'Web New.0' + 'Edu-creation'

Web 2.0 and Social Media, while they have some negative connotations associated with them, explore the new generations of software capability. These new applications and entities take full advantage of the fundamental ideas behind networking and apply this to the web. With these technologies, anyone can publish anything, from virtually (no pun-intended) anywhere around the globe. It has become almost a sort of main-stream pioneering, a collaborative effort forward.

These new innovations, I'll call them 'Web.0,' encourage participation; and the best part is that they are inherently open and social. I would love to have an intellectual boxing match with someone who would argue: "These innovations will ruin education as we know it." I would tell that someone to substitute the word 'ruin' for the word 'change.'
Our New Media class has proven, via this very blog, (along with much more,) that said someone is wrong. I estimate that "Olives on My Pizza" has 'trafficked' 150,000 to 500,000 characters during the month of July. This was just an Intro to New Media class--by this I mean that no one needed any complex understanding of computer software for this astonishing information exchange and collaboration to take place. Let's say, for argument sake, that at least one half of the 120+ blogs that our class has contributed are relevant, interesting, and/or meaningful. That means that a tiny, 10 or so different students, have contributed a net of at least 60 blogs that are educationally significant.

Allow me to get a few final points across:
Vast amounts of information are out there... so why not use this information to re-create, feedback, and re-mediate new ideas and entities? This really applies to education; especially as it pertains to creativity.
Tangible research will continue... (i.e.-the Medical fields, non-Computer Sciences along with hybrid ones that do incorporate the 'Cyber World' somewhat, etc.)... so the free-flow of information can be of great aid to these "Tangible" fields.
Overall, 'Web New.0,' as I'm calling it, offers very intriguing, unmatched resource of functionality. Exploiting this grants new and high potential, especially for the future of learning and communications.

Control Us

In the reading, Beniger compares the architecture and landscaping of Harvard University to 'free-flowing cyberspace.' Harvard has forsaken the centralized control of the campus and is instead "...in favor of decentralized control by emergent popular habits."

This is not always the case on the internet, as Beniger alludes to with a compelling inference:
"For those who would control vast populations...the growth of cyberspace does present an immediate setback..."
But it also "...[has] the promise of even greater control in the near future."

The author points out that no medium has ever resisted application to mass persuasion and control. This is a scary thought. Is freedom as we know it on the internet doomed by time via corporate/political interest?

When mass communication is limited to one-way delivery, there are so many restrictions. Two-way communication is much better (I hope we agree on this by now,) "because the effect of any one message can be monitored and responded to in a subsequent message." Its as simple as that primordial idea; it brings us back to the idea of 'feedback.'

Regardless of whether or not the control of cyberspace is iron clad, it is difficult to picture a future internet that restricts two-way communication. This is subjective: I'm an American who has been blessed with the opportunity to own and use new technologies for my entire life. I along with many others are jaded; we should all be educated on the Internet as it pertains to the rest of the globe...the Chinese internet is dreadful, it makes me think of Farenheit 451. Our nation needs to use objective knowledge and wisdom so as to find a balance as a whole, but I truly hope to see a continuously growing free-flow of information in the years to come.

Which World Takes Precedence

In Chapter 2 John Phelan talks about disconnection with reality. How the internet takes us away from the real world. It acts as a distraction from real action in the world. Gumpert and Drucker also talk about the loss of the connection to the real world. They talk about how this didn’t start with the internet, but rather how it started with television. Making the home entertainment center the central to our lives is a perfect analogy for what the internet has become to our lives as students. Phelan talks about how as a teacher he is very dependent on email and digitized texts from all the libraries of the world. With this technology he finds it “timely and inescapably available” to send instructions and information to his students and most importantly receive their requests and questions at any time of the day. As a student I share the same respect for email and blackboard that Phelan has access to as a professor. It is impossible to stay away from the computer as a college student. Although computers and the internet may suggest negative impacts with disconnecting from reality, I find when dealing with school work the internet can be a positive disconnection. When I am alone, with just me and my computer, I can do work and feel like I have fallen onto the page with my words and the words of the scholars I have searched for inspiration and knowledge. Yes there will always be the tempting and distracting social networking systems and other entertainments that can be found on the web, but I have found these to help me take a break from my work when I have lost myself in the computer. Although, there have been times when I had spent so many hours in front of a computer screen, that I have turned to other ways to get away from these mind absorbing sites that disconnect us with the real world. But at the same time, what is the “real world” anymore? Everyone you have to communicate with you can access on the internet. And everything you have questions about you can just simply punch into Google. So when the concerns arise about the internet disconnecting us with reality, we should ask ourselves which world takes precedence?

