"Privacy"

In class i found that lots of people felt that in order to protect your "privacy" on Facebook, they set an enormous amount of security settings that restricted specific people from seeing specific things on their profile. I had a great deal of difficulty trying to understand the reasoning behind doing such a thing. This is an issue for me for a numerous amount of reasons.
The first reason would be that I feel that the whole point of a social network is to be open to the public and to share as much as possible to attract as many people as possible. I figure that if your going to go through such great lengths to hide things then maybe they should not be put up on Facebook. For people who want to be completely invisible to people who they do not know on Facebook, why be apart of the network at all.
My next big misunderstanding with the point of people who want to hide themselves and their information on social network sites is because I don't know why people misinterpret what it means to be apart of a social network. Only being visible to friends that you already know and have in the physical world is pointless. There are many opportunities to communicate with the people you already know on other platforms such as telephone, texts, and gatherings. A social networks purpose is to unite people from many different platform in life, allow them to get to know each other through conversation, and ultimately use each other for special purposes.
I believe that people have misused the social network sites for entertainment purposes and this is the reason why so many people find a need to hide information. These sites are not to be public displays of what is going on in your everyday life, tell others where you are at the current moment, or to post pictures that show you in your most intimate states. it is strictly for networking, hence the name social network.
People need to reevaluate what their intentions are when joining sites. If your intentions are to be fun, playful, and to share intimate things with only the people you know then maybe Facebook is not the site to join.

My Reflection on Gaming Article

In a recent article in the New York Times, Motion Sensitive, the author proposes that the new remote-less games are evolving to become more like art.  I argue his point because I feel that art and video games are not experienced in the same way.  They don't evoke the same thought process or use the cognitive skills.  

The author is claiming that when using your body you become more fully engaged in the game, emotionally, physically and intellectually.  While I agree that removing the remote controller from the process and engaging the sense kinetic sense of movement, the player becomes more involved in the game and the experience they are having.  By making the actions of a virtual player imitate the actions of a player the game becomes more realistic, more active and thus a more complete experience.  

I don't think that it makes the game or the person more creative.  The experience of art is engaging because it is a humans form of expression and art includes creation, presentation, being perceived by someone else, and evoking something in the viewer.  The experience with games is that it takes a person out of reality, and them into a virtual reality.  What is lacking in the video game that is present in theater is that there is a human connection with an actor or musician on stage that can not be replicated virtually.  By making the persons actions control the virtual reality we are taking a step out in between being social and engaged in the real world, verses being engaged in a virtual world of a video game or game culture.

It is frightening to me to think that humans are afraid of creativity and that they need to be told what to do in the creative act through parameters of rules to the game and objectives to achieve.  This seems counterintuitive to being a creative person engaging in a creative experience. This is why I would disagree with the statement in this article that "as games become more real, the experience of them is bringing people closer to art." I recommend you check out the article and let me know what your opinion is on this matter. 

Cyber Monday

Today before class cyber monday was brought up and some people were not aware of what it was. For those of you who don't know what it is, it is a basically like black friday but for the internet. I read an article on yahoo this past weekend that explained the details of the event and why it came to be. Just like black friday, most sites offer extreme mark downs on most of their products and some coupons. The reason I am linking it to class is because some of the sites are offering their coupons and promotional codes via twitter, facebook and other social media sites. The only way to receive the best prices are through these sites. Therefore, a traditional shopping event such as black friday is now turning into an online event with extra discount perks via social media.

Is facebook the new boob-tube?

Does everyone remember getting up on Saturday mornings, only to be glued to the "boob tube" for hours on end? It drove some of our parents to the books, asking themselves how they failed at being stimulating mothers and fathers who were proud parents of active kids. Now, I see my sister race to her computer upon waking, to check up on what her friends are up to for the day. The hum of the computers in my house along with the little facebook chat "pops" have drowned out the cereal commercials.

In a recent article from the huffington post, the author explores exactly how damaging Facebook is to children and adolescents. According to some other studies that have been conducted, many Facebook users are seen as narcissistic. Obviously, this isn't what any parent wants associated with their own children. The article presents ways to build a connection with children that doesn't involve them accepting mom's friend request.

