Group items tagged

RJ, this is a great article. I had noticed those 'trending articles' and spotify things on my facebook page, and I have been avoiding the opt-in's but I wasn't aware of what was going on. This article explains it well.

I know right.. me too! I usually have to circumvent the process in order to avoid installing the apps. I would go straight to the website where the news/article is posted instead of clicking the link directly from Facebook.

Yes, thank you. I was treating all those "trending articles" like spam. These types of posts have been a recent annoyance with my FB (I've been on since 2007), and I was starting to get the nagging feeling that FB was going to be slowly taken over by information not related to your chosen friends group. I was envisioning having to weed through pages of passive posts to get to your real information. Would this not be the death knell of the service?

I'm not a fan of the news sites social readers; most of my network uses the Washington Post one and Yahoo. At first I thought it was cool, but then I got weirded out at the thought of my network being able to "see" what I'm reading at any given time. What if someone made assumptions about me based on what I was reading at any given time? I really wish Google Plus would take off...the only reason I, and I suspect a lot of other people, are holding fast to Facebook is that our friend networks aren't making the switch...and what's the point of being in a social networking site if you're the only person there?

I really liked the quote "sharing is the key to social networking" and it shouldn't be passive, but not aggressive either. Oversharing becomes a problem where soon newsfeeds are clogged with a million stories and recommendations. Like others above, I'm immediately turned off when I go to read an article and have to download an app first, it's frustrating when clicking an article becomes a long-winded process. @Meaghan I was also a huge proponent of Google + at first, was one of the only people who originally had it, waited for it to catch popularity, but here it's almost a year later and I still haven't gained any new friends. I wonder what the hesitancy is behind not using Google+. It's interesting to think about the decision and thought processes social media users go through when deciding what forums to use or not use, why do some people actively use Facebook, but not Twitter? I'm guessing theories such as media richness (lean vs rich messages) and other factors come into play, as well as ease of use.

I have to say I've never heard of Google +, and have often thought about shutting down my facebook account for good...I wont do Twitter. What does that mean for me as a MLIS major I often thought? Should I be more "plugged in"? I'm becoming nostalgic about old means of communication (letters, books, even phone calls) This is also troubling because I feel that the new open graph is very overwhelming, have have clicked on links and then shut them right back down, because you must enable MORE links, apps, programs, all wanting to get my inforamtion. It's also scary that facebook is becoming a necessity, rather than just a fun social networking site. My old high school depends on it to contact us for reunions, my aunt uses it as her main way of contacting me, and its often the only way I'll ever see those photos my sister took at the beach! We've Created a Monster! Keeping it a simple model would be preferable.

Great points Amanda. On the other side, I would say forums like Facebook has allowed us to keep in contact with those we wouldn't normally have access to, or find those we wish to contact but can't find in just the yellow pages. I agree there are times when I wish someone would pick up the phone and just call instead of trying to have a text conversation or email conversation. However in terms of using Facebook and other e-vite sites/modes, sometimes it is the cheapest and easiest mode to send out a mass message i.e. school reunion invite, in as little time and for as little money as possible. Also you can get real-time RSVP, which I'm guessing from the views of the event administrator can be super helpful when trying to get an idea of attendees. I do also feel nostalgic about old means of communication and often wonder how people will communicate in the future, what communication choices they will make, etc.

I found Open Graph for the first time writing an report for Library School on my favourite site, Board Game Geek (boradgamegeek.com). It's kinda worrying, in the same way thrid party cookies worry me: it a use of technology that can be used for good that could be so easily subverted. That would make a good project, I reckon.

Good article! What I found interesting was the correlation between user demographics being the same online as it is offline, i.e. more males checking political communication online AND offline. I think it shows the transition from offline media use, or more traditional modes to online and often an accumulation of both. A bit off topic but it makes me think about how we're becoming masters of mult-tasking, allowing us to be in tune to several different media - whether it be traditional TV, radio etc, and switching gears to reading news online, watching videos online, listening online. As I type this, I'm researching papers and watching TV and feel like I'm in tune to both. Researching how people are now becoming the ultimate multi-taskers would be interesting. However, because we are becoming such great multi-taskers, are we almost giving ourselves a sort of "ADD" in which, in the future, we'll have a hard time concentrating on ONE thing for a certain amount of time. I find it hard to concentrate often on a project or paper with multiple messages going on, emails coming in, texts, Facebook notifications, etc. and frequently break to do all things at once = a ton of white noise!

