The Revolution Will Not Be Televised...but Tweeted!

Nope, it most likely won’t be televised, but instead will be tweeted, an updated Facebook status, video posted on YouTube or some other form of participatory media widely available for public consumption. In the digital 21st Century, we are constantly looking to the Internet as a primary source for news and information. We have turned away from more traditional sources of news like the 6 o’clock news and daily newspapers and throughout this course we have discussed the consequences of social media on the public sphere. I am optimistic about the way that social media has impacted our lives.

The emergence of blogs I believe has had a positive impact in the way that it gives everyday citizens unprecedented access to be able to publish their own content. Some scholars question whether or not blogging can be seen as journalism, and I would argue that it would not be considered journalism as blogging does contain biases, while the news claims to be ‘neutral’. While blogging is not considered journalism I believe it is important to reveal stories that are different from the stories we read in newspapers and hear about on television. Many stories aren’t reported and only because of social media are these stories exposed. Users can now have an alternative to mainstream media and challenge the events that are reported traditional forms of media. This has allowed for what I believe is an increased feeling of democracy, and it has also allowed for activism to occur by bringing people together. It has allowed one person’s blog post to move from the computer to the streets.

Lastly it is interesting to see the way in which social media has changed our lives. Privacy settings on Facebook and Twitter now can affect the possibility of being hired, or even fired. Users have to watch what they post online because you never know who can access your information. It has also transformed the way we meet people. The rise of social networking sites has changed face-to-face interactions with things like dating sites becoming a main way to meet people and establish connections.

It seems the possibilities are endless with social media, but where will they lead to next, and how much more will they continue to affect our lives? We are living in extremely fast-paced world where technology is emerging so rapidly it is hard to keep up with all the new and innovative ways we can interact with each other. But at the same time, it limits the extent of personal contact we have with people as we find ourselves hiding behind computers more often than actually interacting with people.

While I am positive about some of the aspects social media has on our lives, it is also scary to see how it affects our lives and we become more dependent on Facebook for maintaining personal connections. If you haven’t been on Facebook for over a week, it feels like you’ve lost touch with the world. I also can’t remember how I use to procrastinate five years ago without Facebook. How far will social media go? It will be interesting as Communication Scholars to watch it unfold in the next year, five years, and even the next twenty. We certainly won’t be watching it on the television or reading it in the newspapers though…

A Global "Like" Button

Just a few days ago, it was reported on TechCrunch, a new idea proposed by Facebook to expand their “Like” button. Currently, users are allowed to “like” their friends’ statuses, pictures, wall posts and so forth, but Facebook is now interested in expanding this idea to encompass the entire internet. It would allow third-party websites to simply add a “like” button to their page and if Facebook users like what they see, they can “like it” and it would appear on their wall. The complete details haven’t exactly been released yet, the most information I could find about it was through TechCrunch, and most other websites and blogs linked directly to TechCrunch.

The thought of being able to “like” anything over the web is both scary and intelligent at the same time. It is intelligent because of how it strengthens Facebook as a filter through which users can decide what they "like" on the web. Users can now interact with the websites they visit daily and say they like it and their friends can see which websites they visit and “like”. I find it very similar to the role that blogs play and ideas we discussed in the beginning of this semester. We discussed how blogs act as an intelligent filter and connect people to relevant, important or interesting websites that exist on the internet. Blogs filter the vast amounts of information and websites out there so we don't have to waste time looking around for things that interest us. Facebook now wants to latch onto this concept, and it makes sense. If I see my good friends “liking” particular websites, of course I’d go and check them out – simply because they are my 'friends' and we share similar interests.

Now while this may seem like a smart move for Facebook, I'm also sceptical of it and think its a scary thought at the same time. Facebook wants to expand to the whole internet, and it seems to be working. Facebook is becoming a Google level of scary. A few weeks ago, it was reported that Facebook was the most visited website for an entire week and surpassed Google in the week of March 13th, 2010. It seems like a smart move for Facebook to now try and compete with Google, but if the “like” button comes into effect, this will be huge for advertisers and businesses. We might soon be bombarded from third-party sites to get you to “like” their websites because it is an easy form of advertising for these companies. I’m finding it incredibly difficult to wrap my head around the idea of Facebook being present everywhere on the internet, that we simply cannot just sign out of our Facebook page, it will be everywhere on the internet soon.

Blogging is NOT a Male Dominanted Space

I came across an interesting opinion column in the Globe and Mail last week, but because of the overload of assignments I’ve had with end of semester assignments, I’m finally bringing it up now. The opinion piece by Margaret Wente, makes an argument that the blogosphere is a male dominated space, a space in which women feel they do not need to participate. She is saying that although women have opinions, they do not feel the need to express them in the blogosphere like men do. She argues that men get a ‘rush’ out of posting their opinions like then do when they do extreme snowmobiling and women don’t find the need to partake.

