Facebook Stuff Again

As the semester dies down and we're not covering new things in class so much, I find it a bit hard to think of something to blog about. So, I guess I'll just kind of ramble about Facebook stuff.  When I deactivated my Facebook in March of last year, I thought it would be for good. I never thought I'd want another one again. However, as of about a month ago, I thought it was necessary. As much as I didn't want one, I felt like I needed one.  But I got along just fine for a year without one, so...how badly do I really need one?  It's a little irritating sometimes, but this whole idea that's been pushed in my face (and maybe others' too, I just can't speak for them) that I NEED one is just so pervasive that it's probably why I'm on it all the time.  I've only had it a month and I'm already sick of it. I'm not saying other people shouldn't use it, but I don't know how much longer I can do it. I'm going to deactivate again, probably this weekend, but with the intention of reactivating it in a time span as short as a week or as long as a month. I'm not sure if I want it to be an on-and-off thing, or if I'll eventually permanently delete and not come back or get on board for good. It could just come down to the whole concept of balance, and how too much of something is bad, but that doesn't mean you need to cut it out entirely. However, I think it encourages me to waste my time worrying about trivial things, and that's the last thing I need.  I don't know...it's a bit hard to explain.  Sorry guys. I wish I had something more insightful to contribute in this week's blog post.

When Books and Video Games Collide

I was researching the future of publishing in one of my other classes, and of course I came across e-books.  What I was surprised to see was books that had an audio track, which is being perfected by an eye tracking system so that the music plays at the same speed that you read with sound effects. Other apps have interactive stories, either with pictures and commentaries like DVD extras, while others required the reader to interact for the story to move forward.


As a kid, I had a computer game called "Eagle Eye Mysteries," which was eerily similar to the concept of interactive books. You would follow a character, looking for clues that are written out on the screen in a story format and move around town trying to find the culprit.  This game is really old, before they moved from just text on the screen to more visual stories like when I upgraded to Nancy Drew Mysteries computer game that had no text and was all audio/visual.


Eagle Eye Mysteries and Nancy Drew sound eerily like the type of interactive reading that is now being developed.  This brings up the question, when will video games and reading intersect?  Have they already?  I wonder how long it will take people to realize they are just creating an interactive game, which is nothing new.  I think the reason it seems so revolutionary is because we are approaching from another perspective, from reading to interactivity rather than from TV and video games to interactive video games where you are part of the story.

This worries me. Will literacy be in danger if people think interactive stories with movies and videos are synonymous with reading? One day will I ask my child "How was your book?" and they will look up from their tablet where they were just playing a game and they say "I'm reading it right now." 

Ubiquitous, Indeed

I think it's fair to say that almost all of our lives revolve around computers.  As Carie pointed out with that picture, nearly everything we do to accomplish something is done with computers--listening to music, talking to friends, watching movies, even masturbating.  To think that even 20 years ago these things weren't even possible blows my mind. Computing really has become ubiquitous.  We are very heavily reliant on it.  It seems like I'm stating obvious things, but it's something I've really just started to think about.  What would happen if social networks like Facebook collapsed or were shut down?  What if computing somehow was no longer possible? What would we do? We've become so used to--and reliant on--digital technology that I find it difficult to believe that society would be able to function without them, even though that's what we did for a very long time before now.

Backsliding

Everyone is so focused on how disconnected and anti-social our generation is because of the computer, but it's like being in the eye of the storm, you can't truly see the impact it's had until the storm is over. We are in the middle of a huge upheaval, where everything we've known is changing thanks to advances in technology. Naturally, things are going to need to be broken down and readjusted.

Rather than looking at the technology revolution, I'd like to take a step back and look at history, using Shirky's chapter 8 as a guideline. The best example I can think of relates to my creative writing pursuits. The reason I love discussing my story and getting feedback from other people is that I sometimes get so stuck on an idea that I don't even realize it is not even necessary. For example, last week I workshopped my novel in which there is a camping trip. Someone asked why it was necessary and I realized when I was rewriting the story, I never even thought about the significance it. That scene had been there since the beginning and just seemed a natural part of the story. That's what I think of when I think about people's idea of "spending free time." Over the decades and centuries, these things have changed but become so naturalized in our society that redefining our idea of free time doesn't seem like an option.

Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, reading books was a luxury. Then it became normalized and reading/literacy was encouraged. People bemoaned the fact that no one spent any time outside. Then came along the TV and everyone frowned upon it and bemoaned the days where we snuggled up with a good book. Now in present day the internet is looked upon as an awful thing while going outside, reading, and watching TV are nostalgic moments we long for. The point I'm making is that our definitions are always changing, although we don't usually notice it. When I was a child, "gay" meant happy. Now I rarely even hear it used in that context.

Shirky points out in Chapter 8 that nothing will ever replace face to face socialization, and it's absurd to think that way. I personally think it's not accurate to say the internet is antisocial (I suppose it depends on how you use it). The computer is nothing but a tool that mediates our interactions with other people (in regards to social software). I can honestly tell you I talk to more people than I did ten years ago. That doesn't mean I just hole myself up in my room all day (granted, some people do), but I also think I have meaningful contact and exchanges with REAL people online on a day to day basis. Once the fad of the internet dies down, I'm sure we will realize that we still crave that face to face communication with other people. Although I am a fan of face to face interactions, I want to play devil's advocate: What is so important about face to face communication except that it's part of our culture? Anything besides face to face interaction wasn't possible a hundred years ago, so of course that's all they had. If technology existed hundreds of years ago, would internet communication be considered the norm and face to face as odd? it's bizarre to think about, but it's important to remember that everything we do is based on how we are socialized, particularly historically and culturally.

Submerged in Facebook

Okay, yes, the last panel is a bit raunchy, but I was stumbling the other day and this came up and I couldn't help but think of this class. I normally hate rage comics, but I thought this was very smart. It really makes you rethink the definition of progress. It also makes me rethink how important digital literacy is. Who knows, classes like this might be required of high school age kids in a few years. In a world where almost anything could be done from a computer, being digitally literate is becoming an essential skill. I realize this is a "well-duh" concept for those in the class, but I think this is what recovering alcoholics would refer to as "a moment of clarity." My generation's complete submersion in the internet continues to astound me every day. I hear people talking about getting rid of their Facebook, and how on the first week, they're already loving the life they lead without Facebook. They love not being tied down to viewing everyone's documented thoughts and playing stupid Zynga games and like being able to live lives in which they are not battered with a barrage of useless information. If anyone needs to get a hold of them, they can do it through the phone. To be quite honest, if people want to get a borderline instantaneous response from me, they simply have to send me a quick message on Facebook. With that little red notification tab at the top beckoning me to check it, I can't resist and all of the sudden that little flag has jumped to the top of my priority list. I have to admit, and existence where an online profile doesn't dictate what's important in my life sounds nice. But I hear people talk about it, and I have resigned myself to the fact that I simply can't do it. I would never be able to hack it. I would be so curious about what's going on with the people I care about. Now I have to admit, some of the posts and other content I don't give a rat's arse about. In fact, a few weeks ago I did a major culling of Facebook friends who were blowing up my feed with ridiculous posts of all kinds, and that took some of the pressure off.

But to say something in defense of Facebook, it is a great way to keep in contact with people who you don't get to see very often. I have a friend who just had a baby. I don't get to see her and the baby very often, but I use Facebook to keep up on how she and baby Rowan are doing, and it makes me miss her less. I don't think that anyone really needs to use Facebook any more or any less, but rather just be conscious of the content you're viewing and the content that you post. My biggest fear has always been that Facebook will morph into Myspace. And while I don't think that it could ever get that bad again, I see more and more similarities every day.

Shirky's Book

I'm not entirely sure what to put in today's blog post, so I've decided to just write about what I think of Shirky's book so far.  I've never really read anything like an analysis of how the technology that has developed throughout our lives has changed how group dynamics work in our society--which is what this books appears to be.  So it's interesting, but it gets a bit dry in places, especially when it comes to communication charts and whatever Shirky called them. Some kind of power slope or something (I did read it, I swear!).  I mean, I know those things are important, but I just kind of lost interest in places. I also think it's interesting that he hasn't mentioned Facebook yet.  I know this book is a few years old, but it's not old enough that Facebook wasn't already HUGE at the time.  Facebook is probably the most significant group use of digital technology in history.  Maybe Shirky's saving that issue for later, seeing as it can get so extensive?

