this state of flow, something which after learning about I clearly found quite difficult.
As I mentioned earlier your school life is a good example of a point where you are either bored or stressed. For example, I took English literature as A level and it felt like we were reading books, learning quotes, and causually discussing themes and motives forever. Then suddenly your coursework is due in two weeks time, with an exam a week later. It all comes at once and soon your thrown from that relaxed boredom into a crazy state of stress. We were specifically told in our workshops this week to think about a lack of flow in education, is there a lack of it? I think quite clearly there is a lack of flow and it is difficult to help people meet that point between boredom and stress. Therefore after looking into this state of 'Flow' and in particular when thinking about it in terms of education, I think it is imperative that changes be made. Mix up how the cirricullum is taught, dont let the students relax for 7 months, learning bits here and there and then throwing them into revsion and exams right at the end. Encourage a mixture of both throughout the year, this should help increase challenges making a state of flow easier to achieve.
So just remember, when your at school or sitting behind your desk with nothing to do feeling extremley bored that you'll never be able to meet your full potential...increase those challenges and let it flow!
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
Gaming Culture
In our lecture we looked way back in time and realised that games are in fact as long as history.
Sport for example has been around as long as time, and sports in reality are a game. These types of games are structured by excercise, but have outcomes, rules and winners. When I think about it alot of what we do is structured around games, whether it be playing a drinking game, playing a game on your phone, playing a sport, playing chess they all involve 'playing' and have been around as long as we have. In terms of games, digital culture and the media, we can look at how the media has played its part in progressing gaming cultures.
It's wierd to think that I play games at least once a day and that they impact my life more than I could imagine. Video games in my opinion have helped to shape and change our society as games affect all parts of peoples lives. For example, I'm aspiring to be a Journalist and my lecturer and the lecture itself made me realise that some people see Journalism as a game,
“A new generation of news junkies has stopped reading the news and started playing it.” Fred Turner quoted on the Amazon.com website. This quote implies that journalists have stopped taking the news as it is and can twist it into whatever they want you to read. Looking into this just makes me take the gaming culture a little more serious, maybe it isn't all about making Mario jump over obsticles, in fact it can be much deeper than that. Gaming Culture shapes us and our community and it is crucial to recognise just how important IT IS to us.
Friday, 1 February 2013
Tagging and Folksonomies...Useful?
If I've gone on a big day or night out with my friends and taken lots of photos, the first thing I will do when I return is upload them to Facebook and tag all my friends in them. By doing this my photos will now appear on their pages, and all my other Facebook 'friends' can see who I was out this. Until now it's safe to say I've never actually thought about what I was doing, I've always just done it. This photo is an example of how easy it is to tag someone in a photo or even a comment on Facebook.
But I think the idea of the lecture was to look at how we find information, tagging enables us to do this. For example on search engines such as Google all we really need to do is type in one key word, and a whole range of search results will show up. This links me to the word 'Meta-Data,' which is basically a key word which is typed into a search engine such as Google or Yahoo and will give you all results linked with your word.
So, tagging like Meta-Data,
allows a user to add categories to different things.
http://www.spicynodes.org/blog/2010/09/13/thomas-vander-wal-when-folksonomies-transplant-taxonomies/?gclid=CJrNl63Z9LYCFabLtAodyh8A9A This blog is about Thomas Vander Wal and the term Folksonomies. Which, I'll be honest, have never heard of until todays lecture. Foksonomy is the activity of sorting information into categories derived from the consensus of the information users. My question is...Is it useful? I think there are pros and cons, and the blog I posted earlier will help define these for you. For me it probably isn't as difficult as all this, I simply tag my friends in photos or comments and that's as far as I take it.
But a point was made during the lecture that made me think, with our ability to tag everything, have all these words lost their meaning on the internet? Have all of these words simply been categorised and that's it, it's certainly something to think about. Maybe we are taking Folksonomies too far, and categorising too much.
In terms of tagging and folksonomies, I would say they are more useful than not, and make our life on the internet far easier.
But I think the idea of the lecture was to look at how we find information, tagging enables us to do this. For example on search engines such as Google all we really need to do is type in one key word, and a whole range of search results will show up. This links me to the word 'Meta-Data,' which is basically a key word which is typed into a search engine such as Google or Yahoo and will give you all results linked with your word.
