The term "technological determinism" refers to the concept of the world changing as a result of technology, rather than technology advancing to suit the world's needs. I believe that technological determinism is a scary idea, as it suggests that our lives are likely to change as a result of factors outside our control. This also implies a lack of freedom and choice within our lives. (Winston, 1990)
I believe that much of the animosity directed towards social networking websites comes out of fear of "technological determinism". Social networking sites have been accused of "taking over our lives", a phrase which suggests that our own control of our lives is being compromised. (Bloomfield, 2009)My position in regards to social networking websites is as follows: These websites provide a service where people can inter-act with friends, family, colleagues, and any other acquaintances, in any way they see fit. There are limitations of sorts in that websites such as Facebook have a layout which directs users to use the page in a certain way, but there are no directions from those running the websites on when or where users should use Facebook. This differs from a medium such as television, where users have much less influence on the way the medium is used.
Television, like radio, is programmed to function in only one way. If you aren't listening, or watching, when the show you want to view is on, then you miss it. Since the introduction of television, devices have been created which allow us to record programs, such as VHS recorders, and more recently, DVD recorders. However, despite the introduction of devices such as these, which allow us to record programs that we can then watch again later, we still have similar problems. If I forget to watch, say, Packed to the Rafters, I'm just as likely to forget to record it. The television medium is continuing to play around with this problem, so that people are able to watch the programs they want whenever it suits them. Foxtel IQ for example, records programs that it feels you might enjoy, based on information you have given it, eg. I barrack for Essendon, so it would probably record every football game that Essendon is involved in, without me having to remind it to do so. Despite these new forms of media, such as Foxtel IQ, which allow us a greater amount of control in determining the manner in which we watch television, by and large, television remains a medium which dictates terms to it's viewers.
This is particularly clear when we look at "event television" for examples. The AFL grand final is televised live each year, and is always watched by millions of Australians. Whilst many would record the grand final, the vast majority watch it live, simply because they want to see the action as it is unfolding. Television programs such as Masterchef, and The Biggest Loser, have been able to create a similar appeal for the finales of their shows. Whilst the finales for Masterchef and The Biggest Loser are pre-recorded, seeing as these "events" are only seen on television, it almost seems as though they are live, and viewers tune in so that they know who the winner is as soon as it is announced. Creating "events" on television such as these helps the TV networks in a number of ways. First of all, reality television is generally quite cheap to make; there is no need to hire actors, and most of the action occurs in the same settings. More importantly, having a mass audience tune in so that they are all watching at a particular moment means that advertising space becomes more valuable. It isn't all that important to look at why these programs are constructed in these ways. What's important is that despite advances in technology, such as recording devices, Foxtel IQ, and every other creation that aims to allow audiences to watch television on their own terms, there are still many cases where we watch television the way television networks want us to. If the Masterchef finale is on at 7 30 pm, most of us will make sure that we are at home, and near a working television tuned to channel 10, at 7 30 pm.
In my opinion, this shows that, to a small degree, television has an influence on the way we live our lives. While TV networks play shows that are capable of getting big ratings at times when most people can watch, such as Sunday nights, which was when Masterchef, Australian Idol, Big Brother and The Biggest Loser all had their finales screened, those that have an interest in these programs avoid making any other plans for that Sunday night. By dedicating an allocated time to watch television, this is, in a small way, influencing the way we live our lives. If I felt like going over the top, I could say that television has "taken over our lives" because it gives us something we don't want to miss out on, and we take time out of our lives to view it. I wouldn't say this though, because it's silly. Regardless, I couldn't say the same thing about social networking websites, such as Facebook.
