Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.

Boxxy (also known by the YouTube handle boxxybabee) is an internet meme created by a series of YouTube videos of an American girl referring to herself as Boxxy which became highly popular during January 2009.[1] Her videos have been the subject of much speculation over the reasons behind their making, given their nonsensical and hyperactive nature.[2] Topics covered in Boxxy's most famous video include her assertion that she is not on drugs, her eyeliner, two males named Steve and Brandon, a film about The Beatles, her supposed husband, and her awareness of her digression during the video.[3]

The girl known as Boxxy was a user of Gaia Online and had only uploaded three videos in total to YouTube, all in the first week of January, 2009.[when?][4] Within a week, her videos had gained over a million views, reaching two million by January 20.[4] Her YouTube channel was also the most subscribed to during January 2009.[1] On 4chan, the videos caused a great amount of strife when posts related to them became excessive on the site's /b/ imageboard, eventually leading to a DDOS attack against 4chan because of Boxxy,[5] described as a "civil war" on one of the world's biggest websites.[1] Her YouTube account was hacked, and threats of releasing her name and other personal information to the public if she made any more videos were made by the individuals who hacked into her account[who?].[2]

IRONICALLY, HUMANS NOW ENJOY MORE privacy than ever, says Aaron Ben-Ze'ev, president of the University of Haifa and author of Love Online: Emotions on the Internet. "Two hundred years ago, when people lived in villages or very dense cities, everyone's behavior was evident to many and it was extremely hard to hide it," he says. Today, e-mail and "chatting" online allow for completely anonymous interactions. We can talk and make plans without the whole household or office knowing. But if we're so able to keep things to ourselves, then why are we doing exactly the opposite?

the Internet can be more disinhibiting than the stiffest drink

"We've been shaped to be very sensitive to each other on a face-to-face basis," says Daniel Wegner, a Harvard psychologist When someone is in front of you, you can read how they're reacting to your admissions, keeping track-as you're hardwired to do-of whether they're comfortable, disapproving, or rapt. But when you're alone in a room and typing on a computer, explains Wegner, it's easy to forget there's somebody on the other end of the line and become oblivious to the consequences of sharing information.

As we have seen, modern technological production brings about an anonymity in the area of social relations. What we have called componentiality, which is intrinsically related to the manner in which modern technology deals with material objects, is transferred to individual relations with others, and ultimately with the self. This anonymity carries with it a constant threat of anomie. The individual is threatened not only by meaninglessness in the world of his work, but also by the loss of meaning in wide sectors of his relations with other people.

Furthermore, he is constantly in the situation of having too many balls in the air simultaneously. In the words of the classical American joke: He has "too many choices" all the time. The complexity of the multi-relational modern world puts a strain on all standard operating procedures, not only in the individual's activity but in this consciousness as well.

Once more the result is tension, frustration and, in the extreme case, a feeling of being alienated from others.

What it shows is that, as a function of the people a Facebook user actively communicate with, you are passively engaging with between 2 and 2.5 times more people in their network. I’m sure many people have had this feeling, but these data make this effect more transparent.

The stark contrast between reciprocal and passive networks shows the effect of technologies such as News Feed. If these people were required to talk on the phone to each other, we might see something like the reciprocal network, where everyone is connected to a small number of individuals. Moving to an environment where everyone is passively engaged with each other, some event, such as a new baby or engagement can propagate very quickly through this highly connected network.

All Friends: the largest representation of a person’s network is the set of all people they have verified as friends. Reciprocal Communication: as a measure of a sort of core network, we counted the number of people with whom a person had had reciprocal communications, or an active exchange of information between two parties. One-way Communication: the total set of people with whom a person has communicated. Maintained Relationships: to measure engagement, we took the set of people for whom a user had clicked on a News Feed story or visited their profile more than twice.

It is easy to become unsettled by privacy-eroding aspects of awareness tools. But there is another — quite different — result of all this incessant updating: a culture of people who know much more about themselves. Many of the avid Twitterers, Flickrers and Facebook users I interviewed described an unexpected side-effect of constant self-disclosure. The act of stopping several times a day to observe what you're feeling or thinking can become, after weeks and weeks, a sort of philosophical act. It's like the Greek dictum to "know thyself," or the therapeutic concept of mindfulness. (Indeed, the question that floats eternally at the top of Twitter's Web site — "What are you doing?" — can come to seem existentially freighted. What are you doing?) Having an audience can make the self-reflection even more acute, since, as my interviewees noted, they're trying to describe their activities in a way that is not only accurate but also interesting to others: the status update as a literary form.