I found it interesting that social media is beginning to have a strong effect on people at such a young age. With TV, parents have somewhat control because it communicates in a linear way--there is no interaction between cartoon and child; the parent only needed to shut off the TV. Now, Facebook is what defines the social life of young people--it is a social determinant and another stress to add to the many that puberty brings.

The article encourages parents to seek out their child's' passions and hobbies through active participation in their lives. They must give recognition that Facebook is an important part of their kids' lives, but it mustn't rule the day. The article states that although Facebook isn't something that can be "shut off" and parents must accept the fact that it is a major influence on lives, it is a reflection on many age-old childhood insecurities. The main issue is that Facebook is like "catnip" to attention-starved kids. This can lead to dangerous situations with online predators and forming an online identity that is seemingly more important than a real-life identity which is especially essential in younger aged people.

Will videoconferencing replace the telephone?

http://www.macworld.com/article/155988/2010/11/videoconferecing.html?lsrc=rss_main

Here is an interesting article on that I found on video calling this weekend from Macworld.

We all know that there is a great deal of hype surrounding the video calling phenomena these days. With the newest mobile devices supporting video calling technology, it seems like video calling is bigger than ever. Apple's FaceTime technology, Sprint's mobile video calling, Skype...however, is it truly effective?

What I mean by this, is it at a state where it's second nature?

For example, when you want to call someone, you just dial their number in that moment and try to reach them. But when you want to video call someone, is it second nature? Do you just try and reach them to video conference? From my own experience, I usually plan a video call ahead of time. It's not really second nature - the technology is pseudo limited.

This is what the article talks about. That while FaceTime is very cool, and probably the easiest video calling protocol to date, it has its technological limits (only on 3G) and the concept of video calling is still very new to the general public. It has yet to reach the point of being universal accessible (like a standard phone call).

Thoughts? How long until video calling will be standard practice by all? Will it? What needs to happen in order for it to become more universal and second nature?

Online Activity: Censored

Our class today really had me thinking that in today's world, anything you do or say, especially online can be used against you. Like we mentioned in class today almost everything you post on facebook can be retrienved/viewed. The part that really upset me about this is the fact that even if you delete something on facebook, it still stays in the system for a long period of time. When it comes to applying for jobs, I feel like this could really pose as an issue. To my understanding employeers could be be viewing information that was posted to a profile years prior and use that as a basis to decided whether or not someone will be hired for a job, which I really think is unfair, especailly since things can be so easily miscontrued online.

Privacy Talk

I know we've kind of said all there is to be said about this topic, but I figured I should use the blog to try to formulate my own opinion on the online/facebook/privacy craziness.

The way I see it, I have no idea why on earth anyone could possibly even try to think they deserve or are entitled to privacy on the world wide web. Nothing about the name implies privacy to me and I will forever go back to my logic- if you want complete privacy, buy a diary. Why would you ever use the world's most vast and complex network of connections and shared information to do things that you expected to be private?

I can't possibly understand the "our privacy should be regulated by the government" argument. I'm pretty sure, as mentioned in class, that the government has way bigger issues to be dealing with. We, as users of this Internet, have our own personal responsibility to monitor ourselves. No one demanded that we sign up for facebook and then post pictures of ourselves getting drunk with our friends. So if you choose to do that, be ready for the consequences that may (or may not) ensue.

For some, the problem here is that it really and truly is a personal priority that friend A, B, and C see these pictures of their crazy weekend. If that's the case, why don't you print out the picture and show them in person? This is not at all a burden for our expression of ourselves. If there are people in this world solely relying on social networking sites to express who they are, I'm nervous.

My point isn't some narrowminded claim that all facebook users are idiots for putting up questionable pictures and deserve to see repercussions for doing so. Moreso, I'm trying to say that if there are repercussions or if your "privacy" is disregarded, maybe you should find another outlet for expression. There are plenty of other ways to go about this that aren't rooted in a public medium.

I think a lot of people in class had the same sort of ideas because I remember a few people saying that they are strict with what they do and don't post because they understand that the Internet is not (and was never intended to be) a completely private place. But does anyone disagree? Of course this is just my opinion and is no more valid than anyone else's!