Author: c.garofalo

Our Near Future

I personally find that the world is moving in the direction of digital media. I feel that we are coming incredibly dependent on the way that we communicate digitally. But, is that a bad thing? I don’t think so.

Everyone is so quick to say that digital media has tarnished the way we communicate in a face-to-face setting. While I agree to that to an extent, I find that we have opened up doors that is just plain remarkable. We are able to communicate with people from multiple different languages, from different parts of the world, and we are able to connect using one similar server.

I found a new development recently that you are able to attend virtual concerts. You will be able to go to a given location, and be able to see a concert in the most live aspect you can. I feel like thats a massive way for artists to continue their career, without stretching themselves too thin. I feel that is an advancement that needs more credit than it is currently getting.

I admire the fact that we are expanding so much technologically, that almost anyone understands the base level of digital media. We all know that most people have a smartphone, which gives them a base level of understanding. There are many ways to dive deeper into this, but not many of us do. My only fear is that if we become too dependent, will it effect our emotions?

This question brings me to recall one of my favorite TV shows, Fringe. In Fringe, there was an entire race of human/cyborgs who were the optimal human being, except they had no emotions whatsoever. They were at prime intelligence, but their ultimate downfall of their existence was the fact that they lacked empathy.

 

Do you feel advancing in digital media will benefit or society?

How far is too far when it comes to digital media?

Please Check all boxes to proceed

 

You’re signing up for a new service, you’re asked to read the terms and conditions. A screen pops up with 12+ pages long, entailing a dense document that you must agree to in order to proceed to using a service. But who actually reads it? What are we checking yes to?

Terms and Conditions may apply breaks down the items that we had signed up for, and the information that we have signed away to platforms such as Facebook and Google. You let them know where you live, what you do for a living, where you go to school. This gives each server information about your economic standing, which allows target advertisements based on how much money you have or make.

We also don’t take into account that we allow the government to track our searches on Google. Our locations, emails, online documents are not private. The terms & conditions allow the government to have the information from us.

We feel that we are free in our searches and internet uses, however we are handing off a large amount of power to our government. We give away our privacy, and it fuels the power of law enforcement, the FBI, etc. We have given them the right to pre-emptively arrest people.  We are monitored, without even thinking that we are monitored. We are essentially lab rights, and we are ignorant to our own presence.

A notable part of the documentary was when Mark Zuckerburg asked “Are you guys recording?”. “Yes.” they replied. His reply was “Will you not, please?”

A man with major social influence and success, a platform that monitors everyone’s existence, asked if he could not be filmed. When you create a large network of people, and sign away their rights to the government, you must be incredibly aware of how internet surveillance takes a tole. And thats why he asked to not be recorded.

Another part that I found interesting is the fact that since Hoback only pretended to comply with Zuckerburg’s request, isn’t that exactly the point he was trying to prove? Mark requested privacy, but Hoback didn’t give it to him. Not sure if the hypocrisy was intended, but I thought it was a very interesting part of the documentary.

A massive realization of the documentary that I find incredibly important, is the fact that the issues do not lie with Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. The problem is with us, and how apathetic we are to the fact that we know that we are giving these rights away, and we do it anyway. We don’t think about it regularly, but we are society’s own downfall.

  1. Knowing that you are giving your rights away to servers, do you feel less inclined to blindly agree to the terms & conditions?
  2. What would make you stop having an internet presence all together?

The Algorithms That Control Us

 

You’re reading this blog post right now, you probably have another window open. Listening to YouTube? Planning your Spring break? Scrolling through amazon? Carelessly looking through Facebook?

Everything that you’re doing at the moment, is being traced for data to specifically target your interests and tendencies. Is this a bad thing? Depends on the way that you look at it.

Yes, you are being surveilled, No,  you are not in danger. There are servers that are just tracking what you like, and trying to figure out website traffic. This just means that you will see advertisements for products & services that you would like to see.

“The larger question about the power relations that have shaped control over the capture and use of personal information, resulting in the trade-off between convenience and control over our personal information – remain largely outside the frame of discussion.” (Andrejevic pg. 3)

You know your discover weekly on Spotify? That’s specifically tailoring music to your interests, and tries to give you more music like the songs that you listen to. Facebook specifically puts posts to the top of your feed based off likes & posts you comment on, or even videos you have watched. The ads that you watch on YouTube are even custom tailored to something that you may want to see.

Doesn’t sound so bad right? I mean, you are literally digitally surveilling me at this exact moment. In fact, youre digitally surveilling people every single day. When you’re on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, you are surveilling all of your social media friends.