With a site like Facebook, if someone leaves you a message, and you go away for a week, it will still be there when you come back. Facebook does not give us directions on when or where to use Facebook. The closest thing it does to this is suggest friends we could re-connect with and people we may know. If we ignore these prompts, there are no consequences whatsoever. The point I am trying to make is this: Social networking sites are run on the terms of it's users, not by those at the top of the pile, who run the websites. In fact, it is this freedom, to use these websites whenever and however people want, which is the reason for their success. Many people go on Facebook a lot. But this is because it is very easy to get access to Facebook. If I'm stuck in an elevator, I can't watch TV, but I probably can go on Facebook, either on my phone, or on my laptop. The same goes for many other situations. If I'm bored at work, stuck in a waiting room at the doctor's office, bored at uni, waiting for a train, bored at a conference about global warming, watching television is not an option, and if it was, the best thing on Tv would probably be The Bold and the Beautiful. Going on Facebook, however, is an option, and due to the website's nature, it is constantly being updated with fresh information. The more people contribute, the more interesting the website gets. As the website becomes more interesting, people tend to visit it more often, and in doing so, contribute more interesting information, creating a snowball effect. This is why some people spend a lot of time on Facebook. Social networking websites are perhaps the easiest media form to get a hold of, and we can use them any way we choose to. Although social networking websites take up some of our time, it is only the time that we choose to give it, and as such, these websites themselves cannot be blamed if users spend too much time on them. After all, the user dictates the terms on which they will use these websites, so the responsibility to use these websites in a healthy way falls upon the user.
"Technological determinism" refers to technology controlling the way the world progresses. Though social networking websites have influenced our day-to-day lives, they have done so by providing a versatile media form where users determine how these websites will be used. (Winston, 1990) This is the exact opposite of "technological determinism", as these websites allow us a new way of connecting with other people, which is one of our current culture's most valuable commodities. It is this "need", to connect with other people, that social networking websites are addressing, just as the invention of a fridge addressed the need to keep food from going off or the need to keep food and drinks cold. Social networking sites solve several contemporary problems. These include, but are not restricted to; providing a media form that is constantly updated and there to be used whenever we want to use it, a means of interacting with many people at once, and staying in touch with other people, and a temporary cure of boredom. No-one need worry about these websites taking over our lives. Each individual can use them as much, or as little as they want. Those who don't want to use them at all don't need to. I, however, am going to check my Facebook now, as I feel I've made my point and this post can finally end. If I take too long to write my next post, please, hold me responsible, not Facebook.
Works cited:
Bloomfield, Ruth, 2nd May 2009, How Facebook has changed us into a nation of introverts by taking over our lives, Available at ‘The Daily Mail’ online:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1176442/How-Facebook-changed-nation-introverts-taking-lives.html
Accessed: 8/11/2010
Winston, Brian, 1990, How are Media Born? Available online: http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/WINSTON.html
Accessed: 8/11/2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Trust
Trust is an essential component of any successful community. For example, when I venture out of my house each morning, I trust that I won't be attacked or harassed by others. This trust allows me to function healthily, and go about my business without worrying about any possible repercussions that could come about as a result of me leaving the house.
Social networking websites have essentially created an interactive online community, which also requires a level of trust from it's users in order to function healthily. If users of social networking sites worried endlessly about the possible negative implications that could arise from using any of these websites, there would be a reluctance to share information or opinions with others. This would result in less interaction on these websites, which, eventually, would most likely lead to the death of social networking websites. As long as a level of trust remains, however, these websites will continue to grow in stature.
Writing this blog I trust that my thoughts and opinions will be treated with respect by those that read this. I trust that those in charge of social networking websites will not give out any personal information I may have needed to provide to start this blog. I trust that people who read this won't use this blog to gain information which could aid them in robbing my house. Basically, I trust that there's nothing to worry about, even though it's conceivable that something could go wrong, as a result of me writing this blog. This allows me to say whatever I want, and interact with others online in any way I feel comfortable.
It seems that many others share my tendency to trust social networking websites, as just about everyone I know, grandparents aside, has a Facebook page. This trust towards the internet hasn't always existed though. Rachel Hills wrote in an article in The Age that "Back in the late 90s, the internet was seen as a mire of pedophiles and potential stalkers". Hills remembers her reluctance to give away any personal information whatsoever during that period, then points out that "Ten years later, the online world is a very different place". (Hills, 2007) Similarly, I can remember being told a cautionary tale in primary school, about someone who told an online pen-pal that they had got a great new TV, only to have it stolen from their house weeks later. The message was clear; "Don't tell anybody anything personal!"
But the times, they are a-changin'. (I don't need to cite Bob Dylan as a reference do I?)