Copyright, wasn’t always copyright. So what led us to copyright? Intellectual property and the ideas of property go back to the beginnings of civilization. Property was originally tangible therefore there was no need to provide the sense of ownership because what was yours you had. Because there was no form of writing or even an alphabet at that at the beginning of civilization the idea of copyright did not enter their minds because no problems arises from this. The way things are addressed and taken care of is when a problem arises. If there was no writing then there was no one stealing other peoples work and claiming it for their own. Hence there was no need to come up with a “right” to prevent that from happening. With writing or any form of notation came with the need to develop a private property ownership. But what opens up the idea that you can have copyrights? The invention of the printing press. What Neil Kleinamn talks about in Chapter 4, is after the invention of the printing press, we get the notion of copyright. The idea of copyright was established from the medium of printing. The idea of patents follows the motto established by copyright and the same thing goes with trademark. The same thing goes for patents and trademarks. With an established government and peoples individualization, is followed by the right to your own ideas. In the beginning of civilization these problems didn’t arise because the idea of surviving was their only concern. Now that we have evolved into social beings competing to be the best, the idea of surviving is a simple one, and the idea of excelling becomes our focus.

'Death of Copyright'

I believe that copyright is dying, due to our national and global culture embracing spaceless and virtual worlds. Whether its for the better or for worse is for time and debate to decide. Many competent people who are aware of the times we live in would advise not to invest in any company that distributes books, music, or movies. It is fairly evident that the digital revolution we are experiencing is the reason why this suggestion is being made.
Here are some of my predictions:
I predict the demise of the entertainment companies' models as they have always existed. I believe that HBO has created 'HBO GO' because they either have been or can see future revenues falling as a result of satellite Internet connections and cable modems. I believe that Daytime TV will probably survive--I'm sure Oprah Winfrey's income is secure. Live broadcasts to millions of women by their adored celebrities will most certainly uphold market share. The same probably goes for soap operas. Sports broadcasts that are live will continue to uphold market share every weekend...and women will be the 'sports widows' that they often are.
I could go on,
but I want to talk briefly about why the end of the 'Copyright Era' (we can call it that I guess) is seemingly imminent. New technologies are now making it very expensive for monopolists who own the legal right to distribute copyrighted ideas and images. This is seen by many as an assault on private property; we've discussed this at length in class. Many more (along with hypocrites) just shrug their shoulders -- hey, they want digital copies of movies and music...ASAP and AEAP (AEAP=As Easily As Possible© :D ). Self-regulation isn't working and the cost of suing over, say 100 million Americans, well its just not economically sound. Regardless, this is the future. Furthermore, when we look at the past we realize that the moral defense of copyright wasn't always popular, "...It was an unpredicted outcome of government policies to restrict the free flow of ideas."