So, tagging like Meta-Data,
allows a user to add categories to different things.
http://www.spicynodes.org/blog/2010/09/13/thomas-vander-wal-when-folksonomies-transplant-taxonomies/?gclid=CJrNl63Z9LYCFabLtAodyh8A9A This blog is about Thomas Vander Wal and the term Folksonomies. Which, I'll be honest, have never heard of until todays lecture. Foksonomy is the activity of sorting information into categories derived from the consensus of the information users. My question is...Is it useful? I think there are pros and cons, and the blog I posted earlier will help define these for you. For me it probably isn't as difficult as all this, I simply tag my friends in photos or comments and that's as far as I take it.
But a point was made during the lecture that made me think, with our ability to tag everything, have all these words lost their meaning on the internet? Have all of these words simply been categorised and that's it, it's certainly something to think about. Maybe we are taking Folksonomies too far, and categorising too much.
In terms of tagging and folksonomies, I would say they are more useful than not, and make our life on the internet far easier.
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Our friend 'Alice'
With the progression of technology comes the question of technology in education. Education has always been about reading books and learning to write, but with the increase of digital cultures should we look to be changing this somewhat 'old fashioned' way of learning. In my opinion, reading and writing will always be the foundations of an education and technology shouldn't be brought in until later in a childs education. But thats not to say we should ignore it completley, as it could be extremley effective.
In this weeks lecture we looked specifically into Digital literature and the idea that the National Cirriculum could begin to involve online ways of learning. In particular we were advised to look at a website called 'Inanimate Alice.' http://www.inanimatealice.com/ This link to the website will tell you all you need to know about the project. Inanimate Alice has been "created as a reading-from-the-screen experience." It tells the story of a young girl, and as a reader you follow the girl as she grows up and go through the story with her, watching the video, reading the words, listening to the sounds and looking at the pictures.
The argument is, should this be included in the National Cirriculum? For me, there is alot of benefits to this project. It uses a range of multimedia which could be beneficial to some learners who get bored with simply reading words on a page. It also allows the reader to go at a pace which suits them best, stopping and starting as they wish. Therefore to some extent it could be quite a useful and a new way of teaching and keeping children interacted. At the same time it is fairly simple, and so i think that aiming for teenagers might be slightly too old as it isnt very taxing, and some brighter students could grow out of it very quickly.
Therefore it does clearly have benefits and drawbacks, and I think whether you think it is a good idea or a bad idea will all depend on the person and the type of learner you are. People who are very against multimedia and computing will not agree that it should be included in the National Cirriculum, yet those whoe enjoy aesthetics, collaborations and multimedia might think the opposite.
Whether you think Inanimate Alice is good or bad there is no denying that projects like this are being produced because of how rapidly technologies are developing. And clearly there is a gap in education for things like this website to develop, as alot of children these days do focus on computing and social websites. I think maybe it is time to accept that a new wave of teaching and education could be on its way as a consequence of new technologies.
In this weeks lecture we looked specifically into Digital literature and the idea that the National Cirriculum could begin to involve online ways of learning. In particular we were advised to look at a website called 'Inanimate Alice.' http://www.inanimatealice.com/ This link to the website will tell you all you need to know about the project. Inanimate Alice has been "created as a reading-from-the-screen experience." It tells the story of a young girl, and as a reader you follow the girl as she grows up and go through the story with her, watching the video, reading the words, listening to the sounds and looking at the pictures.
The argument is, should this be included in the National Cirriculum? For me, there is alot of benefits to this project. It uses a range of multimedia which could be beneficial to some learners who get bored with simply reading words on a page. It also allows the reader to go at a pace which suits them best, stopping and starting as they wish. Therefore to some extent it could be quite a useful and a new way of teaching and keeping children interacted. At the same time it is fairly simple, and so i think that aiming for teenagers might be slightly too old as it isnt very taxing, and some brighter students could grow out of it very quickly.
Therefore it does clearly have benefits and drawbacks, and I think whether you think it is a good idea or a bad idea will all depend on the person and the type of learner you are. People who are very against multimedia and computing will not agree that it should be included in the National Cirriculum, yet those whoe enjoy aesthetics, collaborations and multimedia might think the opposite.
Whether you think Inanimate Alice is good or bad there is no denying that projects like this are being produced because of how rapidly technologies are developing. And clearly there is a gap in education for things like this website to develop, as alot of children these days do focus on computing and social websites. I think maybe it is time to accept that a new wave of teaching and education could be on its way as a consequence of new technologies.
