Is Google Making Us Stupid?

    In an article by Nicholas Carr, Is Google Making Us Stupid?, Carr discusses the downside of using Web 2.0 as a medium to access mass information. He argues that using search engines such as Google, distract the viewer from the content of the information that he or she is viewing. Carr also suggests that the amount of information that people are absorbing is slowly decreasing the attention span of Web 2.0 users. In a quote by Carr from his article, he admits to the fact that he, himself, has noticed a significant change in the way he thinks and analyzes information he sees on the web.

"...Media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski." (Carr, 2008)

From Carr's perception, users of Web 2.0 are unknowingly having the carpet pulled out from under them. He urges caution and concern for heavy internet users who continually absorb and contribute to the database of the web. Yet, Carr proves this to be a difficult feat to the extent that internet users are addicted to the convenience of the internet's mass information accessibility. Google is robbing people of their very own attention spans. People may or may not believe this to be true but it's possible that Google, as a universal medium of acquiring an infinite amount of information, is depriving people of keeping their attention on specific topics and information; not in the real world but in the digital one.

Although this concern for people's mental abilities to keep in check may be in for some change, it is not necessarily a bad thing that this new medium of Web 2.0 has so much to offer. Looking at it from the perspective of cause and affect, we may agree that the web has a lot to offer society in terms of information and accessibility. However, as a result, the only trade-off people may have to come to terms with is their ability to keep interested in the infinite amount of information they have access to at their finger tips. Perhaps this effect of attention loss may not be the most unsettling but really, it could be merely a trade off for acquiring more information. Although some people might find themselves spending less time on one page than another, the amount of information they may find themselves skimming through may hold something more to offer than the last. In short, I believe that people may find Web 2.0 to help them acquire more information than less even if it means that information isn't as specific or in depth as people may find it from reading a book or article.

Carr suggests that the new forms of today's media are re-shaping and reprogramming the way people learn, function, and think. He argues that the old forms of media will have to adapt to keep up with the new forms or become irrelevant and forgotten. It is the main reason people are finding a lack of interest in much of the media they consume today. "The Net’s influence doesn’t end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations. Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets." (Carr, 2008)

Making New Media Make Sense

       After reading the second chapter of Nancy Baym's book "Personal Connections in the Digital Age," Baym gives readers an in depth explaination behind the introduction of a new digital medium. She discusses the meaning behind the technologies people use for communication and whether or not that medium is a suitable one for use. In order to do this, she suggests that people must first look at a medium from a personal, cultural, and historical stand point in order to make proper judgement. Baym suggests that concerns over new technology is present because people feel that their privacy is violated even within their own homes because of the vast amount of information Web 2.0 is designed to collect and distribute. Baym states: "In addition to technological qualities, social qualities also shape the anxieties we have and the questions we pose about new communication technologies." (Baym 22) Yet at the same time, these insecurities brought fourth by technology may only be cause by it's lack of understanding or fear of the unknown.

      As much as people would like to hate the fact that digital medium like Web 2.0 are taking information from them, people should realize that this is why the medium was designed the way it is to make it easier for everyone in the long run. If the medium had no information to distribute or collect, it's purpose of existing would be ultimately defeated. These features of Web 2.0 are nessessary for the finding and connecting of people and groups and people like it because of it. It's purpose is to make finding people, things, and business easy to find. We cannot help if there are some people we don't want finding us but we can't blame the machine for allowing them to do that. In having a digital identity, there are risks just like there are in real life. These anxieties can be developed through the interpersonal relationships we develope through online interaction. An interesting quote, "When we talk about technology, we are sharing the visions, both optimistic and anxious, through which modern societies cohere[...]the desires and concerns of a given social context and the preoccupations of particular moments in history." (Sturken & Thomas, 2004:I)

      It would seem that with every piece of new technology comes something else to be worried about. However, I don't personally think that this anxiety that people are feeling is directed at the technology itself as much as it is at the stess of social reform and the rapid changing of the way people communicate. Though, Baym had raised the point that the more people connect over these mediums, the more people change as users and creators of new innovations.

"There is a strong tendancy, especially when technologoes are new, to view them as casual agents, entering societies as active forces of change that human have little power to resist. This perspective is known as technological determinism[...]A second perspective, the social contruction of technology, argues that people are the primary sources of change in both technology and society.  The social shaping perspectives sees influence as flowing in both directions. Ultimately, over time, people stop questioning individual technologies. Through the process of domestication, they become taken-for-granted parts of everyday life, no longer seen as agents of change." (Baym 24)

      For some, technology poses itself as a new oppertunity to connect with others. For others, it is seen as a way to re-invent themselves as a new identity, whether it be the same as their identity offline or not is irrelevant. Web 2.0 gives people the chance to re-invent themselves in a new light for the future and as a part of the future. If someone decides that the technology of Web 2.0 is insufficient, then they are inspired to create something better which is precisely what Baym is talking about when we discuss the myth of technological progress. We constantly change our technology while technology is constantly changing us. Whether or not we believe change is good or bad is relative. It is up for you to decide.

New Forms of Personal Connection

       Over the past decade we find ourselves finding eachother a lot easier than we did in the 1990's. Remember the car phone? I remember my dad's old Cadillac had one back in 1990. I honestly thought it was the coolest thing since bright colored shoes. Those were the days...when cell phones needed to be carried around in cases and nobody knew how to use a home computer. Unfortunately (or fortunately) those days are long gone and now people are digitally connected to eachother from nearly anywhere in the world (and it fits in their pocket). Since the emergence of Web 2.0 and new forms of personal connection, people will find it is rather difficult to stay hidden as long as they're stuck to a computer or smart phone. Now we find ourselves communicating nearly all the time but should we be concerned at the way people have resorted to communicating? That texting has become more popular than actually talking face to face. We've all found ourselves in the same situation. We need immediate answers or opinions and choose to text our friends, co-workers, and famly as opposed to actually talking to them over the phone or face to face. But why? To be honest, I have no idea.