I think we can all relate to this wall of digital "white noise" as university students within the information management sector. It seems as though there is a fine line between multi-tasking and organized distraction. I often find myself dividing my time between school work, personal correspondence, and managing my Ebay account, but this doesn't necessarily mean I'm being more efficient. Earl Miller, a neuroscientist at MIT, has actually proven that the human brain "can't focus on more than one thing at a time" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794).

Great article @ ABC. I was doing some research for my group project for the unit about e-books, brain, order, etc. and have become extremely interested in the impact of technology on our brain. As much as we may like to think we are great multi-taskers, it seems that our ability to toggle between multiple tasks on computers has hindered our ability to focus on long-winded tasks.

^I found this post on e-journals and e-books to be particularly interesting, in that some scholars prefer the print versions because they find them more conducive to browsing and looking at similar content. You can browse electronic material, just not in the same way as you would search a bookshelf. By reading an article through an electronic database, such as ScienceDirect, you can obtain instantaneous access to similar articles (sometimes, ScienceDirect will even "suggest" ones you might like, or you can access articles written by one or more of the authors. If instant access isn't possible, some databases have an automated "Request via Interlibrary Loan" or other document delivery service. You can browse content that interests you and automatically download citations and snapshots to Zotero, Refworks, or another info-gathering tool, and be less likely to misplace your research. Some libraries are caught between a rock and a hard place, because of the lack of space and the cost of storing print journals. But how do you serve the users who prefer the old ways of browsing and gathering research by rifling through these print journals?

I think this is not a good trend, although FB will probably make it happen anyway. It is already pretty obvious that today's teens do not know how to interact socially in a proper manner - they text constantly even while standing next to each other because they prefer to send messages and avoid f2f interaction; they construct sentences in a twitter-like manner. Kids need to form friendships and interact socially face-to-face, not just virtually. They need to speak to others live, know how to write coherent sentences, and not spend so many hours glued to their technical devices. Parents need to impose more guidelines. Librarians can help by assisting in finding age-appropriate websites for children. We don't need to take away the technology, but we do need to help teens and children use it in a better way.

I guess the logic is that kids under 13 are using the site anyway, by lying about their age or getting someone older to create an account for them, so perhaps the best course of action is to create a space specifically for them--with more restrictions and stricter privacy settings. I hope that this pre-teen space is diligently patrolled, and content vetted thoroughly before it gets posted online (sort of like having a forum moderator approve all posts before they appear on the site). I'm not sure if this is feasible....I suppose it depends on how many pre-teens sign on to this thing.

I. don't. like. this. My 12-year old wants a FB account simply because all his friends have one and not for any other reason. It just adds one more layer of policing that schools and parents have to be on top of. I am one of the lucky few parents whose kids are pretty good at self-policing their screen time, but I know that's rare. There are plenty of fun, age-appropriate sites for kids that age -- Pottermore comes to mind... my kids both signed up for accounts there and spend time doing the things tweens like to do, i.e. dueling their friends and socking away Galleons in their Gringotts bank accounts. If they spend a hour on Pottermore, then they know they have to go outside and shoot hoops for an hour. I am a little shocked, actually, that FB thinks tweens are a shoe-in market, since usually that demographic wants NOTHING to do with what their parents do... has FB really cracked the generation gap??

While I don't condone kids spending all their time on the internet, interacting with their friends through IM, I do understand the need for Facebook to create a space for kids under 13. Kids *are* using it anyway, so it only stands to reason (in my opinion) that FB do the responsible thing and police them. My step-sons both have accounts on FB. The oldest is now 13, so he's legitimate, but the youngest is 11 and he wanted one because his brother had one. He also so he could keep in touch with us (he's in Kansas, we're in NJ), so his step-father set up the account and monitors it. I would be a lot happier with him being in a policed-by-moderators environment so I didn't have to rely on his step-dad to do it. I think that there's an upside to the possible changes to FB, as long as it can be properly implemented and policed. I'm just an optimist, what can I say? And yes, I also believe that FB has possibly put a little crack in the generation gap.

The biggest question for me is how will the children under 13 who desire to have a facebook account react when they learn that to do it, the account must be connected to their parents account? At some point every child does something that they do not want their parents to know about..... would that be a deterrent? Would they continue to lie about their ages and use the other tips and tricks to fool the system? Back when I was 14-15 I had a "LiveJournal" account, that I willingly gave my mother access too. I had nothing to hide. But I lost several friends who felt betrayed that my mom was able to then see their posts through my account. I trusted my mom, but my friends didn't. Its a tricky web of social norms, relationships and technology.

