Justin Tackling "Plants v. Zombies"

So Much to Say: The Power of Web Communications

The Internet, most notably Web 2.0, is the world's oyster when it comes to interactivity and individual representation. Web 2.0 refers to user-generated web applications that allow users to share information, network, and collaborate, and it has forever altered the way we communicate. In their books, Axel Bruns and Clay Shirky discuss the ways in which this realm of global interaction has changed the communication dynamic in modern society.

In Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond, Axel Bruns explains the shift from production to "produsage." Produsage refers to the result of the blurred boundaries between creation and consumption. The term was coined by Dr. Bruns himself, and it describes the way in which we, as consumers of information, are now wearing several hats when it comes to online information exchange. Not only do we search the Web in search for information, but we are oftentimes the actual originators of the material. The information is always changing, and it is never complete. The very nature of online distribution allows for unlimited individualization and collaboration among users. This type of participatory culture creates an environment where users can "inter create" to the point that it becomes unclear where the information began. This is an integral trait of Web 2.o and is important because of the way it subverts control of information administration.

Clay Shirky explores similar subject matter in his book, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. In it, he examines these profound changes in information distribution by noting the way in which the changes have seamlessly revolutionized communication. Shirky notes that the changes seem nearly invisible because of how pervasive they have been. Web 2.0 is so simple-- it's free, it's global, and it's accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. Shirky explains the uniqueness of user-generated content, in that users no longer have to receive permission before they distribute messages. He quotes former Internet Society trustee, Scott Bradner, "The Internet means you don't have to convince anyone else that something is a good idea before trying it" (77).

Another unique feature is that all of this information distribution occurs without any sort of financial motivation from the originator. Collaborative production sites, like Wikipedia, are the result of various levels of contribution from like-minded participants. This collective action "widens the gap between intention and action" (149).

The power of the Web is immeasurable. We are constantly finding new ways to wield this power-- resulting in both positive and negative outcomes. Both Bruns and Shirky do an excellent job of explaining the way in which this evolution of communication has quietly changed our lives forever.

Frivolous or Fantastic? Developmental Learning & the Games People Play

My 9 year old niece and my 5 year old nephew never leave home without their Nintendo DS portable gaming systems. During my family's 2009 holiday festivities, the kids' eyes and hands were glued to those things. They stopped playing long enough to eat and, during Christmas, open their gifts (which mostly consisted of DS games). All night, both kids were asking their parents if they could leave early so they could go home and start playing their new Wii games. My uncle was in the corner grumbling about how distracted they were—"[Their parents] shouldn't let them play on those damn things all night," he said. "It's rude…and it's not good for them." Was he right? Is their obsession with video games detrimental to the family dynamic? To society? To themselves? Despite the popular belief that video games are harmful, there are those who believe the contrary. In his book, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning, James Paul Gee suggests that video games are more than mindless, distracting entertainment. In fact, Gee believes that video games can actually be educational.

Now, more than ever, kids in America are enveloped in technology—and they're getting started early in life. Video games now cater to children of every age, and they quickly become a part of everyday life. That said, it becomes increasingly important that adults stay in touch with what is being played in their living rooms; and according to Mike Elgan, in his article for the Computer World website, it's not nearly as bad as some "experts" would have us believe. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9050278/Opinion_Do_video_games_make_kids_violent_stupid_and_sick_?taxonomyId=15&pageNumber=2

In the article, he cites the recent influx of studies condemning video games and their usage among children. He lists the respective reasons for concern, including the fact that some games reward first-person violence and frequent playing leads to disrupted sleep, among other health problems; but Elgan ultimately dismisses the accusations. He points out that video games are just one of the more recent scapegoats in the ongoing quest to explain youthful discontent, generational tension, and the overall feeling of disappointment that our society seems to have regarding the young. An advocate of gaming, Elgan insists that the elder generation has always pointed the finger at the newest wave cultural influence, when trying to explain the deterioration of youth. He's exactly right—unfortunately, in our society, finding someone or something to blame becomes much more critical than taking a close look at the actual problems themselves. Elgan also points out that maybe—just maybe—this is a problem that doesn't need to be "solved." Perhaps it would be more beneficial to just change the way we view the video games the kids are inevitably playing.

