Media Boundaries

Vulture has mapped many of the connections between contemporary comedians, comic television, and movies--complete with marriages! Interesting notes on how boundaries are drawn in this map and in our culture. Anything the map is missing?

where's kevin smith? penn & teller? trey parker and matt stone?

Interesting talk about connectedness (now and in the past). Especially interesting around 25 minutes in when he talks about Seneca, Shakespeare, and Thoreau and how connectedness played into their times despite being before all the communication technology we usually think of these days. I'm thinking about this in relation to the Sherry Turkle article and "an imaginary past".

The story of this man's video postings and the community that built and comforted each other online after he passed away. Quite the character. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edarem

I'm sure that the young lady who wrote this as a part of her Facebook profile didn't expect it to be immortalized by a professional voice actor and an animator.

"Around the country, school districts are grappling over guidelines that would govern how - and whether - educators should use social media."

"Around the country, school districts are grappling over guidelines that would govern how - and whether - educators should use social media."

As our networks expand, our profiles get more public, and our work requires a human face, where do we draw the line between personal and professional identities online? How do we maintain those boundaries for our community members? How do we respond to attacks, opportunities, and over-shares online? When does over-sharing hurt the community? When should you share your own personal stories as a manager, or personally reach out to community members? Growing and cultivating an active community also requires that the community manager walk the fine line of personal and professional sharing. Every community manager wonders when and how to professionally cultivate leaders and members to create a thriving community while still being personal. On the reverse side, sometimes community members share too much, which can hurt the health of the community. This panel will address these questions and more from experience in nonprofit and public media sectors.

Panel discussion on Social Media Boundaries from the 2012 SXSW festival this March.

Lowry Agency post on public/online persona and boundaries

my kids are obsessed with this station....interesting illustration of some of the convergence between radio & social media discussed in reading this week...

This week, Slate's tech columnist Farhad Manjoo and Dear Prudence advice columnist Emily Yoffe debate the question: Should you confront a Facebook friend who shares the links you post but doesn't acknowledge where she found them? Subscribe in iTunes ∙ RSS feed ∙ Download ∙ Play in another tab What's...

It's only 7minutes long, so give a listen for Thursday of next week!

New technology: take a photo with a web-enabled camera, and receive a short description of said photo, provided by a real, live human! Will this really change the way we take photographs? The reasons we photograph? What about questions of editing, curating, filtering?

Poke through the list of columns by Virginia and peruse a few that align with our general unit theme of "social" stuff & media...

This paper sets out to develop a theoretical framework for examining implications of digital media uses for digital inequality in the domain of social interaction. First, by drawing on the social affordances perspective, this paper seeks to establish an additional dimension of digital skills, namely, online social networking skills. Furthermore, to explore the implications of interactional ICT use for digital inequality, this paper theorizes how online social networking skills may condition uses of various digital media for communication (i.e., communication multiplexity) and proposes two propositions for future empirical examination.

media boundaries. 

A comic state of, well, The State of the Web. This is part of a quarterly series done by The Oatmeal and addresses many of the topics we've been touching on regarding ownership, social media, etc.

I think this one counts as topical, as well because he's slicing out the conventions. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/facebook_suck

In the offline world, we all have different personas for different situations. Say the differences between how we interact or represent ourselves at work, with friends, with lovers, with children, with strangers, etc. Are we simply transposing or correlating these personal differences to online social spaces as if they still equally apply? It seems natural that we would be concerned with privacy, surveillance, or safety, but if it just a matter of establishing certain social boundaries, should they really be defined the same in a digital environment as they are in the offline world? If so, why?

There is no question that we should all evaluate our social interactions online, but it is interesting that we now have to reconsider how to censor ourselves and our "friends" in online environments as if those digital messages represented the same type of interaction as if we were face-to-face. We have given this type of communication the same status, but are they really? Or do we need to develop a different sort of etiquette?

Interesting forum. Obviously the focus is on pedagogy; however, the discussion is highly situational and lacks the necessary theoretical underpinnings of ethical principles. There seems to be a strong focus on issues of privacy and surveillance but not as much on the actual ethical implications of what it means to use digital tools in the classroom.

Yes...a morphing of "ethics" and "privacy" appears to be the dominant discourse at the moment (here and elsewhere). While they are not the same things, there does appear to be an anxiety about the "boundaries" around privacy in pedagogical situations that manifest in the unfurling of ethical flags...but what are the other ethical implications of using digital tools in the classroom (or pedagogically, more broadly)? conversely, what are ethical implications for NOT doing so?

post from "The Engaging Brand" blog...

Raises an interesting point...the need for boundaries. But very limited in its explication.

The immediacy of the social media seems to be drawing the audience, but what is lost in the translation? News takes time to gather, vet, and verify. So our demands for instant information would seem to be conflicting with the process of newsgathering. This piece showed that 49 percent of respondents had heard or seen a news item that turned out to be false. If we are to continue to absorb information that comes our way so quickly, at what point does credibility, authenticity, and factuality no longer apply? Worse yet, how many people will begin to remember some piece of news they saw online that is false without even realizing the error? How might this impact our own historical remembrance? Hmmmmm....

From the website:  "LibraryMixer is a free website where lovers of music, movies, TV shows, games, software, books, pictures can list what they have in their libraries. You share your library list with your friends and recommend stuff you like that they can get directly from you. You don't need to upload anything onto LibraryMixer! The best way to learn more about LibraryMixer (besides using it!) is to watch the introduction video or read the text version. https://www.librarymixer.com/info/faq"

(I haven't been able to use the program for more than half an hour so far ... a lot of this will probably end up moderately incorrect.) Rather than ripping off music from anonymous users on sketchy p2p networks, or grabbing thousands of fragments from hundreds of nodes to synthesize a final piece of content, LibraryMixer combined with the Mixologist allows for personal interaction and communication about an item. The program and website integrates an instant messenger with a check-out system. The check-out system allows individuals to browse the general library, and select things they have, they want, or that they can review. Based on this information, users communicate with others via the friends list and instant messenger. From here, individuals directly connect with one another to transfer, or 'lend', the desired items. Physical items can be posted on the website too, but they require different methods for loaning items. I don't see any way to determine whether an individual rightfully owns a file they loan to others. I'm also not sure about if the file is copied to the transferee's machine and remains on the original, or is removed from the original machine in the process. However, there must be a direct connection made between the content owner (in whatever sense of the word 'ownership' we mean) and the individual loanee. This direct connection also ensures more privacy during a file transfer than p2p networks and bittorrent. (Unless you don't know the person. This is also exactly how trojan viruses and backdoors would be installed through AIM.) I think a good example of 'open source' in relation to 'social' would be the sheer amount of activity on discussion boards like http://ubuntuforums.org/. The lessons learned in this type of place regarding collaborative problem solving are not only abundant, but also applicable to tasks like coordinating large-scale real-world events

I've used the website a bit further. It seems that the community infrastructure is there for a helpful, friendly, personal community. This is entirely unlike anonymous discussion boards where people love to put on the ring of Gyges and succumb to ... well, I don't have any friends on the website yet so I can't really tell. Again, seems like solid community infrastructure in comparison to a site like bt.etree.org or demonoid.