I personally like the fact that I have an algorithm that specifically caters to my interests and likes. I wouldn’t want to be seeing advertisements and posts that have nothing to do with what I like, it keeps me coming back to each website.

The digital realm acts like an electronic panopticon. You are the security guard, looking at all of your prisoners in a cell. In the digital world, you are surveilling all of the people that are posting on social media. And then those people are surveilling you. There’s an ever changing relationship between the security guard and the prisoner.

In the age of digital surveillance, our ability to download illegal content, such as songs, TV shows, & movies have been hindered. Because of copyright law, people want to be able to monetize all content that they put out, rightfully so. In recent years, we see the downfall of well-known illegal content streaming sites such as LimeWire and UTorrent. I personally had to cope with the loss of LimeWire, and had to make my switchover to Spotify. LimeWire had many things wrong with it, being a virus inducing software, it kind of caused more harm than good. But hey, free music.

This isn’t all bad thought, because digital surveillance helps keep us safe on a day to day basis. We may lose a bit of our internet freedom, but we find solace in knowing that we are protecting from internet attacks and threats.

  1. Do you feel that digital surveillance is ultimately a good or bad thing?
  2. How has digital surveillance personally impacted your life?

1 person, 2 accounts

Today I will be talking about Mike. Mike is my boyfriend and my business partner, he’s someone who has shared a large social media presence with me.

4 months ago, Mike and I started a social media platform called HANDOFF. We create short sharable content that highlights the best parts about NYC. I felt that he was an ideal person to interview because of his insight on using an account using his name, as well as being a different personality on Twitter.

C:  “What social media platform do you use now, and what social media platform did you use in the past?”

M: “I use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat regularly. Between using my personal account, and running an account that is not me, I find that there is just a huge variety of audiences out there. Under my personal account, I post what I want and I don’t have to worry about it. Under HANDOFF, I must specifically curate posts and strategically plan when I will be posting them. You gain a different perspective on social media presence, it’s almost like a science.”

C: Do you use your real name? Have you ever used aliases or created a fake account? Why?

M: “On my personal account I use my real name, just because that is what I would instinctually do, honestly. I made all of my social media accounts under my real name, because I want to create a following under my own name, under my own personality. The only time I have ever made an account not in my name was for creative endeavors, such as a youtube channel, businesses etc. I don’t see the need to make an alias account besides handoff because I wanted it to be a different entity than myself.”

C: What different personas do you construct in each of these platforms and how do they relate to aspects of your experiences in life?

M: “My twitter and snapchat are the most direct representations of who I am. On twitter I can record all of my thoughts without censor, and on Snapchat I can say anything I want. On Instagram I am more so just capturing pictures, something I like to do in my spare time, but it isn’t something that really portrays my life. Facebook I never post, it’s just something I use as an outlet to stay in the know.

On HANDOFF, I have a specially curated and strategized schedule where I post things that I wouldn’t necessarily be interested in. I post things that I feel the majority would like, and I post those things during times where I know there will be the most interaction.”

C: Do the digital personas you construct help you cope with the problems you face or does it create new problems? In what ways?

M: “I’m not necessarily sure what problems it would make me face, there aren’t any real problems on my personal account that I am trying to cope with. This only creates a problem on our business account when we need new content to post daily. This has created an urgency in order to stay relevant.”

This interview has really brought me to a point that I saw in Turkle’s article. “The Internet is another element of the computer culture that has contributed to thinking about identity as multiplicity. On it, people are able to build a self by cycling through many selves (pg.178).” Speaking from Mike’s responses in my own since we both share these accounts, we are both entirely different entities on our personal accounts, as opposed to how we act on our HANDOFF business accounts. On his own personal accounts, he is generally himself without having to censor his own content. On our other account, we have crafted a different personality for this account to hold, so it would be more conducive for the image of the business.

This also reminds me of a point in chapter 5, when Antique states “In the distinctive out-of-body experience of online gaming, the body once again takes centre stage in a symbolic form” (pg. 73). While this isn’t gaming, you are still immersing yourself into a digital world in which your out of body personality is living a life that most people don’t even understand beyond face value. They see your posts, tweets, pictures etc. and they don’t even know who you are or what you are actually even doing, they don’t know the behind the scenes of this.

 

Do you think it’s problematic for people to have different personalities online that differ from their own?

What advantages do you think there is for hiding your identity from the internet?

A Look Into The Future: Snapchat Spectacles

 

As many people may have heard, Snapchat Spectacles have been blowing up across the internet. We first heard about the concept when we started yellow photo booths op up in major cities across the USA.