James Paul Gee argues that video games can teach us all something about the way we learn. He explains that there are different kinds of literacy, and that games can assist in sharpening the player's comprehension. Gee discusses the importance of this comprehension in the "semiotic domain" of gaming, an atmosphere that also resembles the social domain of interactive reality (20). In the modern age of tech, this domain—this new type of literacy—becomes increasingly important to understand. In a world dependent on cell phones, computers, and constant communication, this "multimodal" variety of literacy becomes exceedingly valuable. Gee stresses that quality learning is a layered process, and the traditional classroom is no longer the ideal teaching environment. Gaming allows users to learn in a fresh, more socially relevant fashion.

Gee also believes that the multimodal nature of video games creates a useful space wherein identities, relationships, and experiences can be learned and practiced. The games "situate meaning in a multimodal space through embodied experiences to solve problems and reflect on the intricacies of the design of imagined worlds and the design of both real and imagined social relationships in the modern world" (48). The players are able to learn through trial and error by comfortably taking risks in a protected and controlled environment.

Video games are fun, but they are also sneakily stimulating. While they undoubtedly exercise critical thinking, decision-making skills, and hand-eye coordination, games are simultaneously blamed for harming children. Although I agree with critics that too much gaming is detrimental to kids, I also believe that—in moderation—the games can also be quite effective in sharpening all kinds of useful life skills.

Yes, it's true that my niece and nephew were distracted for much of last season's holiday get-together. They might not get outside and play as much as they would if they didn't have all of their game systems. The thing is, both of them are incredibly smart and social kids; they are also caring and very helpful. For example, while my uncle was grumbling in the corner, my niece was patiently showing me how to work my new cell phone. My nephew was teaching my mom how to play DragonQuest, using very clear, very concise instructions. They were encouraging and excited about what they were doing, and I couldn't help but notice how they spoke in a way that was much more mature than what their age would traditionally permit. If video games can do this—bring two shy kids out of their shells, and make them feel capable and valuable—then why can't they be considered as a legitimate, useful tool for cognitive and social development? In addition to a good time, of course.

Kindles and E-Readers and iPads, OH MY!

Along with the advent of electronic book readers, comes the imminent question-- are books dead?

There's no denying the convenience and novelty of reading an electronic book. The ability to download just about any book in seconds, the option to change the font and text size, the saved trips to bookstores--it's all very appealing. But, can a piece of fancy ($500) plastic ever truly replace a worn-out-with-love collection of ink and paper sandwiched together by hard leather bindings, housed in a warm, mahogany bookcase? My biased language might tip you off as to where I stand on the subject.

In her Newsweek article "Turning the Page," Anna Quindlen contemplates the alleged "death of books," and questions whether or not it's possible for multiple formats to coexist.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/235551

She points out the American "either-or," ultimatum way of thinking, citing that (in the past) many believed that television would be the end of radio; that movies would murder live theater; and that musical recordings would eternally silence live concerts. Quindlen points out that "all these forms still exist-- sometimes overshadowed by their siblings, but not smothered by them." She's right. Just because you love NPR doesn't mean you can't watch 30 Rock. I'd hate to think I lived in a world where I would be forced to choose between Chicago the movie and Chicago the musical, simply because only one form of art can successfully thrive at a time. I love it all too much.

I've always believed in the power of books. They have the power to open our eyes and our imaginations, but they ultimately force us to figure things out. They take us out of our constructed routines and force us to spend some time with ourselves. Reading is an intimate experience; it's challenging, rewarding...it's timeless. So whether we're holding iPads or hardbacks, I guess it all boils down to this...are we reading?

Tweet-tastic Journey

In this video, I am guiding my mom (Suzanne, age 55) through the Twitter account set-up process. She has to use a computer at work, but she rarely uses the Internet. She tends to get frustrated with the Web fairly easily, but we're working through it together! **Spoiler alert- she successfully set up her account. Woo-hoo!**

There's a Less than Tiny Chance that I'll Ever Tinychat...

At first glance, Tinychat appears to simply be one more fish in the already overflowing sea of social networking sites. It promises the same perks as the others-- Talk to your friends! Meet new ones! Divulge WAY too much personal information! Upon further inspection, however, I began to see what makes Tinychat stand out right now. It seems fun and easy to use, but I couldn't help but think about how the utilization of this sort of communicative technology could ultimately affect actual human interaction and relationships.