Websites such as Facebook have flourished as a result of an increase in trust for social networking websites, and the internet in general. Information that was once with-held, is now being shared without a second thought, meaning that websites such as Facebook are being used much more frequently. For example, I have noticed that there is a trend to use Facebook as a means of inviting a group of people to a birthday party. It's easy to do; one only needs to "create an event", then select the friends they want to invite. Often, there is a message that comes with these invitations, saying something along the lines of "Send me your addresses, and I'll post you a proper invitation". It seems that for the most part, people have no problem writing down their address on the wall of the event, a place where everyone else who is invited can see it, and sometimes, if the event isn't classified as a private one, a place where anyone on Facebook could see it if they so chose to. This information, when combined with say, a status update about having a free-house, or another about going to work, would probably be enough to give my primary school teacher a hernia.
The same can be said about the "I like it" game on Facebook, which took place a few weeks ago, in an attempt to raise awareness about breast cancer. The game encouraged women to post where they like to keep their handbag. The idea was that people post things such as "I like it on the floor", or "I like it on the dinner table", so that those who read it find it shocking, then wonder why said woman has written such a seemingly inappropriate status update. They then find out that it's related to helping the breast cancer cause, which gets them talking about it to others, and perhaps even writing their own status updates.
It amazed me that people had no qualms about telling all of their Facebook friends where they keep their handbag. Surely, that's just an invitation for burglars? Apparently not. The "I like it" game has come and gone, and I have heard no reports of a handbag-snatching epidemic.
While many people have a tendency to over-share personal information on websites such as Facebook, for the most part, it isn't causing any negative repercussions. I believe that since the era I referred to earlier, (which Rachel Hill's wrote about, with the internet being thought of as full of pedophiles and what-not) users of social networking websites have slowly shared more and more information, and have seen that generally, no harm comes from it. As a result of this, people continue to push the boundaries of sharing information with others.
Of course there are many negative stories regarding experiences with social networking sites, such as people who have written things on Facebook such as "Faking a sicky today!", then subsequently been fired from their job the next day. These stories remind everyone to be careful, but generally speaking, they don't have a huge influence on people's online lives. In the meantime, those that use social networking sites will continue to share more and more personal information, like a child pulling back an elastic band. It will be an interesting day when that elastic band is eventually released, or snaps, and as a society, we have to rethink our attitudes towards our online lives. Until that day, however, trust will continue to grow, and people will continually share more information that they perhaps shouldn't. In the meantime, we should enjoy the trust that exists for the online community, which encourages interaction, creativity, and allows us to express whatever we please. No-one knows when the elastic band might snap. Enjoy my blog while you can.
Works cited:
Hills, Rachel, 12/8/2007 "In Myspace, everyone can see you preen", The Age
Available: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/connection-versus-privacy/2007/08/11/1186530671382.html [online]
Accessed: 21/10/2010
Social networking websites have essentially created an interactive online community, which also requires a level of trust from it's users in order to function healthily. If users of social networking sites worried endlessly about the possible negative implications that could arise from using any of these websites, there would be a reluctance to share information or opinions with others. This would result in less interaction on these websites, which, eventually, would most likely lead to the death of social networking websites. As long as a level of trust remains, however, these websites will continue to grow in stature.
Writing this blog I trust that my thoughts and opinions will be treated with respect by those that read this. I trust that those in charge of social networking websites will not give out any personal information I may have needed to provide to start this blog. I trust that people who read this won't use this blog to gain information which could aid them in robbing my house. Basically, I trust that there's nothing to worry about, even though it's conceivable that something could go wrong, as a result of me writing this blog. This allows me to say whatever I want, and interact with others online in any way I feel comfortable.
It seems that many others share my tendency to trust social networking websites, as just about everyone I know, grandparents aside, has a Facebook page. This trust towards the internet hasn't always existed though. Rachel Hills wrote in an article in The Age that "Back in the late 90s, the internet was seen as a mire of pedophiles and potential stalkers". Hills remembers her reluctance to give away any personal information whatsoever during that period, then points out that "Ten years later, the online world is a very different place". (Hills, 2007) Similarly, I can remember being told a cautionary tale in primary school, about someone who told an online pen-pal that they had got a great new TV, only to have it stolen from their house weeks later. The message was clear; "Don't tell anybody anything personal!"
But the times, they are a-changin'. (I don't need to cite Bob Dylan as a reference do I?)
