Unanswered Questions

The other day I made the comment that the Internet is much unlike other media in the way that it is accessible to more people than ever and that you can publish text, images, and video much easier than the past. In the past, you had to get accepted by publishers for text and studios for video. Now, everyone is able to publish and get their voice heard.

And then Dr. Mike asked, "Do they really?"

At first, I thought, "Well, of course! What kind of argument is 'Do they really?' anyway?" But it wasn't really an argument, it was rhetorical question that my confirmation bias kept me from finding the truth of the matter. No one else in class seemed to care, and we passed by it pretty quickly.

But now that question is gnawing at me. "Do they really?" It's like a Zen riddle.

I guess what we need to take into account is that with a million voices making up the static of discourse in the internet, is your voice really heard? Who outside of the class is reading this blog? Probably no one. We still have a gap between the static of information on the internet and the websites and users that get the most views.

YouTube is a great demonstration of this fact. There's no filter (other than the guidelines against violence, sex, and other inappropriate things), and there's a lot of low quality videos on the video portal. However, only a select few probably get more than 100,000 views on each of their videos, and even less get paid to do so.

Does that make my point invalid though? Although only a few select people get views and get paid for it, it's ultimately the collective of the internet that decided that these channels are worth watching and viewing. Sadly, this means the lowest common denominator determines a great deal of what is given the most attention.

What does this mean for the future of our society as we have more generations born into the internet? It's too late to tell right now of course, but in order to keep from falling into the pit of intellectual despair, we need to keep our minds open. We need to explore our resources. We need to stop paying attention to the content that gives us no meaning and become perpetual students, never satisfied with unanswered questions.

Does the Internet Provide for Equal Opportunity?

In some of the articles we read earlier this semester, they talked about how the printing press made more people into publishers. Things that had been accessible by only a small population is now open to more people.

Did it really?

In Clay Shirky's second book, "Cognitive Surplus" (we are reading the first book in this class later this semester) he talks about how publishing, which had at one point been accessible only to a small population of people, has now turned everybody into publishers. Blogs have turned everybody into writers.

Does it really?

Instead of just simply being "published" there are now tiers of publishers, writers, actors and anything else that can be accessed by the general public. What's the fun of turning everyone into a publisher/writer/actor? With every step of technology, the stakes of becoming a publisher/writer/actor also increases. Sure, you can self-publish now, but most people still won't consider you to be a writer until you have a publisher backing you up. With the rise of small, independent companies, even that is not as credible as the huge corporate companies.

We still consider "movie stars" as people who are endorsed and paid millions of dollars and show up on the movie theater screens across the world. This is how we wade through the millions of amateur videos on the internet. Anyone can be a musician now, but we have the highest respect for the ones we hear on the radio.

With the accessibility the internet gives us, this does not make us equal. To be honest, not everybody would make a good writer, or a good actor or a good musician. Now that anyone who wants to be any of these professions can, we have a flood of less than desirable information on the web. How are we supposed to sort it all out?

In my opinion, no matter how much power the internet gives us, there is always going to be a higher elite above that. While there is still some bad (in my opinion) music/movies/books in that "elite" industry, I don't think it's such a bad thing to have requirements in order to be considered professional. I don't think this will ever change anyway.

Intellectually Unpacking

Today, I liked Dr. Mike's comment about "intellectually unpacking" certain types of content. In terms of information access, technology, specifically the internet, has been a floodgate for those thirsty for knowledge. Wikipedia, for the most part, is a vast wealth of knowledge for the common man. The power not only to attain information via the internet, but also have the freedoms to go in and add information of one's own gives a supreme freedom to the common man with internet access. This creates an open marketplace of ideas. With information at your fingertips via technology, the Digital Divide is growing shorter and shorter every day. There are so many countries where there are whole populations without access to information technology. What would life be like if you couldn't remember the specific year a major war began? Today in class, no one could tell Dr. Mike what year the Civil War began until someone opened a web browser on their laptop and used technology to answer a question. Now, while this information technology opens many doors for people seeking valuable information, there is also the concern that the evolution of education may lead to the discontinued use of printed sources and a lack of ability to seek out information in an "analog" fashion (i.e. using a library to find information in printed sources). But even in that light, I think it's almost impossible to place a price on the value of technology's freedom of "intellectually unpacking."

