Its great isn't it? Finding and stalking eachother has never been easier since the emergency of new social media technology and Web 2.0. Phone books are dead and so is my goldfish. What do these two things have in common you ask? I don't need to put effort into either of them anymore. Morbid and startling? Only slightly. Over the past decade, more and more sources of social media are made public. The only problem is that kids these day's find it to be the only thing worth their time because old forms of mediums "take too much time and effort." These can include anything from books to maps and landlines to radio.
In an article by Matt Richtel, "Growing Up Digital, Wired For Distraction," Ritchtel explains the problem with today's addictive online sensation of blogs, Facebook, and YouTube; that the new generation of kids will grow up with a different mindset and will have more diffculty engaging in traditional learning practices. Vishal Singh, a student interviewed by Ritchtel, insists that reading books are a waste of time, and that online websites like YouTube may offer "immediate gratification" of any school assignment. Singh is missing the point to the work itself. He is more determined to get the work done as opposed to actually learning from what he studies and appreciating it. Why? Because reading a book takes forever, especially when you're glued to a computer screen. Michael Rich, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and executive director of the Center on Media and Child Health in Boston says: “Their brains are rewarded not for staying on task but for jumping to the next thing, and the effects could linger...The worry is we’re raising a generation of kids in front of screens whose brains are going to be wired differently.” In saying this, Rich explains that trying to teach new generations will have difficulty in focusing on their studies and that changes in teaching methods and subject matter may need to be considered.
Like anyone who's ever overcome a life crisis, we learn to adapt. In a new world of digital media communication and connection, maybe that's all that's neccessary to get kids to learn. Richtel explains that the principal of Woodside High School by the name of David Reilly sympathizes with the students, explaining that he is currently finding new ways to keep the students engaged by integrating the new technology into the class room. However, at the same time, parents and teachers alike are having a hard time trying to pry their children and students from websites such as Facebook and Youtube as well as their iPones and Blackberrys. Maybe all this could be is just the downside to Web 2.0 and all that it has to offer. After all, it's not the Web's fault for being so addicting and a lot more interesting than reading print on paper.
If we recall back to point of Web 2.0 being neither bad nor good, we are able to see the correlation between it's uses and from our perspectives. If we use Web 2.0 for all the right (or wrong) reasons, then I don't think we are on the grounds to really judge how it is used but rather how much we use it. Everyone uses the best of Web 2.0 as much as they can because it's something that is constantly changing and therefore is never able to become old or dull. Then again, this could be a naive thought going back to the never ending myth. However, it would seem that Web 2.0 is not something people are able to grasp in their own hands. It is something only few people are able to explain and would seem to be a complex subject, yet Web 2.0 is not something to be replaced as opposed to being constantly improved, expanded, and growing just like our minds and ideas. It seems that Web 2.0 will not control but it would seem that we have trouble even trying to control ourselves. In a new age of digital communication we find ourselves lost within it's new and shiny future but I don't think we'll be able to use our phones to find ourselves within it.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
When Old Myths Were New: The Never Ending Story
It has been the desire since the beginning of mankind; The quest to fulfill a prophecy so ancient to mankind that even still, we have not fully achieved our goal. What is that goal? That goal is to make everything in your life as easy as possible for as long as possible. No hassle, no trouble, and in no time at all. It's the reason people invent things like the TV remote. The first thing that pops into our heads when a new invention is thrown in our faces is the idea that this new invention will change the way people live forever. This my friends, is what is called the "never ending myth." Now that TV remote will keep you from being compelled to get off your ass and change the channel, but don't you think that it would be even easier to invent something that you don't even need to push with your fingers? This is the whole basis of the "never ending myth." When something new is invented, something else will be built on that new piece of technology, eventually replacing it entirely.
