Just testing for a client. Don’t mind this message.
I’m testing Ping.fm for a client. Sorry for the inconvenience.
I’ve heard of Facebook getting people in trouble for the stupid stuff that’s on their page. Most of the time, it’s the people’s own fault. College admissions officers denying students acceptance because of inappropriate pictures. Supervisors firing employees over evidence of sick days spent in good health. Prospective bosses not liking “boobs” listed as an interest. However, it appears Facebook’s new settings can get you in trouble even without you even doing something stupid.
I started a new job on Monday, and have been consequently avoiding Facebook; I logged on tonight to change my work information and maybe friend some of my new coworkers. However, I accidentally activated the horrid new feature that links to things. My first activity, the highlighted one: “graffiti.”
Clearly, it had parsed some word or phrase incorrectly– I don’t go around tagging buildings, and it seems obvious to me that I do not support defacing property with spray paint. But it may not be obvious to others. My new boss is a social media guy– what if he had viewed my profile and passed judgment on me without my realizing? Because when Facebook made my #1 activity graffiti, they also removed my privacy settings so that everyone could see my interests.
This is what happens when you take the social out of social media and let the machines do the thinking. The functions of a well-designed website are never so poorly hidden– such as how to undo the linking– that they hinder the user’s ability to actually use the site. However, Facebook doesn’t care. Their customer service is notoriously poor, and it can afford to be– we are going to tolerate a lot of crap from Facebook because it is so ingrained in our lives. However, on a site any smaller than Facebook, this sort of authoritarianism would not be tolerated.
My Evolutions and Trends in Digital Media final project, the Evolution of the Recipe, can be found at http://evolutionoftherecipe.wordpress.com/. It examines how the way American home cooks access recipes has changed over the past 150 years, from oral to printed to transmitted to digital.
Finding Valhalla, the first short film by beer lover Helen Pitlick, examines the Viking Spirit that makes Seattle’s Odin Brewing stand apart from its peers.
[My final project for Multimedia Storytelling]
In response to the Afterward from The Media Monopoly by Ben H. Bagdikian
In the context of this article, is advertising good or bad for society?
In what ways do you agree or disagree with the author’s statements?
How has this article changed your view of advertising? television?
In what ways could internet-based communication fall into the same traps?
The “Social Aspects of New Media Technologies” by Williams, Strover and Grant brings up interesting parallels between that era’s “new media,” such as cable television and VCRs, and modern internet-based communication tools. This article is similar to Paul Haridakis and Gary Hanson’s 2009 “Social Interaction and Co-Viewing With YouTube: Blending Mass Communication Reception and Social Connection,” which I covered as a discussion leader. It would appear that the two articles use several similar sources, most notably Katz, Bumler et al.’s “Utilization of mass communication by the individual,” which defines the Uses and Gratifications principle that both articles mention.
The Haridakis and Hanson article brings up the interesting point that YouTube has an extra social dimension because people can share both the video and their thoughts on it by either linking to the video in an email or blog post or leaving a comment on the page. This makes me wonder what other unique uses for internet-based media might exist. Read the rest of this entry »
My first reaction to Garrett Hardin’s 1968 article “Tragedy of the Commons” was that Hardin must be some sort of pinko commie fascist hippie. Arguing in favor of coercion? Advocating human breeding limits? Stating that private property and inheritance is unjust? My second reaction was that the article must be a joke, some satire along the lines of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” Isn’t limiting the freedom to breed about as ridiculous as eating one’s children?
Communist, prankster or not, Hardin’s points are backed by sound logic. Ecosystems are limited in the size of population they can support. Poor parents with many children may actually end up with less decedents than poor parents with fewer children, as the families with fewer children are better able to care for the ones they have and thus ensure their survival. By giving people all of the freedom of ownership and none of the agency, they are less inclined to treat things right– look at how customers treat rental cars. Read the rest of this entry »
References
Berg, P., & Jones, R. (2003). Feeding America: The Historic American Cookbook Project. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 5(4), 69-75.
- This article discusses the Historic American Cookbook Project, Michigan State University’s attempt to digitize cookbooks from the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries; these efforts will make hundreds of public domain recipes searchable on the project’s website, as well as preserve the books for future generations of cooks. Read the rest of this entry »