Tinychat seems to capitalize off of its simplicity. The website (similar in aesthetics to the Twitter site) is extremely easy to navigate and doesn't overwhelm the viewer with a lot of unnecessary frills. The service offers verbal, audio, and video communication options in a simple, no-download-required format. The main page boasts that the chat rooms they host are both "free" and "disposable." They provide users with a simple URL directing them to temporary "conference rooms" for up to 400 people, with up to 12 live A/V streams at once (www.tinychat.com/about.) A second option is P2P (Person to Person), used for private and encrypted one-on-one communication, similar to Skype's services. Finally, there is Tinychat Next, which promotes the following benefits:

• Meet new people with ease


• Maybe find someone you like


• You never know who you'll see next


• 100% free

Although the services provided by Tinychat are fun and potentially useful, they also give me a couple of causes for concern. First of all, the site seems directed at young people. It's scary to think that a kid could sign in to Tinychat Next and connect to a live video feed with complete strangers. I went through the sign-up process--the site asked for my date of birth and I entered 1995 so that I could see how they would handle an underage registration. It didn't make a difference! Yes, there was a disclaimer stating their intolerance of nudity, etc., but those rules usually seem to be easily broken. Now, most kids I know have desktops in their rooms or laptops that they can take anywhere they like. I realize that--if these kids really wanted to--they could connect with strangers, with or without the assistance of Tinychat; but, I also don't think they should be able to access something that will make it so completely easy for them to do so. When I Googled "tinychat," the first item that automatically popped up was "tinychat girls." After clicking on the suggestion, I was directed to YouTube videos of Tinychat sessions in which females were dancing sexually for the males in the session. Several other videos were named things like "Booty Dancing on Tinychat" and "Best Booty on Tinychat"-- all of these featured girls/women (I can't quite determine their ages) shaking their butts, usually wearing only a skimpy top and underwear. Still, there were other Tinychat videos-- most notably, several editions of the "Tinychat Strip Game." WHOA! Where were the idyllic friendly "conference room" videos? The innocently advertised "getting-to-know-new-people" scenarios? The clothing? *Shriek!*

My other concern is something that has actually bothered me for a while now: How is all of this technology affecting our real relationships? The computer age has given us some pretty amazing resources. In many ways, it has made life MUCH easier and more efficient. When I first found out about MySpace and Facebook, I was in awe. In the beginning, I thought it was so much fun to customize my MySpace profile with design templates and my favorite music. It was nice to see a couple of old friends on Facebook and to send and receive a few funny "bumper stickers" here and there; but the novelty quickly wore off, and both of these sites became kind of invasive and irritating. Suddenly the MySpace flair just seemed like a bunch of crap that slowed my computer down, and connecting with the old "friends" from Facebook just reminded me why we had "lost" touch in the first place.

For me, the problem with these networking sites was that I didn't really need them. I didn't need to rekindle friendships that didn't have the spark to last in the first place. I didn't need to make a bunch of "pseudo plans" for dinner and drinks to catch up with people (especially when we could "catch up" by reading each other's profiles--saving us both a few hours and approximately $50 in bar or restaurant tabs.) Most importantly, I definitely didn't need to make any new friends on the Internet. I think it takes a great deal of energy to be a quality friend to the real people in your life, and I just never wanted to waste time with intangible cyber friends. This is all based on my personal experience-- I'm sure that social networks work well for a lot of people, but (to me) it can be a little overwhelming. That's why I found it interesting that, in his book, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, Yochai Benkler suggests that the trend of online relationships is that they develop in addition to--not instead of-- traditional, physical interaction.

Benkler discusses two effects of the Internet on social relations. The first effect is a "thickening of preexisting relations with friends, family, and neighbors, particularly with those who were not easily reachable in the pre-Internet-mediated environment" (357). This effect is one of the positive aspects of virtual communication. Parents and their children can text back and forth; a grandparent in Florida can Skype (or Tinychat) with their granddaughter in London; I can send a video of my chihuahua being adorable to anyone in my phone's contact list-- all in an instant. When this amazing technology is used for "thickening" relationships, it is undoubtedly incredibly impressive and beneficial.