Wednesday, 16 January 2013
Digitally Cultural
My blog has been purely based around Digital Culture and commentary on the ideas and technologies presented during the course
of this unit. Whilst doing this it has made me realise just how important it is to think about the internet, just how much we do use it and what it is used for. Not only that but it seems important to remember where it came from, how it was made and how it has been so widely accepted in our society.
The importance of this has only hit me now, previously I was that person who used the internet an uncountable amount of times a day without actually even realising. Constantly quickly glancing at my facebook or twitter, sending a quick message or making a phonecall. Because in effect our mobile phones are actually computers in todays society.
By doing this blog it has made me appreciate the internet and computers in a new light, and has encouraged me to think about them and where they come from.
And in my opinion the way technology is growing, were not nearly finished yet.
The importance of this has only hit me now, previously I was that person who used the internet an uncountable amount of times a day without actually even realising. Constantly quickly glancing at my facebook or twitter, sending a quick message or making a phonecall. Because in effect our mobile phones are actually computers in todays society.
By doing this blog it has made me appreciate the internet and computers in a new light, and has encouraged me to think about them and where they come from.
And in my opinion the way technology is growing, were not nearly finished yet.
Tuesday, 15 January 2013
Why's Wiki so wrong?
Don't use Wikipedia. A phrase used commonly throughout my education, but why? Wikipedia has become something of a bogey word in terms of education, it was always drilled into us how unreliable a source it is and how we shouldn't use it as a reference. To me nothing is ever going to be a hundred percent accurate or reliable, take newspapers. Half of what we read everyday is not actually true, yet the majority of us will still go out daily and buy a newspaper. So what's different with us using wikipedia?
In my opinion Wikipedia isn't actually a site I would use for information, purely because of how easy it is for anybody to add information to a page. When I realise this, I ask myself why I don't add any information myself if it's that easy? Then I decided to ask some others if they had ever added or edited any wikipedia pages... the answer was no. Obviously there is no technical issue here, as we all have the technical ability to do it if we wanted. My thought, for myself anyway, is that I have been brought up to think of Wikipedia as a site not to be trusted. Therfore why would I want to add any valuable information to it, only for it not to be taken seriously.
During my research into wikipedia I actually looked at the website in depth, something i've never actually done. Doing this, I realised i've never actually read a whole wikipedia page. Usually I look specifially for a piece of information, name or date and thats as far as it goes.
But Wikipedia actually offers you a great deal more than that. It is so easy to look back to when it was created, every change that has been made to the page with a date and name, so maybe we should give it slightly more credit than we do.
In my opinion Wikipedia isn't actually a site I would use for information, purely because of how easy it is for anybody to add information to a page. When I realise this, I ask myself why I don't add any information myself if it's that easy? Then I decided to ask some others if they had ever added or edited any wikipedia pages... the answer was no. Obviously there is no technical issue here, as we all have the technical ability to do it if we wanted. My thought, for myself anyway, is that I have been brought up to think of Wikipedia as a site not to be trusted. Therfore why would I want to add any valuable information to it, only for it not to be taken seriously.
During my research into wikipedia I actually looked at the website in depth, something i've never actually done. Doing this, I realised i've never actually read a whole wikipedia page. Usually I look specifially for a piece of information, name or date and thats as far as it goes.
But Wikipedia actually offers you a great deal more than that. It is so easy to look back to when it was created, every change that has been made to the page with a date and name, so maybe we should give it slightly more credit than we do.
Friday, 11 January 2013
What is Open Access?
When learning about Digital culture,the progression of media and the internet it seems important to consider open access and its advantages alongside its drawbacks. Open access means taking advantage of the global reach and internet publishing to make peer-reviewed scholarly materials freely available. From a university students point of view I might be slightly biased in favour of open access, why should we pay when it can be openly accessed on the web?
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/01/we-need-more-than-releasing-articles-to-make-open-access-work/
During my research I came across this blog written by, Dan Cohen which seems to highlight both advantages and disadvantges of open access from varying points of view. He brings up the point that "an open access system can never work on the demand side." Which is true, as long as people can access books and knowledge for free there will be no need to go and out and purchase.
This topic is one that interested me more than I would have thought, if it works and it is easier then why isn't everybody doing it? It seems only some people agree whilst the others are still strongly against.
