Blog Post 11

I have always been curious about "Big Data"; since I've been in the DTC program, every single class I've taken has dealt with a few of the same issues.  Copyright, fair use, data mining and social media have all been a part of my college education.  It wasn't until now that I started to think about how data analysis would come off if it were applied back to the real world.  Since the digital age is such a recent era in the span of human societies, some of our functions, terms and procedures have crossed into the digital world (saving, file folders, trash, desktop).  We are now becoming more and more aware of the cross back into the real world.  Some of the data that is collected from the internet may include how often users access a site, how many times users click on a certain link and how long a user stays on a single page.  This type of data mining is obviously quite similar to the type of data mining that happens in the real world.  A retail store can track how many customers enter their store, record how long they stay and calculate which items are the most popular. Data mining becomes questionable when simple numbers are replaced with personal statements, opinions, photos and videos of individuals.  One would argue that the internet should be considered a massive public forum when anything and everything that is communicated is fair game to not only view but also analyze.  But if Copyright law applies to all creative works until it is specified for some type of creative license then how does social media fit into that?  Can Copyright be applied to blogs?  Let's look at it from the other end.  Is it legal to collect song lyrics of popular artists and analyze their contents if those lyrics are protected by copyright law?  They are very difficult questions to answer and I am certainly not qualified to do so.  I will however quote my mother to end this post.  She told me this when I started using AOL Instant Messenger back in 7th grade: "The internet is not written in pencil but in permanent ink, it can never be erased.  Be careful what you type and always mean it."  Since then I have always lived by those words when it comes to my interaction on internet and so I can honestly say that if someone were to use my information for analysis, I don't think I would mind.

Blog post 10

Slee proposes, "Forswearing "new and social media" as a category allows us to include the Benghazi radio stations and newspapers, because they are no longer outside some artificial digital boundary. It frees us up to talk separately and distinctly about blogs, SMS, and Facebook without trying to tie them together in some fake unity: each of these media have distinct architectures, different user bases, different governance models; they serve different purposes, have different interfaces to the rest of the world, and are subject to different commercial pressures."  I think this is an interesting point to make.  Although each of these types of outlets are essentially different they all serve a generally similar purpose: to distribute information to those that cannot be reached face to face.  This can be distinguished from advertisements, music and television because mass communication like that is a one way street.  Each of the types of communication listed by Slee allow for instant response, collaboration and innovation between individuals.  Slee writes "Egypt's rebellion, while of course it is unique, is not a new type of rebellion. There are parallels to other rebellions, including the use of cultural space where the ideas and dreams of a generation could be shared in a semi-public fashion, and the use of new media technology to spread the word to a wider public."  I couldn't disagree more.  The cultural revolution of the 1960’s relied on different outlets of communication in order to make change.  The work young people did in order to achieve their demands was quite different.  Neither way is better of course; both means of communication have been appropriate for the environment the changes were happening in.  Slee also makes an interesting thought by saying, “Forswearing "new and social media" would force us to drop the empty and misleadingly binary talk of "Internet Freedom" and acknowledge the sliding scale of rights and freedoms that govern individual transactions in both the digital and non-digital realms.”  Has the name “social media” become synonymous with “Internet Freedom”?  It’s difficult to say.  I know that in the last 5 years users of social media have felt more and more comfortable with sharing personal information online however I think that’s starting to regress.  The consequences of being so open online have become more serious and relatable.  Most social organizations have policies regarding social media; those not affiliated with a governing body that will guide them to appropriate social media etiquette must either take responsibility for themselves or suffer the repercussions.  I don’t think eliminating the works “new media” and “social media” will have as much impact as Slee believes.

Blog post 9

There were two statements that stood out to me in the reading.  The first (page 7) stated, "In this sense, digital consumers are often no less materialistic than material consumers: the only difference is that their material has become digital."  This idea has actually been a recent issue in my own personal life.  It first came about when I started listening to Macklemore's new album The Heist, specifically the track named, "Wings" which is basically about Macklemore's relationship with a pair of shoes he had when it was a kid.  He talks about how this piece of merchandise held such high value in his life  that it took him years to realize that they were simply just shoes.  When it comes to the digitization of our economy I think we need to be very careful.  It is now normal for money to move back a forth without it ever being tangible; for instance, I receive a paycheck through direct deposit and then use my debit card to purchase something online.  That money has gone from my employer to me to a retail business without ever becoming physical currency (cash).  This can be related to the reading we did earlier in the week that focused on the market, equity and credit.  Since credit nowadays in purely digital, it has become quite easy to spend beyond your means and fall into debt.  Because all of this money is digital (or perhaps conceptual), the sense of losing is diminished.
The other statement that really rang true said, "from a consumer’s point of view, information goods are “experience goods”: that is, their value is derived from experiencing them and absorbing their content."  This also relates back the reading we did earlier this week.  As a class we discussed how information only holds value if there is an audience to put value on it.  It must be experienced in order for it to move from simply data to information that holds value.  Value is given by the audience, not necessarily by the creator.