Websites such as Facebook have flourished as a result of an increase in trust for social networking websites, and the internet in general. Information that was once with-held, is now being shared without a second thought, meaning that websites such as Facebook are being used much more frequently. For example, I have noticed that there is a trend to use Facebook as a means of inviting a group of people to a birthday party. It's easy to do; one only needs to "create an event", then select the friends they want to invite. Often, there is a message that comes with these invitations, saying something along the lines of "Send me your addresses, and I'll post you a proper invitation". It seems that for the most part, people have no problem writing down their address on the wall of the event, a place where everyone else who is invited can see it, and sometimes, if the event isn't classified as a private one, a place where anyone on Facebook could see it if they so chose to. This information, when combined with say, a status update about having a free-house, or another about going to work, would probably be enough to give my primary school teacher a hernia.
The same can be said about the "I like it" game on Facebook, which took place a few weeks ago, in an attempt to raise awareness about breast cancer. The game encouraged women to post where they like to keep their handbag. The idea was that people post things such as "I like it on the floor", or "I like it on the dinner table", so that those who read it find it shocking, then wonder why said woman has written such a seemingly inappropriate status update. They then find out that it's related to helping the breast cancer cause, which gets them talking about it to others, and perhaps even writing their own status updates.
It amazed me that people had no qualms about telling all of their Facebook friends where they keep their handbag. Surely, that's just an invitation for burglars? Apparently not. The "I like it" game has come and gone, and I have heard no reports of a handbag-snatching epidemic.
While many people have a tendency to over-share personal information on websites such as Facebook, for the most part, it isn't causing any negative repercussions. I believe that since the era I referred to earlier, (which Rachel Hill's wrote about, with the internet being thought of as full of pedophiles and what-not) users of social networking websites have slowly shared more and more information, and have seen that generally, no harm comes from it. As a result of this, people continue to push the boundaries of sharing information with others.
Of course there are many negative stories regarding experiences with social networking sites, such as people who have written things on Facebook such as "Faking a sicky today!", then subsequently been fired from their job the next day. These stories remind everyone to be careful, but generally speaking, they don't have a huge influence on people's online lives. In the meantime, those that use social networking sites will continue to share more and more personal information, like a child pulling back an elastic band. It will be an interesting day when that elastic band is eventually released, or snaps, and as a society, we have to rethink our attitudes towards our online lives. Until that day, however, trust will continue to grow, and people will continually share more information that they perhaps shouldn't. In the meantime, we should enjoy the trust that exists for the online community, which encourages interaction, creativity, and allows us to express whatever we please. No-one knows when the elastic band might snap. Enjoy my blog while you can.
Works cited:
Hills, Rachel, 12/8/2007 "In Myspace, everyone can see you preen", The Age
Available: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/connection-versus-privacy/2007/08/11/1186530671382.html [online]
Accessed: 21/10/2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
I like it on the internet
One of the major focuses for this subject is to look at the following question; How have social networking sites affected our thoughts regarding the concepts of privacy and trust within our community?
One school of thought is that with social networking sites growing in popularity rapidly, we have increasingly less privacy than we had before.
Privacy = Good
Social Networking = Less Privacy
Therefore: Social Networking = Bad
This is probably a fairly logical position to take. It follows the line of thinking that the more we put on the internet, the more others know about us, and as such, the less privacy we have. Sure.
I, myself, tend to think that social networking sites aren't that big a deal, which probably isn't a view shared with many others in this subject, as, well, if it's not a big deal, then why pick the subject? Regardless, I believe that even though the rise of social networking has led there to be more information about myself in a public forum than there would be otherwise, if, say, I didn't have the internet, most of what can be found out about me by looking at my Facebook page isn't really "private" information.
This all depends of course, on how we define the word "private", something we were asked to do in a class a few weeks ago. The way I see it, there are two ways of describing the word "private". The first is to regard the word "private" as being an antonym for the word "public". "Public" information is information that can be seen or used by anyone, regardless of whether or not they know me. Because of my Facebook page, there is more information about me for the "public" to look at. More "public" information equals less "private" information. So, by interpreting the word "private" in this way, yes, I would agree that Facebook has led me to have less "privacy".