Bad Web Design

Remember when the internet was new and websites were often plagued by horrible design choices by people who had no idea what they were doing? Nowadays people actually have eyes and know what looks good and what doesn't.

I mean, no one makes it a mess of text and images, right?

Okay, but at least most people have some concept of color usage these days.

Alright... So the purple on blue and yellow on blue-green isn't the best choice for this webmaster. Surely people have learned that animated gifs are not what makes the internet awesome... right?

I spoke too soon.

At least I haven't seen an under construction logo while surfing these bad websites. I mean, I think in 2012 we've all realized that websites are living things that always evolve, hence the logos are unnecessary.

Maybe I should just give up on hoping that the internet will look pretty. It looks like people are still going to be making these amateur mistakes. Whether it's trying to use complex features that make it impossible to navigate your site or disgusting color choices, these people make their companies look bad. The only advice I can give is to look at the website I mentioned earlier in this post and compare your site to the ones displayed. If it looks similar, there's something wrong with it.

Cutting Out the Middle Man

In Chapter 2 of Clay Shirky's book, "Here Comes Everybody," he makes an observation that the mass photosharing of Flickr would not have been possible if someone had tried to coordinate. He says there is a "distinction between Flickr coordinating users versus helping them coordinate themselves" (33).

Is this referring to a future without the middle man? We are already seeing a shift from the previously private and specialized industry of publishing to becoming something that anyone can do. For example, once I finish typing up this post, I'm going to click a button that says "publish post." In essence, I'm publishing something for the rest of the world that didn't first have to go through copyediting, permissions, etc.

So is this a good thing or a bad thing? We can now all be publishers, but what is going to happen to the publishing industry? Shirky makes another salient point that we experienced this similar chaos and confusion with the emergence of the printing press. Suddenly scribes were put out of the job. A market that had been available to only a select few had suddenly become publicly available to almost everyone. I would say that things have worked out since then, so do you think we are doomed with a mush of unedited, unworthy works or is this a step toward a more knowledgeable world? Are we in the middle of a revolution that will settle down as we learn to adapt?

Sensationalism in the Digital World

Dear God, I cannot express in words how completely tired I am of seeing dead celebrities on the cover of magazines.

Celebrities are truly immortal, and I don't just mean this in the schmaltzy way in which their contributions to this country will live on forever. I mean that even though mortality has taken away their earthly form, the go on continuing to earn money even after they die. It is incredible to me. The money from movie sales, record sales, estate auctions, merchandise, and everything in between, they all receive a cut as the contributing artist. According to Forbes magazine, the highest earning dead celebrity in the country right now is Michael Jackson. Try to act surprised. And he has that first spot firmly secured, too. He earns $125 million dollars every year, clearing the second placeholder, Elvis Presley, who only makes $55 million every year. But considering he's been dead for over fifty years, that's not bad. That's probably where Michael Jackson will be in about half a century.

I hate it when celebrities die of questionable causes and we automatically turn them into martyrs. And it doesn't always happen, either. When Heath Ledger died three years ago, there was a lot of coverage in the news, but there were no Oprah specials or anything like that. It was a tragedy to this country that an incredibly talented young man had lost his life, but it was nothing like this Whitney Houston ordeal in which we've completely blown her out of proportion. She was doing A LOT of drugs, and engaging in reckless behavior, and when she dies of an overdose, all of the sudden, this country is ready to canonize her. It is completely ridiculous. We talked about sensationalism in my TCOM classes quite often, and about Little White Girl syndrome. Two words: KASEY ANTHONY.

I don't have a very rosy outlook on this kind of thing. I don't think it's going to get any better. I think it's going to take some kind of world-wide pandemonium to get America to reevaluate its priorities in the media.

So I Got Another Facebook.

While this isn't altogether relevant to what we've been discussing in class recently, it is somewhat relevant to the class in general, and to something I've posted before...I got another Facebook.

While the old issues I've had with it in the past have been overshadowed by my reasoning for making a new profile, new issues seem to have sprung up.  First of all, I am unable to get this Timeline thing that nearly everyone else has.  If I go to the page that is supposed to have a "get it now" button, that simply isn't there for me.  It seems that certain people cannot access this feature, and I am one of them. Even if I were to use a different computer or browser, it still would not let me access this feature.  There is simply nothing I can do to get the "new and improved" Facebook.