Blog Post 8

Shapiro and Varian make some valid and still relevant points when it comes to information technology and it's relationship with the producer and consumer of information.  They talk about how hardware and software are completely useful without each other.  The two also reference the relationship between advertisers and consumers in the cyber world.  I find it to be a good thing that advertisers are able to connect with their customers better than ever through information about their own navigation.  Up until now, I've seen it as a breach of privacy however since it is now widely known that almost nothing is private on the internet, why should your browsing history?  We have discussed in that past that the younger generation is becoming more concerned with social privacy than institutional privacy.  I think this trend will continue and that will allow advertisers to collect more and more information on users.  I would much rather see an ad for a dress I might like than one for tire rims and data mining can make that happen.
It is quite obvious however that this article is outdated.  At one point the authors write, "The fact is the Web isn't all that impressive as an information resource".  I personally do not agree with this.  The fundamental aspect of the internet as an information resource is the search engine.  The search engine has evolved from the classic AskJeeves to Google [insert noun].  Google as a search engine has pushed farther in terms of information accessibility than any other.  Bing by Microsoft is trying to catch more ground with its constant campaigns against Google however Bing still does not have the social backing that Google has.    The amount of scholarly information on the web has increased vastly since educational institutions started using the internet as part of its curriculum. Search engines in 2005 may have been frustrating but today, they are used more than any other type of Web site.

Blog Post 7

It doesn't surprise me that Kate Raynes-Goldie found that 20-somethings are more concerned with social privacy than institutional privacy on Facebook and other social media sites.  As young adults, we are constantly under scrutiny by our peers in regards to our relationship status, the pictures we post, the events we attend and those we are connected with.  As more and more adults enter the world of Facebook, it is no longer just our peers that are watching our every digital move.  Teachers, administration, parents, parents of friends; anyone who is free to judge our young lives can now access the documentation we willingly and conveniently provide online.  As users of Facebook, we rarely see how our institutional privacy is being tested because most of the information that is used, shows up as ads that we merely glance over and brush off.

One way to combat the fear of giving our "friends" too much information is the switch to Twitter. Twitter provides an outlet where the user can still express their immediate thoughts without the option of your "friends" sharing more than you would like about yourself.  Twitter can still tag people in posts and although not directly, pictures.  The interface of Twitter also allows for rapid movement of posts and does not naturally show a single person's timeline of posts unless a user clicks on their individual profile.  Twitter gives the user a lot more control on what information is connected to them however this sometimes gives a false sense of security.

Large corporations are now using Twitter to issue press releases, updates and company events.  Young Twitter users are less cautious when it comes to what they post on Twitter compared to what they post of Facebook.  More can be said in 140 characters than most users realize however privacy settings are a lot more user friendly with Twitter.  A Twitter account can be entirely blocked to the public and even if that account is tagged in tweet by some one else, it is still private to those who are not connected to the account.  As Raynes-Goldie points out, Facebook can give a stranger a lot more access to your information, pictures and posts than you would probably like.

The early years of social media, it was normal and encouraged to reveal as much information as possible about yourself in order for your friends to find you easier in the cyber world.  As time progressed, stalking, child molestation and general stranger danger took effect.  Personal information is gaining more value every day that identity theft occurs.  Users of Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and more are selective of the information they post.  Sires are now losing users because they no longer want other people to access their information or conversely, they no longer want access to the information of others.  Social media is going downhill as more and more adults start using; it is losing its “cool” and soon it will no longer exist as a normal part of American social life.

Blog post 6

David Parry's talk on copyright had some strong suggestions about how we as consumers can change in order to promote the free sharing of intellectual property. In the video, he talks about copyright infringement, the concept of intellectual property and the business of "owning" information.  He refers to this conflict as "open scholarship," whether we should freely and openly share information and academic research. At the same time, we will be eliminating the profitable side of information which prevents some readers from having access to the information.  His ten steps to ending "Knowledge Cartels" gives a few valid reasons on why we should give up the monetary aspect of information and simply share everything.  His steps include giving every new piece of work a creative commons license, refuse to work for the gated publishers and simply pirate everything.  He does make a reference to the criticism he receives, most critics may label him as an information anarchist.  I can understand why they would lump him in with the rest of the chaos that ensues when society decides to simply share everything.  Parry's theory could definitely work but it would take a lot of lobbying to convince every creator to give up the money-making rights to their works.  Could we collectively eliminate the concept of intellectual property? Suddenly sharing what was once a form of wealth would be difficult for Western society.  Information has been a traded commodity for hundreds of years, when the thoughts of one person seemed to hold enough value to change the state of his pockets.  As it grew, the economy of information became more and more valuable.  Science, innovation, and the exploration of ourselves as humans helped boost the emergence of copyright law.  As society grew, specialization allowed for more information to be produced and distributed, while providing income for a range of professionals in the intellectual property business itself. I find it hard to believe that we can successfully and mutually share information in way that everyone can gain from it, while those who previously profited from it are left with the same rights as everyone else but without a livelihood.  Although I agree with some of the reasons for suggesting these changes, the changes themselves seem far from our reach as a culture and do not seem reasonable.  

Classroom blog post

Nathan Lindahl had this to say about copyright law: "The goal of a law should be that ensures and maintains a healthy culture. Sometimes that means providing for those who don’t have too much."
As a graphic designer for the student involvement office, I deal with the Washington State University copyright policies quite frequently.  WSU has clear and distinct rules regarding the WSU cougar head logo and the Washington State University letterhead.  The goal of these rules is to preserve the integrity of the logo and the reputation of the school.  Explained simply, the main regulations state that the cougar head cannot "eat" or "wear" anything; it can not have anything placed in it's mouth and it can not have anything following the curve of its back.  Although these rules are not providing anything for anyone, they contribute positively to a healthy culture.  WSU resides in a small town and has gotten a bad reputation in the past for the social lives of the students however the logo has been a steadfast and long standing aspect of WSU culture.  It deserves to be treated with respect and these regulations are securing the integrity of the logo and what it represents.  I think copyright law has some definite flaws, can cause trouble and can be down right confusing but when it comes to WSU, copyright law is a blessing in disguise.