More Opinions About Selfe's Book

There isn't really that much for me to discuss this week...I've been reading more of Selfe's book, obviously.  It's a bit of a dry read; to me it kind of drags on.  Of course, it continues to encourage parents to discourage their children from using computers for anything other than academics, which is irritating.  The people quoted in this book tend to act like education and mindlessness are binary opposites that have no gray area, that these are the only things computers can be used for.

To me, even watching people vlogging on YouTube can be "educational"; sometimes you go onto someone's channel and, by watching them talk about their thoughts on various things, you learn about them as if in a documentary...it can be really cool.  If you want to know about something, you can look it up on YouTube, usually. Tumblr can be educational, if you follow art or science blogs, or blogs that cover things like current events and politics.  Even Facebook can be more than just a "mindless" way to waste time; as someone in our class pointed out, riots and protests have been organized on Facebook. Once again, the lesson seems to come down to, "It's all in how you use it".

I also think it's kind of irritating how the politicians and people quoted in this book are pushing the "American way" of life on everyone, and how that's their definition of progress.  I mean, maybe things other than Capitalism haven't worked for other countries in the past, but why should we push our way of doing things on everyone? It has its flaws too!  Sometimes I feel like America is the arrogant douchebag of the world, trying to bully everyone into doing things the way it does.  Sorry if that was offensive, but I feel it's true sometimes.  I actually came across a meme (on Tumblr) that suggested something similar and found it pretty funny.  Just a few more of my opinions on the book.

Amazon to Test Brick and Motar Store in Seattle

It may sound like Amazon is going to start selling books at physical stores, but in reality, the company is actually testing out new ways to sell their tablets. Probably competing with Apple's stores, Reuters is reporting that the online behemoth is planning "to showcase and sell its growing line of gadgets, including the Kindle Fire tablet." So far there has been no reports on whether or not they are thinking of expanding to sell books at the store. There was speculation in Daily Finance that "it's quite possible that an Amazon Store could eventually carry a wide range of products." I do believe selling books in an Amazon store would fill the great vacuum in the physical book store market that Amazon helped create in the first place.

Do you think this is a good move on Amazon's part? Will customers go to a physical store to try out the new Kindle, or will they trust online reviews and buy it like online as usual?

Comfort Zone

Humans don't like change, and when we are shoved out of our comfort zones we act like it's the end of the world. Let me give an example: Facebook. How many times has Facebook changed their layout? Each and every time, without fail, there is a massive uproar. I've never heard anyone in the first week say: "Oh, I like the new design." We hate change. Within a week or two (for the more resistant Facebookers) people settle down and soon that layout becomes the norm until they do another layout change.

This isn't just portrayed in social media, either. As we read in Pencils to Pixels, people have always resisted change in technology. Pencils... typewriter... telegraph... Even Socrates was opposed to then notion of moving speech to paper because he thought it would make us dumber. Sound familiar?

This does, however bring up an interest question. Do we become accustomed to change because we have no other choice? We accept Facebook's newest layout because we have no other choice. We can't stop the universal shift toward the internet.

What do you think, if we had a choice to leave things the same, would we? Or would we realize that change might not be so bad once we get the hang of how to navigate and use it properly?

Illumination via Mapping Project

*I attempted to post this on Monday, but apparently it didn't go through. Thanks to Michael for letting me know.

Today when we had an opportunity to revise our maps, not only did it give me a chance to better understand this assignment, but once I got my ideas down on paper, I really got the true meat of this assignment. I'd never acknowledged how completely integrated my life was in technology. I rely on it for everything. My news, my social interactions, even my television. I have no idea when the last time was that I actually sat down in front of a television and watched a television program. I view all my favorite programs through the internet. There are people in my life whom I would never talk to if I didn't interact with them via Facebook or Twitter. Technology in itself is so important to my education. Were it not for the internet, I wouldn't have access to essential student resources such as Blackboard or Gradebook. I use my laptop to download textbooks from the Internet at a reduced price. In comparison to a print textbook, an electronic textbook allows me to find information easily and quickly just by entering my desired topic into the search bar. Overall, without it, I don't know how I would be able to function without the internet. The mapping project has allowed me to see that.