The second issue I have is the fact that I haven't even had my new profile for a week and I am already blocked from sending friend requests.  This is because I have been requesting too many people I don't have enough mutual friends with.  But...since my profile is new, I'm not going to have many friends period, so I WOULD have mutual friends if I could add everyone I know.  Basically, I have to have friends to get friends. My ability to make friend requests and send messages are both blocked for a week now....pretty much for no other reason than that I have a new profile.  This is a problem.

Typography... Why Do We Care?

Dr. Donnelly asked us at the end of class to come back with an answer to the question, "Why is calligraphy important to our Digital Literacies class?" I'm not sure if he meant calligraphy or typographysince those are two very different things. Calligraphy is handwritten, while typography is printed matter. Calligraphy isn't directly related to our class, but that inspired typography, and the reason why it was so important to Steve Jobs.

I do think typography is important, although after taking three classes that gushed about typography and having read 3 books all about typography, I feel like people may be going overboard. I have lots of respect for people who spend their life making the typography that we take for granted, but does it really matter if the curve of the S is less than a hair uneven? I do admit I probably don't realize the work that goes into typography since it's such a commonplace thing, and maybe that smidgen of space destroys the whole aesthetics of the font.

To answer the question, typography is an important part of our class (and using the internet in general) because we are always using typography. We always use it every day and with so many options out there, we have to figure out what is the best font to represent our work.

Remembering Wrong...

"It's my job to creep you out," Professor Donnelly says.

Well done, sir. When talked about the concept of placing chips in human beings, and while it sounds like a completely science-fictional concept, it's being done to animals all the time, mainly pets, who if run away, can be easily tracked down. There's a man in Saudi Arabia who developed a chip that can be placed under the skin of human beings that not only tracks them, but also releases a deadly dose of cyanide into a person's blood stream if they are being disobedient or acting contrary to the laws of their government....

Now granted, this was about three years ago, and it didn't really come to fruition. But could you imagine? With The Hunger Games coming out and everything, there has been a huge revamp of interest in dystopian literature. Every time a new dystopian novel comes out, Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, all of these novels experience a new wave of interest. Chips under the skin has already become a thing of reality. Now its just a matter if they're going to deem their use on humans acceptable or not.

This class often makes me anxious about the way the world is nowadays. It makes me scared. When Ranger just brought up some developments in the Treyvon Martin case that were released last Monday, how in fact it WASN'T an unsolicited vigilante act, but rather a case of self defense, even though Treyvon didn't have a weapon on him, he was physically assaulting the man who shot him.

Now, regardless of whether or not that's true, it reminds me so much of Animal Farm, it's frightening. It was a thought I was willing to bring up in class if I wasn't concerned it would take forever to explain. Basically, what happened was that after the animals chased the farmer off the farm and reclaimed it as their own, they began to form a new chain of command. Near the top of this is a pig named Snowball, who was a leader for the animals in their new government of sorts. There was a great battle in which the farmer tried to recapture the farm with the help of his men and Snowball was shot during the battle trying to take down the farmer. He sustained grievous wounds but was rewarded for his bravery. Then in a mutinous revolt, another pig named Napoleon used dogs to chase Snowball off the farm, thus opening the position for a leader. As the animals began to question this, saying, "Oh, no, Snowball was not a traitor! He was a true patriot, he fought bravely in the Battle of Cowshed and was wounded!" Then the "Grima Wormtongue" pig whose name currently escapes me says, "Oh no, comrades, he wasn't wounded, that never happened at all. He was actually fighting FOR the farmer. You are recollecting incorrectly." Or something along those lines. And even though the animals were convinced they'd remembered it one way, they resolved to think that Snowball was a traitor.

Now suddenly, this topic of Treyvon Martin has disappeared. No one's talking about it anymore. Its as if we all resolved to draw a solid conclusion based on here-say. And that's scary to me. And while it might be good that I'm thinking about these things in a very critical way, I don't like how uneasy it makes me feel. When my kids ask me what it was like when I was growing up, I don't want to say that the only thing I remember is being worried about the future. I suppose there are two ways I could look at it. The first is that it was a great time to be young. The voice of the young people hadn't been louder since the 1960s, and we were always eager to see what happened tomorrow...or some nostalgic nonsense like that. I don't want to say that we worried about the government and how they were going to screw us next, or how we had to resort to riding horseback because gas prices got too high