      In Nancy Baym's book, "Making New Media Make Sense," she discusses the new emergence of digital mediators that allow people to connect with eachother from anywhere at any time. She explains that there are two different cultural perspectives that this technology may be looked at from. From one side, people might see this as an issue because it is making communication between people more and more shallow, less engaging, and even threaten the sanctity of people's relationships. From the other perspective, it is seen as an easier way to communicate as well as make room for new oppertunities to connect and communicate. Baym argues that either way, people are realizing that this new form of communicating is rapidly changing the way people communicate with eachother through social connections.

      Baym discusses the disappearance of technology through social norms. Once we have held onto a particular peice of technology, it becomes old, worn out, and obsolete. Even still, although this product has lost it's hype, people are constantly using the same method of communication that the product provided. I came across an interesting quote in her book, "When they are new, technologies affect how we see the world, our communities, our relationships, and our selves. They lead to social and cultural reorganization and reflection." (Baym, 2) In a world like ours, we can barely remember what it used to be like when there was no such thing as Facebook, Twitter, Blackberry, or even video games (let alone the awesomeness of multiplayer online). With new media comes new people living in a new world, a world where distance or time is not a factor when someone wants to connect with someone else and where new technology and innovation lead to endless possibilities for Web 2.0 and human interaction. We are inspired to constantly improve, progress, and create for the better of society and for ourselves.

      I think that it is also important to not get caught up with just how addiciting this technology can be. Things like Facebook and Youtube become common distractions and eventually take up most of our time. While Web 2.0 is a machine capable of collecting information, we find ourselves incapable of staying away from it for a short period of time. So comes the struggle for control. Does the machine really control us as much as we'd hate to think? A fitting quote was read from Baym's book: "If negative outcomes can be traced to technological causes, then they can be eliminated with better technology." (Baym 27) Does this mean that we've trapped ourselves in a world of machines? That we've become so addicted to technology that we are physically unable to function without it? This all seems a little far-fetched but it really makes you ask yourself how long we could go without cell phones or internet. We did it in the past didn't we? Wouldn't we be able to do it again? ...No. We gone too far down the rabbit hole...and I think we're totally F'd if somehow we found ourselves totally disconnected. I'd have to agree with Nancy when she says more technology is the only way out because we, too, are like machines; machines programmed to communicate by the most efficient and fastest way we know how. There's no way we'd be able to suddenly quit technology and Web 2.0 cold turkey. However, like our technology, there is no looking back. There is only what the future of Web 2.0 hold for us.

Personal Connections In the Digital Age Conclusion: The Myth of Cyberspace

      In the conclusion of Nancy Baym's book, "Personal Connections in the Digital Age," Nancy discusses the prospect of trying to interpret the new social media that is yet to come in the future of Web 2.0. She explains that the new technology will surround us through our peers, the news, and through various forms of social media, making it something nearly impossible to ignore. However, she makes it sound like something that will eventually run the world we live in whether it be through commerce, education, or basic forms of communication and therefore is imparative that we must be able to interpret and understand the messages behind popular media instead of only looking at it from a face value for what it is.
      She goes on in detail as to the fundamentals of communication through face to face interaction and how technology is slowly deteriorating the relationship people have through physical interaction because of how little people are actually communicating on a physical level. Interestingly enough, she brings up the "niether bad nor good" aspect of Web 2.0. Her quote "Thus we see concerns that mediated communication damages our ability to have face to face conversation, degrade language, undermines our connections to our communities and families, and replaces meaningful relationships with shallow subsitutions." It is almost scary as to how correct Nancy is when she discusses theses issues. We would often deny and disregard these statements as untrue or as a wild opinion, but rather we remember the odd couple that "maintain" their long distance relationship through the frequent Skype dates and video chats when both of them are living on different sides of the country and only see eachother maybe twice a year. Things like this are rarely thought about but is it really stupid or is it a romantic way of showing how love cannot be defeated in a digital age? I'm going to have to go with the latter.

      To be fair, we won't blame it on the internet for being there. It was never meant to be a place for social use as it was a way to store information that was accessable to anyone. Yet, we just seem to surprise ourselves with the way it turned out. I don't personally believe the internet would be as fun or interesting without the level of social human interaction we see on there on a daily basis and amusing ourselves with whatever crude material was posted last minute by a total stranger. The big question is: Why do we bother? This is exactly the answer Baym is trying to get at. She suggests that people need to look over the concrete qualities of previous mediums and forms of communication in order to understand how and why they have expanded or have been replaced. As a result of this, people are finding new ways to communicate and share ideas and information. In doing so, we are creating new identities and personalities in the digital world.

      Baym does not make judgement as to how people choose to communicate but rather she is more concerned about who's communicating, in which context, what their purposes are, and what their expectations are. She suggests that mediated interaction between people through technology should only be used if nessessary, when distance and time are factors or obstacles that keep people apart in which case the use of mediated communication should be used. New media for personal connection get people to think about the social norms we do not fully appreciate and get people to realize it. It gets us to think of new ways to improve them as well as improve ourselves. In making improvements to ourselves, we are making improvements to Web 2.0 by constantly sharing our ideas and information across it just like I am now. To understand ourselves, we must first understand Web 2.0.

Growing Up Digital, Wired For Distraction

      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.

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.

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.