Wow. I think this column is just ridiculous. The whole purpose of a blog is to not get a rush off of how risqué your opinions and beliefs are, but rather to voice your opinion in a democratic space for others to read. It can be for anything, activism, on the latest technology, Hollywood gossip, even food recipes. So who is to say that the world of blogging should only be done by men? One way she strongly contradicts herself in this piece is that she says:

“Opinionizing in public is a form of mental jousting, where the aim is to out-reason, out-argue or out-yell your opponent. Women are just as good at this as men and, in some ways, better. Women are simply not as interested in doing it.”

But she just wrote a piece for an Opinion Column, is she not doing the same thing except getting paid for it? And don’t the really good bloggers get paid as well? I’m not really sure I see a difference here. By Wente voicing her opinion in a newspaper it is in the public, just the same as a blogger from the Huffington Post commenting on particular events.

I don’t think there is really a gender divide when it comes to blogs. For the most part, blogging has nothing to do about which sex can get more people out there blogging. It’s about creating a voice for yourself that wouldn’t be heard otherwise. Let’s not restrict that right.

Getting Robed Because You Over Shared on Twitter

Over sharing is a common practice on Facebook and Twitter. Some people using social networking sites use their “What’s On Your Mind” feature, a little too literally. They are updating when they go to class, work, gym, the bathroom, and on vacation to let their friends know their whereabouts at all times. However, there are some dangers with telling all your “friends” where you are at all times – they know exactly when you are not home.

When you leave for a vacation, you don’t leave a message on your home answering machine saying “I’m not home – I’m on a beach in Mexico”, simply because you don’t want just anyone calling your house and hearing this message. We also go to great lengths like, leaving lights on in the house and getting the neighbours to pick up mail to make it appear that someone is home, when we are gone.

So why do people post this information on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook?

On Facebook you could have hundreds of ‘friends’ who have access to your page and can read your status updates. When we update our Facebook pages, sometimes we can forget how much information we are throwing out there and forgetting about how much access people have to this information.

I recently found an article on Globe and Mail about a new feature for Twitter which allows people to automatically track their locations through a tracking tool which users simply have to turn on or off. With the growing popularity of people “tweeting” their locations, now they don’t have to waste an entry telling people – Twitter will do it for you. There are other social networking services that also track where you are, like foursquare, which basically rewards (gives you points) to tell people where you are.

The Globe article goes on to say that Facebook will soon follow with an application to tell people about your whereabouts. I know I won’t use this. I use Facebook as a social networking site, a place to connect with friends and share photos with them – I don’t feel the need to tell people when I’m going to the gym and class. The people who need to know will already know – without the help of Facebook. There is hope though. There is a new website called “Please Rob Me”, which is trying to inform people of the dangers of over sharing through explicit means.

While social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are convenient to check up on friends and family and share pictures, there are risks as well. Posting your location has its dangers. You don’t know who is tracking your Facebook page – but then again – maybe I’m just paranoid…

What’s All The ‘Buzz’ About?!

Since Facebook and Twitter isn’t fulfilling our online social-networking needs, Google has come out with its own take on it, called Google Buzz. Check out the video for an overview put out by Google, about how they describe Google Buzz. From the video, I’m still left with a few questions about how Buzz actually works, but to me it seems almost like a combination of Facebook and Twitter - combined. One of the major differences between Buzz, Facebook and Twitter, is that Buzz is directly linked to people who already have a Gmail account. If you are already using Gmail, you can follow your contacts that you already have in Gmail and publish updates and photos for an approved list of people to see.

But one has to question, what is all the Buzz about? What are the pros and cons of Buzz? And why would people want to start using this form of social networking rather than the two major forms that already dominate our online world.

One thing that will be an uphill battle for Buzz will be building an audience. People have been pretty loyal to their Facebook pages that when Twitter came out, most were not willing to make the switch or have two online social networking pages at the same time. Personally, Facebook is the only social networking site I participate in, as I think juggling a Twitter account and a Facebook account is too much for me. So for me, Buzz would have to offer something extremely different or more convenient features that Facebook does not have. In my search to learn more about Google Buzz, I came across a blog post which offers arguments for and against Buzz.

Another reason I’m unsure of the success of Google Buzz is that in order to use Buzz, you have to have a Gmail account. For myself, I have used a Hotmail account since MSN first became popular back in grade school. I’m comfortable with my Hotmail account and currently have no use for a Gmail account and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Many other people are probably already settled into their email accounts and not interested in leaving then to create a new one and share their email address with all contacts and make that shift.