The Original Dream still Exists

In the reading, I found it interesting that the shift to an information delivery model seemed like an end to the dream of a utopian internet. Originally Tim Berners-Lee saw his invention as “just another program,” but if Berners-Lee had decided to patent this idea, the Internet would be a different place then what we are so familiar with today. Instead, the World Wide Web became free to anyone who could make use of it. Because he and his colleagues agreed on a license free technology, people can see the same Web page as any other personal computer, system software or Internet browser, on their very own personal computer.
He originally wanted it to help achieve understanding. He imagined it to be a collaborative space where you could communicate through sharing information. The idea was that by writing something together, and as people continually collaborated on it, they could find mistakes and minimize misunderstandings. Tim Berners-Lee said, “There was a time when people felt the Internet was another world, but now people realize it is a tool that we use in this world.”
The internet has many fathers who developed other important components that make up the internet we are familiar with today. It was the contributing components from Berners-Lee’s and his colleagues which caused this shift. This collaboration helped them bring together the invention of the world wide web, with the system to let different computer networks interconnect and communicate, the creation of e-mail which included the use of the "@" symbol, and the coin of the term hypertext. This joined together with Berners-Lee’s World Wide Web with browsers, hypertext markup language, and uniform resource locators (URL’s) caused this shift which forced the creators to envision a different future with this system.
In Chapter 21 Douglas Rushkoff makes the distinction between communication and information. The distinction is that web browsers shifted the internet from a one-to-one communication, Berners-Lee’s original vision, to a one-to-many communication, the new vision after collaboration. He also makes it a point to insinuate that it was unintentional to go against what Berners-Lee originally imagined. Rushkoff talks about this as a kind of war and he takes the side of the communication as an interaction. He sides with the people not the programmers. He says the biggest problem is letting go of that need to control the message and just letting people take over.
I disagree with Rushkoff on this aspect because although there is information on the internet which is controlled, the internet is made up of much more than just that. If anything this shift has led us to be able to do anything we would like with the World Wide Web and to a much higher extreme than Berners-Lee could imagine when he first envisioned this system. Sites on the internet such as, Wikipedia, Blogs, and Social Networks, allow us to communicate on the internet through an information basis where we are able to collaborate and envision ideas just like Time Berners-Lee and his colleagues.

mental break.

I agree with Ace when she talks about chapter 2 and how Phelan states how the internet disconnects us from reality but that temporary disconnection isn't necessarily a bad thing. Of course you don't want to be constantly finding yourself disconnected to the real world all the time but just like everything else in life, things in moderation are good. LIke Ace said, when your busy writing a 396734 page paper its nice to be able to escape for a little and explore some social networking websites such as facebook or twitter. It gives your brain a break so it can refresh its self. A down fall to this break however, is that some people, including myself at times, find it hard to actually do the work and get off facebook. :(

social permanency

In addition to Juliette's comment about companies/brands walking a fine line between trying to control or stop what is said about them, or having to just let it go, I think this is a serious issue not only because the things said are malicious and untrue, they are permanent. Just as Professor Strate had dealt with his name being linked to an inappropriate website that he had nothing to do with, the anonymity on the internet and inability to not be able to control what is said about you nor deleted thereafter is terrifying. You really have to think about what you do and what you put out there for the whole world to see, because it can never be taken back. In this sense, I find this kind of social interaction to be less like communication, and more like information because although you can give your own input, somewhat stand up for yourself or attempt to make corrections, it is never like a conversation with someone and water under the bridge. Even worse than being in print, is having something written or shown about you on the internet because it forever exists somewhere. Even having some sort of centralized control would not be able to eradicate this type of behavior nor the permanency of information. It is incredible how powerful and persuasive information is and even with the prominence of social media and level of communication that the internet embraces, we are left feeling out of control. It has become bigger than us, and what is conveyed on the internet seemingly holds more weight than the spoken word.

Information vs. Communication or Information + Communication

Yesterday in class, we talked about control and how the U.S. is different than communist China because our government doesn't try to control the internet, our economy does. This actually makes a lot of sense because brands and labels would rather have you online buying their product rather than socializing with your friends. I however would disagree on whether it's one or the other thing battling to be most prominent on the internet. I think actually brands have capitalized on the fact that the majority of the world's population uses the internet for communication. They have seen the trends of social networks and rather than fighting to be top dog, they have merged.

There are more than thousands of brands on Facebook and Twitter. The brands use the social networks differently in order to market their brand and image properly. The brands use Facebook to hold photo contest like Johnson & Johnson, give away coupons like Palm Beach Tan, and encourage customer feedback on a one to one basis like Nintendo - article courtesy of Mashable. The brands use Twitter to provide instant help with technical problems like The Home Depot, to promote new products like Starbucks, and to engage immediate customer response like the upcoming movie 30 Minutes or Less - article courtesy of Search Engine Journal.