Open Access brings greater visibility and impact, in todays' society it is far easier for someone to quickly look online for an article or book than it is for them to go a library or book store. Open Access will also help to progress research, it will help to enable better managment and assesment of research. Not only that but it also provides long term document availabilty, if it is put on the internet surley we will always be able to access it?
However some reservations about open access have been brought up, there are certainly reservations amongst some about the quality control and the authenticity. If things are put up on the web, does this mean it is easier for people to change it making the work less reliable? But, for me, the main reservations, particularly for the authors and publishers is the financial issue. With open access the demand decreases, decreasing any profits that could have been made.
In my opinion, after actually looking at the advantages and disadvantages, a part of it must be that our society simply doesn't like change and they are not willing to accept Open Access. But I think open access has to be the future, it will make work available to the world wide web, which will make it fair. Open Access will mean everybody all around the world will have the same access to the same information. I think people should be embracing the idea not turning it down.
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/01/we-need-more-than-releasing-articles-to-make-open-access-work/
During my research I came across this blog written by, Dan Cohen which seems to highlight both advantages and disadvantges of open access from varying points of view. He brings up the point that "an open access system can never work on the demand side." Which is true, as long as people can access books and knowledge for free there will be no need to go and out and purchase.
This topic is one that interested me more than I would have thought, if it works and it is easier then why isn't everybody doing it? It seems only some people agree whilst the others are still strongly against.
Open Access brings greater visibility and impact, in todays' society it is far easier for someone to quickly look online for an article or book than it is for them to go a library or book store. Open Access will also help to progress research, it will help to enable better managment and assesment of research. Not only that but it also provides long term document availabilty, if it is put on the internet surley we will always be able to access it?
However some reservations about open access have been brought up, there are certainly reservations amongst some about the quality control and the authenticity. If things are put up on the web, does this mean it is easier for people to change it making the work less reliable? But, for me, the main reservations, particularly for the authors and publishers is the financial issue. With open access the demand decreases, decreasing any profits that could have been made.
In my opinion, after actually looking at the advantages and disadvantages, a part of it must be that our society simply doesn't like change and they are not willing to accept Open Access. But I think open access has to be the future, it will make work available to the world wide web, which will make it fair. Open Access will mean everybody all around the world will have the same access to the same information. I think people should be embracing the idea not turning it down.
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
Cyberspace is a dangerous game...
It is without argument that the internet brings a huge amount of benefits, but it is easy to forget how dangerous it can be as well. The impact of Cyberstalking is massive and alot of people dont take the time or think it is necessary to protect themselves properly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMZzyRi1YaM
This video shows just how dangerous cyberspace can be, and shows that everytime we post even a little information about ourselves we are putting ourselves at risk.
During a recent lecture we were lucky enough to be spoke to about recent research that has been taken about cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is generally considered to be harassment that originates online, it isn't a new problem, it is an old problem through new media.
There are many different types of attack, some considered less sevre than others, they can range from posting fake profiles, direct threats, identity theft and even contsructing websites targetting the victim. During the lecture we were told some astonshing facts about cyberstalking and the effects it can have. 54% of victims met their attacker offline, 58% of people experienced three or more modes of cyberstalking and that 68% of all victims were female.
Along with the facts it seems we get myths as well. The greatest myth that is associated with cyberstalking is that it doesn't really do any damage. Back this up with the fact that 72% of women murdered by their attacker were stalked by them in the 12 months before the murder, I think we should re-evaluate that myth. Clearly cyberstalking can do far more damage than we might think.
The lecture itself taught me alot about just how extreme cyberstalking can get, and that in reality it happens to far more people than we might think. It is true that this new digital culture we are being brought up in has alot of benefits, but it is clearly important to remember the negatives of it. The internet and cyberspace can be a very dangerous place and we shouldn't be naive enough to think that just because we are behind a computer screen we can't be harmed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMZzyRi1YaM
This video shows just how dangerous cyberspace can be, and shows that everytime we post even a little information about ourselves we are putting ourselves at risk.
During a recent lecture we were lucky enough to be spoke to about recent research that has been taken about cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is generally considered to be harassment that originates online, it isn't a new problem, it is an old problem through new media.
There are many different types of attack, some considered less sevre than others, they can range from posting fake profiles, direct threats, identity theft and even contsructing websites targetting the victim. During the lecture we were told some astonshing facts about cyberstalking and the effects it can have. 54% of victims met their attacker offline, 58% of people experienced three or more modes of cyberstalking and that 68% of all victims were female.