In the article by Vincent Mosco "When Old Myths Were New: The Never Ending Story," Mosco explains the hype surrounding "ground-breaking" technological advances and how they claim to change the way people live forever. In all eras of the telegraph, radio, and telephone, people have said that this is what would change the lives of people all over the world. Yet, these ideologies are soon forgotten once that technological brekthrough becomes a natural part of everyday life where it is later replaced with a product that is newer and more efficient. Since the emergence of Web 2.0, the generation of online commerce and smartphones would appear to have blasted people into the futuristic world in nearly a decade. Will the myth of Web 2.0 die? Like everything in this world, if it has a beginning, it will have an end. No one knows for sure how Web 2.0 will last until it is deemed obsolete making way for a new kind of online sensation that not only is self gathering of information, socially connect people, and provide information to third parties but it will be able to do much more.
In a sense, Web 2.0 is not re-created, it is merely growing but is it really what it's made out to be with all it's talk and glory? With the creation of new software to do both bad and good, it would seem that Web 2.0 has a lot to offer (and a lot to be afraid of). However, it is possible for technology to have several myths. One may include the fact that Web 2.0 connects you to other people via a social netowork, yet another myth may mean that the information put fourth to that social network may be sold to a corporation for advertisment purposes. Yet these myths will never last. This is because myths follow the cultural preferences of any given time or place. When the preference changes, so does the myth because the old myths become irrelevant and forgotten resulting in a new generation of beliefs and socially accepted norms that are co-developed with them.
Which way to look from? Well that's all about personal taste and user based opinions. The myth of something is not how it works and for how long but it is the value of how people are able to use it. The article points out:
"the real power of new technologies does not appear during their mythic period, when they are hailed for their ability to bring world peace, renew communities, or end scarcity, history, geography, or politics; rather, their social impact is greatest when technologies become banal - when they literally (as in the case of electricity) or figuratively withdraw into the woodwork" (19)
This article makes clear that an object that becomes obsolete is praised for its value that it had left for the new era of technology that replaced it. We accept the fact that this piece of technology or medium is no longer useful and forget about it before continuing how to better it. Thinking back, we can recall that DVDs replaces VHS tapes, how cell phones revolutionized the way people communicated, and that the home computer was something of a mystery to its user. Will Web 2.0 end up like these in the future? Only time will tell.
In the article by Vincent Mosco "When Old Myths Were New: The Never Ending Story," Mosco explains the hype surrounding "ground-breaking" technological advances and how they claim to change the way people live forever. In all eras of the telegraph, radio, and telephone, people have said that this is what would change the lives of people all over the world. Yet, these ideologies are soon forgotten once that technological brekthrough becomes a natural part of everyday life where it is later replaced with a product that is newer and more efficient. Since the emergence of Web 2.0, the generation of online commerce and smartphones would appear to have blasted people into the futuristic world in nearly a decade. Will the myth of Web 2.0 die? Like everything in this world, if it has a beginning, it will have an end. No one knows for sure how Web 2.0 will last until it is deemed obsolete making way for a new kind of online sensation that not only is self gathering of information, socially connect people, and provide information to third parties but it will be able to do much more.
In a sense, Web 2.0 is not re-created, it is merely growing but is it really what it's made out to be with all it's talk and glory? With the creation of new software to do both bad and good, it would seem that Web 2.0 has a lot to offer (and a lot to be afraid of). However, it is possible for technology to have several myths. One may include the fact that Web 2.0 connects you to other people via a social netowork, yet another myth may mean that the information put fourth to that social network may be sold to a corporation for advertisment purposes. Yet these myths will never last. This is because myths follow the cultural preferences of any given time or place. When the preference changes, so does the myth because the old myths become irrelevant and forgotten resulting in a new generation of beliefs and socially accepted norms that are co-developed with them.