So, back to what we were discussing in class yesterday about corporations trying to take over the communication aspect of the internet, I think they already have and the businesses that haven't are catching up quickly. I think they are facing some issues while trying to get consumer information to us via communication. Yesterday, for a second, we talked about hate speech and how that is still technically respected by the First Amendment, but how there is a fine line between hate speech and libel/defamation. Earlier this year Forever 21 was confronted with this problem of determining what someone could say about their brand when they tried to go after WTForever21, a blog about the negatives of Forever 21 stores. An article from ABC News, "Forever 21 Threatens Blogger With Lawsuit for WTForever21 Site," said that the corporation was planning on taking the blogger to court, but was advised against it due to the amount of negative publicity they got as a result of the lawsuit.

So it's true that brands still haven't found a way to get us to stop badmouthing their product and they realize that bad publicity - especially on the Internet - lives up to its name of being "viral." But I think they have seen how much we rely on the Internet for socialization and rather than make it information vs. communication, they have seen ways to merge the two.

social networking

Last class we talked about social networking.  Within the last decade social networking sites such as Facebook have become a way of life for people of all ages.  Although social networking have expanding the forms and types of communication in our society, I agree with Jamie that it can make relationships become solely cyber.  Facebook allows people to hide behind an internet personality to do whatever and act however they please even if it isn't truly how they are in real life.  What most people do not realize is these social networking websites actually restrict the amount of privacy one person could have on the internet, making every post that much more dangerous.  Many people have been denied jobs for the content on their Facebook page or a picture that looks suspicious or promiscuous.  The more social networks sites that become available the more our society uses that as an excuse to stay glued to the computer screen.

New Hypertext - Vogue Stealing Wiki's Idea

This is a little random but Lauren's post about hypertext reminded me. I met a girl on my flight Sunday who told me about a new Hypertext on the web. (Since this is a new media course, I figured it's good to post some new technology as it arises) A few classes ago we came to the big realization that the world wide web is one big hypertext. We also realized that Wikipedia is a hypertext because you can be on one page and click the other hyperlinks to find other topics - similar to the hypertext stories we viewed on the web that day. Wikileaks and basically all other Wiki+noun websites operate the same way. Recently, Vogue decided that they would take this idea and run with it and they created: Voguepedia. It's essentially a hypertext that centers solely around fashion: designers, models, brands, personalities, and beauty. They're currently building the website right now, they have released it for the public and, similar to wikipedia, it is always expanding. Unlike wikipedia though, they are requiring extensive research and article submission before they post it to the website. Makes you wonder what hypertext is next: sports for example could be just as broad a topic.

Social Networking and the internet has almost made one-one conversation impossible. Everything that you post on the internet is displayed for all to see. A message through a social network that is supposed to be private can still be seen by someone it was not intended too. The purpose of social networking is mot negative at all. It is intended for people to use it as a way to create relationships, network ideas, promote ideas, and even reconnect with people that you lost touch with. The problem is people become involved with the sites and become addicted.

For example, my mother works for the state of New Jersey as a criminal investigator. Her job can be very time consuming and sometimes she finds herself bringing home work from the job. Despite being so busy my mom used to make the time in her day to log on to Facebook and update her status and make sure she kept up with maintaining Farmville. She was only able to stop using Facebook once she found herself bringing a lot more of her work home with her. she realized that Facebook was consuming a lot of the time that she was supposed to be concentrating on work.

open-ended

Reverting back to a few class discussions ago, I particularly liked the idea of the hypertext format that the woman had to write her stories online and take ideas from her readers and to change them according to what they want to hear and how they want a story to end. Reading Rushkoff's "The Information Arm's Race" made me think about this more in depth, and how different types of mediums should be viewed and utilized. He explicitly says that any form of movie or book, no matter how absorbed we get or captivating it is, it is not participatory and therefore not classified as communication. Although we may sometimes think that someone's else's ideas being expressed to us, may seem as such, "it is merely a unique and personalized experience essentially dead data." The internet and other types of social media are described as a threat to programmers and other advertisers who are influencing us to do things by telling us what we need. Rather than being fed information, we are able to interact with one another, and be participants, which is a more realistic and better defined form of communication. Constant change and move from the status quo is something we should continue to seek. This is a fundamental idea in the field of communications, and not surprising that it was greatly brought about and enforced by Mcluhan himself, who welcomed inquisition and constant questioning.

social notworking.