Along with the facts it seems we get myths as well. The greatest myth that is associated with cyberstalking is that it doesn't really do any damage. Back this up with the fact that 72% of women murdered by their attacker were stalked by them in the 12 months before the murder, I think we should re-evaluate that myth. Clearly cyberstalking can do far more damage than we might think.
The lecture itself taught me alot about just how extreme cyberstalking can get, and that in reality it happens to far more people than we might think. It is true that this new digital culture we are being brought up in has alot of benefits, but it is clearly important to remember the negatives of it. The internet and cyberspace can be a very dangerous place and we shouldn't be naive enough to think that just because we are behind a computer screen we can't be harmed.
Tuesday, 8 January 2013
Our Internet Identity.
For many the internet allows you to create a whole new identity, to present yourself as something totally different to what you are actually like. This can become a dangerous tool.
Identity is rooted in many things, its rooted in our families, our communties, our gender, class, political ideas, beliefs and even rooted in out commen interests, but cyberspace can help us to change this and allow us to maintain a completley false identity. Do we change our identity according to the website we use? For example my age group grew up using sites like 'Bebo' and 'Myspace' and then eventually we grew out of those and moved onto the likes of 'Facebook' and 'Twitter,' or at least that was the case for myself.
In my research for this particular blog I looked into my "Self-presentation", how I have presented myself to others through the use of social media. With the tools on facebook I have been able to annalyse my usage on the site. It was obvious my usage on the website has decreased alot, or so i might think. Although I no longer regularly post photos and status' I am still using Facebook to browse just as much. Now Facebook is easily available on my phone, I can click on the app a hundred times a day to look without even realising. It is also clear that as I have grown up I have started to 'unlike' things I once was interested in, possibly to save the embarrassment of my former self. Therfore as the years go past I constantly adapt my Facebook to present myself how I would want people to view me. Social sites such as Facebook and Twitter are an outlet for personal expression and therefore your idnetity is determined by your Twitter and Facebook pages, but that isnt your real identity? It is simply a form of self-presentation, in effect your telling people how to view you and what to think of you.
Thursday, 20 December 2012
Together we can!
In one of my previous blogs, "Stop ignoring the important stuff" I spoke about our ability to sign up to things without actually reading the terms and conditions. I was trying to prove how stupid a thing to do that is, we wouldnt buy a car or a house without reading the terms and conditions would we? So why do we sign up to all these online websites like Facebook and Twitter without actually knowing what we are signing up to? When writing that blog I actually ended up frightening myself, how could I be so stupid to sign away rights to my photos status' and everything about my life without even realising it? I dont know, but we all seem happy enough to do it.
Well what if I suggested starting a campaign, a campaign in which we created new polocies, polocies that suited us and not them. Together we can make a start to changing the way in which these internet sites work! Sure we all want to use Facebook and Twitter by should we use them at the expense of our safety and at the expense of things that we should own?
http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
If reading that doesn't worry you, Im not sure what will! It is clear to me that changes need to be made, but where and when will they start?
Polocies for social websites should amost certainly be changed. When signing up we shouldnt have to sign our rights away, and in my opinion the way to make this change is to campaign. If the awareness for what we have actually agreed to becomes greater then the ability to want to change these polocies should increase. Although we are partially to blame for accepting these polocies, they are also very good at tricking us, and its time we put a stop to it and campaign against giving away our rights.
Well what if I suggested starting a campaign, a campaign in which we created new polocies, polocies that suited us and not them. Together we can make a start to changing the way in which these internet sites work! Sure we all want to use Facebook and Twitter by should we use them at the expense of our safety and at the expense of things that we should own?
http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
If reading that doesn't worry you, Im not sure what will! It is clear to me that changes need to be made, but where and when will they start?
Polocies for social websites should amost certainly be changed. When signing up we shouldnt have to sign our rights away, and in my opinion the way to make this change is to campaign. If the awareness for what we have actually agreed to becomes greater then the ability to want to change these polocies should increase. Although we are partially to blame for accepting these polocies, they are also very good at tricking us, and its time we put a stop to it and campaign against giving away our rights.
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Stop Ignoring The Important Stuff
In an earlier blog I brought up the question of us not really knowing our privacy rights with sites such as Twitter and Facebook. So when we agree to their terms and conditions without actually reading them, what are we actually signing up to?