Which way to look from? Well that's all about personal taste and user based opinions. The myth of something is not how it works and for how long but it is the value of how people are able to use it. The article points out:
"the real power of new technologies does not appear during their mythic period, when they are hailed for their ability to bring world peace, renew communities, or end scarcity, history, geography, or politics; rather, their social impact is greatest when technologies become banal - when they literally (as in the case of electricity) or figuratively withdraw into the woodwork" (19)
This article makes clear that an object that becomes obsolete is praised for its value that it had left for the new era of technology that replaced it. We accept the fact that this piece of technology or medium is no longer useful and forget about it before continuing how to better it. Thinking back, we can recall that DVDs replaces VHS tapes, how cell phones revolutionized the way people communicated, and that the home computer was something of a mystery to its user. Will Web 2.0 end up like these in the future? Only time will tell.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Week 2 Readings
Our biggest fear has come to life...for some more than others. We all knew machines would eventually turn on us and mericlessly murder us all on both a virtual and physical level. Every journey begins with a single step. Today, that journey begins with the internet. In an article by Tim O'Reilly and John Battelle, Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On, they discuss the largely growing of networks online that attract people looking to buy and sell, advertise and connect from all over the world to anywhere. However, it is no internet like the one it had began with. In the article, O'Reilly and Battelle go on to explain what Web 2.0 was capable of doing, stating: "It means building applications that literally get better the more people use them, harnessing network effects not only meant to acquire users, but also to learn from them and build on their contributions."
In theory, this means that the new platform connects everyone with everything that everybody has contributed giving everyone access to information, news, goods and services, and connection through social media networks, ultimately changing the way people personally interact with one another. Is this a bad thing? Its a hard question to answer on your own or atleast on my own without doing math. If Web 2.0 is about harnessing collective intelligence, then shouldn't we be running and deleting our pictures of last weeks house party before our parents see them on facebook or maybe Google? At the same time, I'm supposed to enter my financial information online so that I don't need to leave my desk to buy books at the store. Better yet, I have the power to "borrow" the online copy shared as a pdf that another student summitted online. Then I wouldn't even need to spend a cent of the $8.32 in my bank account.
The point is, Web 2.0 is neither good nor bad. It is the context by which we see it from and what we use it for that decides our place on both sides of the arguement. One thing is certain though, access to everything and everyone has never been easier. The article raises the point that the Web has moved from our home computers and into our pockets on our mobile phones. Today's smartphones have the ablity to do everything that a desktop computer can do except it does more and it litterally fits in our pocket. It doesn't occur to people that in a new age where people can walk around carrying the weight of global information in the palm of their hands.
In an article by Michael Zimmer, Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0, Zimmer points out the different perspectives that Web 2.0 can be looked at from. He raises the point that it is dangerous to put personal information online because it allows people to find and get a hold of you, but really, it is for that reason people put their information on there. People want to be found and to let people know they exist. They form an identity online that connects them with other virtual people. Without using a bunch of fancy terms and small difficult words, simply put, Zimmer explains that Web 2.0 is neither good nor bad but rather it depends entirely on your perspective and how we use the internet.
In theory, this means that the new platform connects everyone with everything that everybody has contributed giving everyone access to information, news, goods and services, and connection through social media networks, ultimately changing the way people personally interact with one another. Is this a bad thing? Its a hard question to answer on your own or atleast on my own without doing math. If Web 2.0 is about harnessing collective intelligence, then shouldn't we be running and deleting our pictures of last weeks house party before our parents see them on facebook or maybe Google? At the same time, I'm supposed to enter my financial information online so that I don't need to leave my desk to buy books at the store. Better yet, I have the power to "borrow" the online copy shared as a pdf that another student summitted online. Then I wouldn't even need to spend a cent of the $8.32 in my bank account.
The point is, Web 2.0 is neither good nor bad. It is the context by which we see it from and what we use it for that decides our place on both sides of the arguement. One thing is certain though, access to everything and everyone has never been easier. The article raises the point that the Web has moved from our home computers and into our pockets on our mobile phones. Today's smartphones have the ablity to do everything that a desktop computer can do except it does more and it litterally fits in our pocket. It doesn't occur to people that in a new age where people can walk around carrying the weight of global information in the palm of their hands.
In an article by Michael Zimmer, Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0, Zimmer points out the different perspectives that Web 2.0 can be looked at from. He raises the point that it is dangerous to put personal information online because it allows people to find and get a hold of you, but really, it is for that reason people put their information on there. People want to be found and to let people know they exist. They form an identity online that connects them with other virtual people. Without using a bunch of fancy terms and small difficult words, simply put, Zimmer explains that Web 2.0 is neither good nor bad but rather it depends entirely on your perspective and how we use the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)