However, I am not just interested in viewing the word "private" as an antonym for "public". I tend to think of the word "private" as a synonym for the word "personal". "Personal information" is information that I like to keep to myself. This is a very different definition. For example, those who haven't met me probably don't know that I have brown hair. Though because of Facebook, people who don't know me could probably find out what colour my hair was if they really wanted to. As my Facebook page is set so that only those who know me can see more than just my name and a photo, this is basically all they will see. This information would have been "private" in that only those who meet me in person would have it, if it weren't for Facebook, that is. "Private" information is, after all, information that can only be known by a certain group of people. In this case, the group is fairly wide; those who have met or seen me. In this sense, Facebook is responsible for this piece of "private" information regarding myself becoming "public", and as such, technically, I have less privacy.
Clearly, in this example, it doesn't make much difference that the "public" forum now knows I have brown hair. But what does matter? If I was a criminal, and that became knowledge that was available for the public, that would have an impact on my life, but if I were a criminal, would I really allow that information to get put on Facebook?
What I'm getting at, is that generally, things we put on social networking sites such as Facebook don't have that much influence on the rest of our lives. If we put extremely personal things on Facebook, then it can have an influence, but even then, sometimes, it does not. Considering the fact that I, and those I trust, such as friends and family, are the only people capable of posting, or reading personal information on my Facebook page, I see no need to worry about the effects my constructed "public" persona may have on life in the real world. Hopefully my opinion in regards to this topic remains the same, and isn't influenced by some terrible unforeseen Facebook drama. At this stage, however, I find it difficult to see what could really go wrong.
One school of thought is that with social networking sites growing in popularity rapidly, we have increasingly less privacy than we had before.
Privacy = Good
Social Networking = Less Privacy
Therefore: Social Networking = Bad
This is probably a fairly logical position to take. It follows the line of thinking that the more we put on the internet, the more others know about us, and as such, the less privacy we have. Sure.
I, myself, tend to think that social networking sites aren't that big a deal, which probably isn't a view shared with many others in this subject, as, well, if it's not a big deal, then why pick the subject? Regardless, I believe that even though the rise of social networking has led there to be more information about myself in a public forum than there would be otherwise, if, say, I didn't have the internet, most of what can be found out about me by looking at my Facebook page isn't really "private" information.
This all depends of course, on how we define the word "private", something we were asked to do in a class a few weeks ago. The way I see it, there are two ways of describing the word "private". The first is to regard the word "private" as being an antonym for the word "public". "Public" information is information that can be seen or used by anyone, regardless of whether or not they know me. Because of my Facebook page, there is more information about me for the "public" to look at. More "public" information equals less "private" information. So, by interpreting the word "private" in this way, yes, I would agree that Facebook has led me to have less "privacy".
However, I am not just interested in viewing the word "private" as an antonym for "public". I tend to think of the word "private" as a synonym for the word "personal". "Personal information" is information that I like to keep to myself. This is a very different definition. For example, those who haven't met me probably don't know that I have brown hair. Though because of Facebook, people who don't know me could probably find out what colour my hair was if they really wanted to. As my Facebook page is set so that only those who know me can see more than just my name and a photo, this is basically all they will see. This information would have been "private" in that only those who meet me in person would have it, if it weren't for Facebook, that is. "Private" information is, after all, information that can only be known by a certain group of people. In this case, the group is fairly wide; those who have met or seen me. In this sense, Facebook is responsible for this piece of "private" information regarding myself becoming "public", and as such, technically, I have less privacy.
Clearly, in this example, it doesn't make much difference that the "public" forum now knows I have brown hair. But what does matter? If I was a criminal, and that became knowledge that was available for the public, that would have an impact on my life, but if I were a criminal, would I really allow that information to get put on Facebook?
What I'm getting at, is that generally, things we put on social networking sites such as Facebook don't have that much influence on the rest of our lives. If we put extremely personal things on Facebook, then it can have an influence, but even then, sometimes, it does not. Considering the fact that I, and those I trust, such as friends and family, are the only people capable of posting, or reading personal information on my Facebook page, I see no need to worry about the effects my constructed "public" persona may have on life in the real world. Hopefully my opinion in regards to this topic remains the same, and isn't influenced by some terrible unforeseen Facebook drama. At this stage, however, I find it difficult to see what could really go wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)