I think this an inevitable situation because it's so easy to circumvent the system by just modifying the birth year. Facebook is probably just trying to protect themselves from future legal actions by letting the parents be responsible for accounts of their kids. I still don't like this but let's face the reality, Internet is so big and difficult to be policed.

I'm honestly interested in why you highlighted the second program, the one about negative aspects of technology rather than the first?

A passionate advocate for LGBTQ youth and outspoken opponent of bullying, cyber or otherwise, she's written extensively about Tyler Clementi and Dharun Ravi, and the role played by serious misuse of digital technology to malign an individual. She also goes into how "media-driven narrative" has shaped public perception of this case: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2012/02/24/stop-the-cycle-of-bullying.html

Thanks for sharing this...I saw danah boyd give a keynote at a conference here in Maryland called Theorizing the Web and she was definitely a big deal. Actually, come to think of it, the notes from that conference might have some information to share here as well.

An excerpt from boyd's notes on her speech about "the power of fear in networked cultures" "The tools that we build are getting repurposed around the globe by people with all sorts of different agendas. They're being used by activists to challenge the status quo, but they're also being used by the status quo to assert new kinds of authority. People are building the new networks of power on the technological networks that we've generated and they're reinforcing existing power structures. "Through social media, we're ramping up the attention economy. We are setting in motion new networks. We like to think of ourselves as disrupting power systems and, indeed, that's what we were doing for a long time. But now, those in power are leveraging our tools to exert new forms of power. Fear is one of the tools that's being used. People are finding ways to put fear into our systems. "Social media is no longer the great disrupter. It is now part of the status quo. Are we prepared for what that means? Are we prepared for the ecosystem that we've created? Do we even understand how our systems are being employed by those hellbent on maintaining power in a networked age? "I don't have good answers to these socio-technical conundrums. But I think that these are important issues and I need your help in figuring out where to go from here."

good find! you will encounter more of her work later on

I second on the good find comment! Her post about Ravi's conviction was interesting, not only because it hits home because it happened at RU, but it brings up some extremely important topics when it comes to online bullying, the use of technology/media in the private/personal sphere, privacy etc. And she closes with saying she would hope this case would change others' actions and outlook on the harmful uses of technology and invasion of privacy, but unfortunately it most likely won't and we will continue to see these types of things happening.

Thank for that! I'm really enjoying this, and it is helping me think about the culture of unease we seem to be living in. http://talks.webstock.org.nz/speakers/danah-boyd/culture-fear-attention-economy/ where

Thanks for the link! I found an interesting potential topic for my final project: Social Gaming!

It's a good thing that I came on here to see if someone else had posted this. I think this is a great article that points out some of the problems we've had as a society embracing technology. It may be five years old, but some of the sentiments still ring true. We need to stop thinking what we see on tv or in the movies is real and start looking at what is ACTUALLY in front of us.

Great article! I have a younger sister who is 15 and I constantly worry about her possible future inability to carry ftf conversations, conduct herself professionally in job interviews and in the classroom. I find we never talk via the phone but always via text. However, when you spend most of a workday on the phone or on conference calls, sometimes text provides an alternate way to communicate quickly with others.

I think texting is a valuable form of communication under certain circumstances, however, like you said, it should only serve as "an alternate way to communicate quickly with others". It shouldn't be the other way around!

Perhaps it's not so bad anymore, but I have friend who's an associate professor that teaches writing classes. And in the past five years, he's had to grade papers where the student's literally used texting jargon/leet speak in their writing.

This is something that I've been wondering about since texting became so ubiquitous. At first it was a novelty, then something to do for a quick conversation, and now it's moved into full dialogues between people. I, too, wonder about the future generations and the impact this can have on their grasp of grammar. This is the same problem that I have with more and more people moving to telecommuting (even though I do it myself). When is it just TOO much?

I worked on a university IT helpdesk for years, and we used to get emails written in text-speak, but then teachers cottoned on to the fact they needed to teach "how to write an email", rather than "how to write a busines letter", and I haven't seen a text-speak email for years. In fact, those that do text me in text speak tend to be older now, as they have not grasped predictive texting!

@Anton I think that's a great point, I think now more than ever "how to write an email" seems to be an art form and one people know very little about. It seems like such a stupid and easy thing but I see more than my fair share of awful emails and lack of email etiquette. While I'm not downplaying the importance of writing a great critical paper, essay, letter, etc. I think how to write in new media would be something worth spending some time on with students.