Laura Fitton, the social-media consultant, argues that her constant status updating has made her "a happier person, a calmer person" because the process of, say, describing a horrid morning at work forces her to look at it objectively. "It drags you out of your own head," she added. In an age of awareness, perhaps the person you see most clearly is yourself.

"It's just like living in a village, where it's actually hard to lie because everybody knows the truth already,"

That is to say: Are we really becoming a nation of people who reflexively share information with everyone the minute we have it? We might be. Twitter has no choice but to hope so. They might be right.

He would have been vilified by bloggers and Twitterers alike. His is a culture of sharing information. This is the culture Twitter is counting on. Whatever your thoughts on its ability to exist outside the collapsing economy or its inability (so far) to put a price tag on its services, that’s a real thing. That’s the instinct Stone was talking about. If the nation has tens of millions of people like Krums, that’s a phenomenon. That’s what Twitter is waiting for.

On his personal blog, Krums, five days before the crash, posted that one of his goals for 2009 was to “Have over 1000 followers on Twitter,” adding, “this goal has no real purpose other that to prove that I can do it. It will make me feel better about myself.” Needless to say, after the crash, it worked: He’s at more than 4,000.

Anonymous said... flagging blog for posting of personal information, youve gone too far this time tom, we will make you pay. flagging is just the beginning. when you feel the full wrath of anonymous you will wish you had never been born you fucking waste of bandwith. judgement is coming

Those with the condition suffered withdrawal symptoms of anger and tension when a computer was inaccessible, and often lost their sense of time through excessive use, Dr Block said.

Other symptoms included feeling "the need for better computer equipment, more software, or more hours of use", and having arguments, lying, social isolation and fatigue, he said. Excessive gaming, sexual preoccupations and excessive text messages and emails were all evidence of having the disorder, he said.

I guess I think we need to keep the "as one" feeling rather than a "as a bunch", although I realize that the youtube staff doesn't have every control over this.

Because it had segments from a wide range of contributors across YouTube. It brought the community together, it informed the community of what's what in YouTubeland, it helped me find my all-time favourite YouTuber (yay for theresident!), it entertained too, ..

YouTube actually unintentionally harmed the community, when it plucked Damien away from organising YourTubeNews.

In essence, Facebook users didn't think they wanted constant, up-to-the-minute updates on what other people are doing. Yet when they experienced this sort of omnipresent knowledge, they found it intriguing and addictive. Why?

Social scientists have a name for this sort of incessant online contact. They call it "ambient awareness."

The growth of ambient intimacy can seem like modern narcissism taken to a new, supermetabolic extreme

“as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.”

what we are witnessing is not just an educational breakdown but a deformation of the very idea of intelligence.

Even those who have come to the Web late in life are not so very different, then, from the fifth-graders who, as an elementary school principal told Bauerlein, proceed as follows when they are assigned a research project: “go to Google, type keywords, download three relevant sites, cut and paste passages into a new document, add transitions of their own, print it up, and turn it in.”

Mr. Greenwald’s McCain videos, most of which portray the senator as contradicting himself in different settings, have been viewed more than five million times — more than Mr. McCain’s own campaign videos have been downloaded on YouTube.

Mr. Greenwald shows how technology has dispersed the power to shape campaign narratives, potentially upending the way American presidential campaigns are fought.

But in the 2008 race, the first in which campaigns are feeling the full force of the changes wrought by the Web, the most attention-grabbing attacks are increasingly coming from people outside the political world. In some cases they are amateurs operating with nothing but passion, a computer and a YouTube account, in other cases sophisticated media types with more elaborate resources but no campaign experience.

we need to look at both agency and structure and so we need to end the theoretical conflict in favor of identifying shared goals

we need to develop strategies for decreasing the role of ignorance and fear in public debates about new media

The participation gap refers to these other social, cultural, and educational concerns which block full participation.