In response to Michael, and Lauren I also agree with the statement that socializing and relationships have greatly changed due to the Internet and technology. I believe that this change however is not for the best for our society. I believe that people replace real relationships and friendships with online ones. People are too busy changing their status while they are out doing something “fun” then actually enjoying what they are participating in. For example when someone post “ I’m having sooo much fun at a party.” shouldn’t they be to busy having too much “fun” at the party to take the time to stop to update their facebook status?

Also the fact that people can contact and see what someone else is doing 24-7 is also not the best for relationships. Back in the day people weren’t able to talk or text their girlfriend/boyfriend every other minute. This constant communication I believe puts stress on each person in the relationship, where before the only communication would be in person or over a home phone.

Early Internet

The early Internet was a text-only technology. Users would send e-mail, join in live chats, or participate in asynchronous discussions on bulletin boards. Users spurred Utopian visions because it was the first time we could spread ideas globally. Working through wires and computers, the internet was a community as well as a living cultural experiment. At first, the internet was not at all about information but about relationships. We were not interacting with data, but with one another. For example, if a philosopher posed a new idea, he would be forced to defend it. Also, everyone had an equal opportunity to voice their opinions online.
The trick at this point was to figure out how we turn this communications nightmare into controllable mass medium? We needed to replace communication with information. By 1980 we were on the cusp of the Information Age. And now that information was traveling all over the World Wide Web we needed to make sure that this information being shared was factual.
The current direction of Internet technology promises a further interactive abilities. Our internet is getting so fast it is turning into TV-like Internet.

copyright and youtube

In chapter 4 of "Communication and Cyberspace," Neil Kleinman speaks a lot about copyright and how it should be used for information posted on the web. He focuses mainly on intellectual ideas and writings in this chapter, but something he left out was the use of other media such as videos and music online. Copyright on videos and music became big with the introduction of youtube, so perhaps the reason he left this out was that youtube had not been created yet. I feel that the copyright laws on youtube seem a bit too strict. When I was younger me and a bunch of friends used to skateboard and make videos using programs such as imovie or windows movie maker. When making these videos we would use certain songs to go with the film, but we soon found out that there were a bunch of songs that we could not use. There have been instances where our videos were taken down from youtube for containing copyrighted material, which seems a but ridiculous to me because we just made these videos for fun. I believe that videos like this, made just for entertainment and not marketing, should be allowed to include whatever material necessary to make a good video, including copyrighted material. Now, if the video was made for marketing purposes I would say they have the right to take it down if it contains copyrighted material, but only for that purpose. I think that youtube should loosen up a bit and revise their policy regarding copyrighted material.

Arielle's post made me think a lot about the Internet and how it's actually causing a lot of young kids to grow up faster. Since the Internet is so big and you can't control what content gets put on there, there's a lot of stuff out there that could be detrimental to kids. Not to mention the fact that kids seem to be one of the primary audiences online - they have taken over Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook. They're definitely exploring all the possibilities that the web has to offer. In fact, in the documentary we watched the woman said that it was lucky she had her younger daughter to explain the world wide web and emails and new technology to her. So are they brave little explorers or growing up too fast? I think that they are actually making it a lot easier for us because they create this new frontier that we can learn from. Talking to a 14 year old can actually be one of the best things to do in the social media field because they always know the terminology (hashtags, etc) and how to complete tasks using the social media networks. I think that it's good they're out there, and it's definitely beneficial to them - especially for school and socializing. They are learning skills at a young age that most of us caught on to in high school. So that part is definitely a pro. I think that it will be interesting to see what the next generation will bring to the technological table.