I'll happily admit that I signed up to Facebook because all my friends had started using it and it was the cool thing to do... but i'll also admit there is no way I actually read all the terms and conditions that I agreed to before I created my account, and i'd almost bet my life that half the people using Facebook, like me, didn't read the terms and conditions. So when were posting all our photos and status' about what were doing, how do we know we are in control? We dont.
http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
Above is the link to the terms and conditions that everyone has to agree to before their account is created. Some of them, to me, are quite disturbing and has certainly made me think twice about what I post and upload because in effect anything we do upload Facebook then owns.
"When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." This is just one of the terms and conditions that we agree to, so not only do we allow Facebook to use our information and pictures we also allow people off of Facebook to do the same.
I found a video which puts into perspective the full terms and conditions to facebook, and it shows that maybe we should be a tad more apprehensive about Facebook and similar sites. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfY_HTzd_4U
I think maybe its time to do something about what we have all agreed to. What would happen if we all deleted our accounts until the terms and conditions were changed so that we could really trust Facebook? They would surley have no choice but to make some changes to get users back. It certainly seems that it is something people should be thinking about, to protect themselves and all their information that we naively publish.
I'll happily admit that I signed up to Facebook because all my friends had started using it and it was the cool thing to do... but i'll also admit there is no way I actually read all the terms and conditions that I agreed to before I created my account, and i'd almost bet my life that half the people using Facebook, like me, didn't read the terms and conditions. So when were posting all our photos and status' about what were doing, how do we know we are in control? We dont.
http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
Above is the link to the terms and conditions that everyone has to agree to before their account is created. Some of them, to me, are quite disturbing and has certainly made me think twice about what I post and upload because in effect anything we do upload Facebook then owns.
"When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." This is just one of the terms and conditions that we agree to, so not only do we allow Facebook to use our information and pictures we also allow people off of Facebook to do the same.
I found a video which puts into perspective the full terms and conditions to facebook, and it shows that maybe we should be a tad more apprehensive about Facebook and similar sites. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfY_HTzd_4U
I think maybe its time to do something about what we have all agreed to. What would happen if we all deleted our accounts until the terms and conditions were changed so that we could really trust Facebook? They would surley have no choice but to make some changes to get users back. It certainly seems that it is something people should be thinking about, to protect themselves and all their information that we naively publish.
Monday, 3 December 2012
The Machine is using us...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE This video brings up important and thought provoking points about the internet and Web 2.0. I'll be honest, before i begun looking in depth into the world wide web and the internet, it was just a piece of technology and software that was there for me to use, i used it every single day, possibly every hour, but i never really thought about how it worked or what i was actually doing on it. Kevin kelly believes that we are the ones teaching the Web, he believes we live inside Web 2.0. By saying this he means we are writing the software for the internet, everytime we tag a photo or search for something we are teaching the web what to do. Our questions programme the machine to answer the questions. Therefore Kevin Kellys theory that the machine is using us seems to be a sensible one, we are giving the answers to the machine.
The Web is an unusual yet wonderful thing, a thing that people dismissed when it first came about, nobody visualised that it would become as big as it is or that we would use it religiously, as we do. Since then the Web has changed and progressed massivley to socities needs, which is why today we now have Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is all about connecting people, whereas Web 1.0 was about connecting computers and technology. Todays society uses Web 2.0 for social needs, for social sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Gradually we have transformed the web to fullfill our needs and change what the web is there for. Although there seems to be dangers that surround web 2.0 we are using it more frequently than ever. Issues of ubiquity, privacy, property and politics all seem to an issue Web 2.l0 faces. In terms of privacy we seem to post our lives on sites such as Twitter and Facebook, but how do we actually know that what we are posting on there is private? Maybe this is a debate for a future post...
The Web is an unusual yet wonderful thing, a thing that people dismissed when it first came about, nobody visualised that it would become as big as it is or that we would use it religiously, as we do. Since then the Web has changed and progressed massivley to socities needs, which is why today we now have Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is all about connecting people, whereas Web 1.0 was about connecting computers and technology. Todays society uses Web 2.0 for social needs, for social sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Gradually we have transformed the web to fullfill our needs and change what the web is there for. Although there seems to be dangers that surround web 2.0 we are using it more frequently than ever. Issues of ubiquity, privacy, property and politics all seem to an issue Web 2.l0 faces. In terms of privacy we seem to post our lives on sites such as Twitter and Facebook, but how do we actually know that what we are posting on there is private? Maybe this is a debate for a future post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)