@Samantha I agree with your ideas on email etiquette! I've seen many an email message blasting someone in rude and nasty ways that you would never use in person. It's too easy to reply via email or on social media sites in the heat of the moment and forget all courtesy - the online community is too removed from the personal so it doesn't feel real so there won't be real consequences for such harsh words.

It seems that texting allows for more shallow conversations; speaking in person or on the phone would definitely be a more meaningful conversation. I think texting has its place, but it should not be a substitute for good communication with others.

I think you all brought up a good point! Overall, whether we communicate via texting, email, face-to-face, snail mail (does anyone still do this? lol) etc. we need to acknowledge that each of them has its advantages and disadvantages. It's our responsibility as users on how we can utilize them ethically and not be dragged by social mishaps.

@RJ, I agree with what you've said. Texting has its place, and its purpose; it's really its own fascinating type of language, in a way. It's not analogous to business or conversational English (or insert your language here, as I'm sure this is done all over the world!), and shouldn't replace those modes of communicating, but it does have its proper time and place. It's up to schools to teach students how to communicate effectively in writing, according to what's required in higher education and the workplace. Language is constantly evolving, adding some elements and dropping others. Some words, phrases, and grammatical structures grow obsolete over time, and others emerge to take their place. English, in particular, is known for absorbing other languages' words with ease and adding them to the lexicon. I once read a sci fi novel set hundreds of years in the future in which the characters were purportedly speaking English, as the main character (who was from hundreds of years in the past) recognized it, but it sounded as foreign to him as Middle English would to a modern day speaker. Maybe standard English will always have its place as the preferred and proper mode of communication...or maybe we'll end up with something else entirely, as the digital era marches on!

@Meaghan: ooh, them's fighting words! I like to wind stauch grammerians up with the phrase, "Oh, standardised spelling is a Victorian affectation". People even changed the way they spelled their names from time to time. I love the way language evolves. Or at least I did, until young people started spoiling it all, by changing it again after my generation got it right! aa

@Anton: LOL! I agree. but find myself in that texting mess. I remember a few years ago, Meghan, that there was a huge backlash against ebonics. Similar to the texting situation now, but culturally different. It is amazing how language, through media, has just exploded with new concepts. When we talk about digital divide, perhaps we should talk about language. I mean, if I told my father to "google" something he'd think I was crazy. We have words now that simply mean things that certain people "get" while other don't. Not sure what that means.

@Anton, sometimes I want to eat my phone because of it's predictive texting feature. It'll incorrectly "predict" the word while I'm still typing, and by the time I press "enter" it's already got it lined up to be inputted instead.

@Jennifer - check out www.damnyouautocorrect.com

I think it is really interesting how we have managed to turn typos and autocorrect changes into a silly pasttime and part of our everyday vernacular. Similar to how we have now managed to turn "Google" into a verb! Sites like DamnYouAutoCorrect allow people to bond and relate over technological glitches and commiserating over embarassing text mishaps.

My favorite is http://www.parentsshouldnttext.com/.

These are great points here...I sometimes think that more attention needs to be paid to email (and texting) etiquette than even in person. When you've made a verbal misstep, perhaps offended or confused someone, in person, you can see their body language and offer an immediate response to right the situation. Online communications are more of a landmine because you don't know how someone is reading and interpreting something, and you have to wait for more information to proceed (and there could be any number of unknown factors that influence the receipt of that new information...dead phone or wi-fi down, anyone?). If I had a nickel for every friend of mine who has called me to help them figure out what a text or email might mean or how (or if) they should respond to one thing or another, I'd be a rich girl. I spend so much time unpacking the drama that unfolds in an online communication, I feel as if I'm getting a professional credential. Hmm.....

My question for Karen is would people approach a guy to ask how to respond to a text, or is this just part of women's conversation with each other? Jane Austen style stuff. I have said to younger people how lucky they are, whe I wanted to ask a girl out on a date when I was 15, I had to ring her up, or (shudder) ask in person. Now all you have to do is text. The responses I've had have been really interesting about the etiquette of getting the girl's number, then the dialogue that goes on behind the scenes once the invitation is made (as the response does not have to be immediate). It all sounds even more traumatic. I'm also told that ringing someone with a voice call is now regarded as quite rude here, if you don't text first to ask if someone is available. aa