Group items tagged

Linda Hugues examines how different digital natives and digital immigrants are. She puts forward how digital natives can be impaired in the way they focus on issues and how these differences can induce a bit of a culture clash at work. All in all, both "immigrants" and "natives" have assets but how stressfull it can be for people not used to these new technologies.

Engaging in social media backfires for Nestle. Due to the Greenpeace protest against the company with regards to how the company uses palm oil in its products, a number of people posted their distaste on Nestle's Facebook page. Unfortunately for the company, the representative in charge of replying to comments was far from being amiable, or even courteous. Sample exchange of comments: Nestle: "You have freedom of speech and expression. Here, there are some rules we set. As in almost any other forum. It's to keep things clear." Paul Griffin: "Your page, your rules, true, and you just lost a customer, won the battle and lost the war! Happy?" Nestle: "Oh please...it's like we're censoring everything to allow positive comments." Social media has significant benefits for companies and how they market the products to consumers. However, if used wrongly, as with this case, massive PR clean-up is inevitable.

The elderly in an effort to uphold their right to freedom of information are undertaking workshops which teach them how to circumvent the internet filters so that they can still access information regarding euthanasia which would otherwise be fettered with the proposed ISP filtering law …..how effective are these filters going to actually be?

Google in the articulation of a 'foreign policy'??? Could Internet companies develop these kinds of policies?? 

Google's position about internet filtering on China reveals the need for internet companies to develop their own foreign policies. Clay Shirky is interviewed on the topic and he shares his view about how the social effects of internet and how different are the mentalities behind microsoft and google

There have been a number of research programs that have investigated students' thinking and beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing, including definitions of knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, and how knowledge is evaluated. However, these different research programs have pursued varying definitions and conceptual frameworks and used quite different methodologies to examine students' epistemological beliefs and thinking. In the first section of this article, we provide a critical and comprehensive review of these different research programs. In the second part of this article, we identify nine crucial theoretical and methodological issues that need to be resolved in future research on epistemological theories. As these issues are addressed in future research, there will be more consensus regarding the nature of epistemological theories, and their relation to cognition, motivation, and learning will be made more explicit.

Interesting article on The Guardian on how the main British parties use social media. The article, though, treats social media as a fad that may eventually dissolve. The question, though, remains: do political parties know how to use social media?

This article discusses how online review sites can be manipulated, and the importance that companies place on 'word of mouth' for reputation. It raises this important issue: online reviews and comments are crucial for the reputation of 'real world' sites, so how can these sites be 'governed'? Or should they be?

An article on how the increasing flow of internet traffic could potentially lead to a form of 'gatekeeping' of users by providers. It has always been perceived that there was network neutrality as providers charged a flat rate for unlimited internet access. However, the article argues that this is not the case as there has aways been some form of management of traffic so that an acceptable level of service is maintained. An extreme example is the court case between BitTorrent users and the provider Comcast. Comcast blocked this service as it was effecting service. This was challenged by users who initially won. However in a challenge by Comcast, Washington found in their favour as it found that the Federal Communications Commission could not decide how Comcast should manage its network. Another interesting point made is the potential for service providers to charge content providers who attract a large amount of traffic.This way good service is guarenteed, through essentially sharing the burden of cost. Obviously this is fiercely opposed by businesses. Clearly this all has the potential to change the relationship between users, content providers and service providers.

From Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez's blog. A short post that describes how the Cuban communist intelligentsia deals with Twitter. Interesting to see how some dissidents have contacts outside Cuba who are in charge of maintaining their twitter accounts. 

This blog by Dan Yoder counts 10 reasons why you should can your Facebook account. The main reasons for this boycott are related issues of privacy and how they treat the information of members, for example not providing complete information on how they use your information.

This looks at the new atmosphere of sharing all the mundane details about our lives, facilitated by sites such as Blippy, which broadcasts details about shopping habits, and Foursquare, that uses GPS to alert contacts to your location. A fellow at the American Civil Liberties Union said, "People are not necessarily thinking about how long this information will stick around, or how it could be used and exploited by marketers." Concerns are also raised about potential identity theft and whether accessing every scrap of data left behind by users is actually valuable.

The Four Corners report mapped the issue from when internet censorship was bought forward as a policy issue in a report by the Australian Institute in 2003 to how the Howard government and now how the Rudd government has approached the issue of internet censorship. \n\nNot only can you can watch the report you can also read the transcript, watch the extended interviews and there are also links to further resources.\n

A survey which was released as part of the Pacific-wide Privacy Week (last week) shows that people in New Zealand are very concerned about their Internet privacy.It is of main concern how social networks use personal information and how search engines and websites are tracking online behaviour for targeted advertising.

In the aftermath of the recent death of 18-year-old Nona Belomesoff, following a "Facebook meeting" comes an outcry from parent and teacher groups to prevent teens from accessing Facebook at school. According to Laurel Papworth, banning access is not the answer. Education is.

This article discusses how banning Facebook is not the answer for prevention of tragedies of deaths like Sydney teen who had met a "friend" on Facebook. Though it may seem commonly obvious, I do not believe simply warning and educating children/teenagers about the potential dangers of social networking and strangers is enough; but perhaps going a step further and accepting that meeting "friends" through social networks has become a social norm. Therefore conversations amongst children/teenagers/friends/parents alike must be initiated so that there is some sort of support system to ensure safety. As the online social networks expand the definition of "friends", one must consider the social construction of how people now view the world based on these norms.

Rather than suggesting that social networking sites should be "banned" to protect the safety of children, people should ensure they understand how to be safe online.  This also includes understanding the changes to a sites privacy policies and the impacts these changes can have to your privacy settings.

The campaign strategy of the newly elected US Senator Scott Brown heavily used the web. Article about how he did this. 

A GROUP of Google's partners in China have sent an impassioned plea to the internet giant, saying their businesses are in jeopardy if Google closes its Chinese search engine, and demanding to know how they will be compensated.

The deal has been done, it's only the matter of how Googld deal with those partners and its financial problem accordingly.

Blog post about how Facebook and MySpace handle cyber bullying. Should both sites "unmask" bullies and what would the possible implications be?  At present neither site is required to identify users who bully others or post offensive material unless requested by a subpoena.

Some great analysis and summary from Fast Company on Google pulling the plug on their Chinese search engine, and how this relates to their submission to the Australian Government regarding their proposed ISP filtering. If you're not familiar with Fast Company, this is how they modestly describe themselves: "Fast Company sets the agenda, charting the evolution of business through a unique focus on the most creative individuals sparking change in the marketplace. By uncovering best and "next" practices, the magazine and website help a new breed of leader work smarter and more effectively. Fast Company empowers innovators to challenge convention and create the future of business."

This is about how the work pattern changed in terms of the use of cloud computing and convience of the internet.

How on earth can he guarantee that this will be 100 percent accurate - with no overblocking, and no underblocking!?!?! And in this interview, he advises that this is not a limit on freedom of speech and that the internet should not be considered a special platform.

This article discusses how the Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has dismissed the Internet as a special medium, claiming that it is nothing more than, "just a communication distrbution platform." Which, is quite short sighted, as the notion of open source, crowd sourcing, collective/collecting intelligence, collaborative intelligence is achievable because of the Internet. Conroy also claims that his filter is 100 percent accurate..." which begs to question, according to who? Filtering, content only prevents access, it does not prevent those individuals from crimnimal acts offline, nor does it address how to protect victims from their predators.