The second effect Benkler points out is the "emergence of greater scope for limited-purpose, loose relationships." He then states that these relationships "certainly do not fit a deep conception of 'community' as a person's primary source of emotional context and support." Benkler argues, however, that they are "nonetheless effective and meaningful to their participants" (357). I agree that, for some individuals, these "limited-purpose" relationships are probably fulfilling; however, I'm not sure that's a positive thing. I know several people who are slaves to their computers. They habitually choose their online community over their tangible community, and they seem to prefer simulated reality to actual reality. I wouldn't see this as a problem if it weren't for the fact that these same people also tend to appear generally unhappy.

The appeal of an online identity is very seductive. A person can create a new personality, maybe just tweak the one they already have. You can be a different version of yourself and anonymity will protect you. The anonymity can also make virtual friends seem more appealing than real friends-- I mean, what are the odds that a virtual friend will ask you to help them move? I understand the attraction. However, I think there has to be a balance between the two worlds in order to get the most out life-- both the real and the virtual variety.

Colpevole! Italian Court Finds Google Guilty

An Italian court has found three Google executives guilty on invasion of privacy charges, stemming from the 2006 posting of an offensive clip on Google Video.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000092-264.html?tag=mncol;txt

I thought this story was interesting for a couple of reasons:

• The charge itself. If Google or any other host site is going to be held liable for every offensive, invasive, or just plain ignorant video, audio, or image-- the courts aren't going to have enough time to do anything else. Invasion of privacy seems like an odd conviction for this case. Defamation is always a popular claim in Internet matters, but even that isn't applicable. The only way Google would appear guilty--if you ask me--would be if they refused to remove the video from any of their host sites (and they didn't). It's also interesting that Italian courts can charge employees who work for the host company and convict and sentence them as individuals (in this case, the Chief Privacy Counsel, CLO, and CFO.)

• The repercussions of the conviction. While it was stated that Google will appeal this decision (and I'm sure they will successfully do so), it's also worthwhile to consider the outcome of the new potential legal precedence. In addition to the troubling possibility of web censorship, there could be other unforeseen consequences. In the article, law professor Jaqueline Lipton explains that holding these intermediary companies responsible--even in a foreign country--may eventually affect the consumers. Many aspects of social media are free to use, but they might not be in the future if Google or companies like it are ultimately held liable for uploaded user content--the costs and risks would be too high.

• The impossibility of a 100% policed host site. I'm definitely not an advocate of big corporations auspiciously dodging responsibility, but what are the odds that Google can effectively pre-screen every single item of uploaded content? Not only is that next to impossible, but I feel like it is a step in the wrong direction. Blaming Google Videos for hosting offensive content is one more way to pass the buck, allowing the legitimately guilty individual to get away with bad behavior. The video sounds awful, just like 1000s more that unfortunately exist on the web, and Google should definitely remove any offensive content that is brought to their attention. However, they shouldn't have to be responsible for someone else's vile behavior.

When I was around 13 years old, I sometimes hung out with this bad seed of a girl (an annoying friend of a friend.) Out of all of the sneaky and questionably illegal things she used to do, there was one offense in particular that really bothered me. After going to the movies, we would walk next door to the grocery store and get snacks for our sleepover. While we all picked out boxed candy and brownie mix, she would go straight to the aisle with the candy dispensers. The protocol for this option was supposed to be the following:

1. Select an empty bag
2. Fill it with the candy of your choice
3. Take it to the cashier and pay like an honest f-ing person

Always above the law, this chick would take her hand, her purse--whatever she could fill--and steal the hell out of as much candy as she could. It's not like she was poor or starving or anything-- she lived in the nicest house I'd ever seen. She just liked showing off and being the "bad girl" in the group. Anyway, I saw it happen twice. The first time I was in disbelief; the second time, I had to ask her why she was doing something so blatantly wrong. Her answer has always stayed with me: "If they didn't want me to steal it, they shouldn't have made it so easy to steal."

I couldn't help but think of that infamous quote when I read about this Google story. Even though, theoretically, it is easy to post offensive or hurtful things online, why would you do it? If we really want to punish wrongdoing, I think it's much more important to focus on the actual criminal (i.e. the delinquent brat, not the grocery store.)

So, gang...when it comes to interactive social media and responsibility, who do you think should do the time for the cyber crime?