The main reason I don’t believe Google Buzz to be successful is the fact that Buzz has come too late in social-networking sites. Facebook has been around for more than five years, first emerging as a social-networking tool for college students in the United States. Once the idea was successful there, it expanded to university students and then eventually to the mass online consumer culture. Twitter then came along, with some alterations from Facebook, but now users have the ability to ‘follow’ celebrities. Buzz is more than five years behind these two and I’m curious to see if it will be successful or not. If I were to make any prediction about the success of Buzz, I think it will have a hard time competing with Facebook and Twitter, despite the features it offers. Can’t see myself signing up for a Gmail account and Buzz anytime soon, can you?

Just Because "It Bleeds, It Leads"...Doesn't Make It Right.

Alright, here is blog post number two about the Olympics. You could say I’m slightly obsessed, but today is the last day before the gold medal hockey game and closing ceremonies. However, it is not so much about the Olympics but an event that happened on the day of opening ceremonies that has been bothering me for quiet sometime. The event I’m referring to was the coverage of the Georgian luger, Nodar Kumaritashvili’s death.

I first learned of the athlete’s death at 7pm on the night of the opening ceremonies on the news. The reporter of the story described what had happened and proceeded to show the video with a warning before saying it was quite graphic. When the video was shown, I was completely shocked and felt sick that they had showed the luger’s last moments on national television. After it was initially played, news stations then began showing edited versions that were not so graphic. The video was also removed from YouTube with alternate links which would not load for interested viewers.

The way the death was dealt with on television really disturbed me and I felt compelled to write about it as a blog entry. Media outlets and social media, like YouTube are constantly trying to grab attention by moving, controversial, scary or graphic stories. Publishing or uploading stories and videos of crimes, violence or deaths get people to buy news papers and the view count increase on YouTube. But what are the consequences of this?

Especially in the event of Nodar Kumaritashvili’s death, was it right to show the athlete’s death on national television? It could be argued that the video was intended to show how dangerous the sport really is, but in my opinion, I think airing the video was completely unnecessary. Obviously it is important for the world to be aware of his death and how dangerous the sport really is, but is showing his last moments a way to convey this? In my opinion showing the video showed a lack of compassion for the luger’s friends and family in this tragic and difficult time. The family now has to be faced with these images, as well as dealing with the death of a loved one.

That being said, as much as I feel that showing his death on national television was wrong, it is hard to escape these images as someone always has access to some sort of technology to capture these moments. Whether it’s a professional camera crew or simply from someone’s cell phone, it feels like someone is always watching and recording. That makes it hard to stop these images of tragic moments from appearing on sites like YouTube and even national television. But what is too far? I don’t think these images make me feel anymore compelled to read the story, instead it makes me feel like newspapers have a lack of compassion for other human beings, and simply worried about selling newspapers. How much is too much? And how much does it really add to the way you read or see a story?

GO CANADA GO!

Well, we are nearing the end of the Olympics in Vancouver and I was reflecting today on how much I really watched the Olympics this year. In the past, I've kept myself updated on Canada's medal standings and will occassionally flick on the television to watch whatever event is on. However,this year I find myself completely immersed in everything Olympic! I feel one of the major reasons for my intense viewership of the Olympics, has to do with social media and the way they have taken on the Olympics this year.

With the rise of social and interactive media, there has been an explosion of people able to participate in the Olympics, no matter where they are in the world. By using Facebook, users can now be a ‘fan’ of the Olympics and can explore and upload pictures of their experiences to the Facebook fan page. Also, athletes are using their Twitter and Facebook accounts to interact with their fans about their wins, losses and their experiences at the winter games. Another way interactive media has been explosive in the 2010 games is the way smart phones and iPhones have created applications like the cowbell application or the mobile application which allows anyone to see results of events. The mobile application is unique in the way that it uses GPS systems to find out where you are to notify you what sports events, concerts or cultural events you are close to if you are in Vancouver.

Another way people can interact with the Olympics is through Google Earth. Just for the Olympics people can actually see the half pipe, or even see the streets of the Olympic village, which people at home can feel like they are actually there. And lastly another way people can get involved in the Olympics this year is simply by watching videos live and online. There is so much coverage online, that even if you can’t watch the events live, you can catch the highlights afterwards on numerous websites!
I am absolutely amazed at how many possible ways there are to interact with the Olympics than ever before. Without even leaving your house people are able to read up on what the athletes are doing, when they are competing and even their thoughts after they compete. People can also have pictures of the Olympics without actually being there. To be able to see the streets and mountains is an experience viewers from home have never been allowed to partake in. For myself, all the ways that social media have embraced the Olympics this year has allowed me to be much more involved in all the events. Since the opening ceremonies I have used most of these social mediums to stay informed about Canadian athletes. Even though I was not lucky enough to be in Vancouver for the Olympics, I feel that my Olympic experience has improved because of all the access we have to these interactive websites and applications.

But I’m interested in seeing how many other people have had the same experience as me. Has the increase in Olympic coverage on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter as well as Olympic applications for smart phones, increased your interaction with the Olympics this year?