Photo Credit

The writer tries to share an insider input of information, providing the reader with information from a notable source. The writer also then shares their input by stating in the article: ” “But if you’re looking for great video quality, stick with a camera or smartphone. The clips are low-res and really jerky — shooting from your eyes doesn’t allow for any steadiness help from the hands….But then again, no one is buying Spectacles for great video quality. They want Spectacles because they’re colorful, cool and for the time being”. I sense that the writer is trying to conclude that we don’t necessarily need something just because it’s trending or popular.

The evidence in the article used is pictures of the Spectacles, a photo of the yellow photo booth used to buy the Spectacles, and a short tech video describing and reviewing the product.

The evidence is analyzed by the reviewer, Jefferson Graham who shared his input on the Spectacles. It personifies the article by sharing the prospective of a seemingly reputable individual, to verify the information that is being portrayed in the article.

The conclusion to this article is that it’s ultimately not worth it to buy something just because it’s trending or rare. It’s not that convincing because it states how the product is low res and jerky, but that it’s fun and that you should try it anyway. What? Why would I try this product anyway? Why would I spend $129 on a product when I could literally use my smart phone to complete the same function?

There isn’t much validity in this article, because I did find a contradiction when the reviewer was telling me how low quality this product was, but then proceeded to tell me to buy it anyway. It was degrading because it felt like it was an effortless attempt at advertising, and that people should just buy it because this reviewer told me to.

I feel that Manovich’s new media principles of numerical representation and modularity. I feel this related to numerical representation when he stated

“As I will show, new media follows, or actually runs ahead of, a quite different logic of post-industrial society-that of individual customization, rather than mass standardization.” (pg.30) I feel that this very strongly aligns with what Snapchat has done, by creating a new media that is so ahead of it’s time, alongside products i.e. Google Glass. Manovich also explains “Many new media objects are in fact computer programs that follow structural programming style.” (pg. 31) Clearly, Snapchat would have to be a modular programming style or it could not be updated or have constant changing filters. A product like this would have to be modular, or no one would be inclined to buy it.

  1. Did this article make you interested in the product, or did you find the article contradicting?
  2. Did you find the evidence provided by the article to be convincing and captivating?

An Hour Today vs. An Hour Yesterday

It’s often hard to realize just how much time that you actually spend skimming through Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. What did you do when you were a kid? How did you spend an hour? I bet you were self-invested in a video game or a book, similar to how you are today.

 

Photo by Carly Garofalo

I constantly find myself skimming, especially through Facebook and Instagram, mainly because I have my own social media platform, @Handoff. The platform was designed to highlight the most interesting parts of NYC, without breaking the bank. Our platform specifically targets people who are trying to have a good time in New York, and explore different parts of the city they may never have even heard of. I am constantly surfing though social media to uncover the top trending, and most interesting parts of NYC per week. While doing so, I find that an hour only feels like minutes, and how so much of my time is wasted while searching through a digital realm. When I put what I do now into prospective, I cannot imagine how my platform would even exist.

 

$10 OPEN BAR (CALICO JACKS)

$10 for 2 hours of UNLIMITED alcohol in NYC!

Posted by HANDOFF on Friday, November 11, 2016

Video from Handoff by Carly Garofalo

 

The only way that people learn about things prior to a social media age was through commercials via the radio and television, and through ad’s in the newspaper. Looking up pictures and hashtags and creating social videos would simply, not exist. These activities that I partake in specifically only exist because of digital media. I often laugh at people who do not simply understand social media, and the massive influence that it has over our society today. Most people find it “sad” or “pathetic” when they see people posting pictures of their food, but like myself, I understand that these people are taking advantage of a new market of advertising that didn’t exist before. Right now, businesses are able to take advantage of something called immaterial labor, where people simply do the advertising for the business with virtually no pay. People take pictures of the product, hashtag and attract a swarm of people who have just retweeted and shared, and have essentially just done the advertising for the business, for FREE.

Computerization and digitization improve human activity in a multitude of ways. The internet has become a platform in which people communicate socially and has, essentially, become a way of life for most people. Computerization has manifested in our lives, almost anyone you see nowadays has a smartphone, as well as also having a laptop or a tablet. We essentially cannot get through a day without using a computer-like device. We see digitization everyday when someone posts a photo, when they post a video or they share an article. It puts things into prospective when prior to a digital age, we would just simply be taking these pictures for our own enjoyment. We wouldn’t be sharing articles, we would be reading articles in the newspaper or magazine, the videos we would be seeing would be on TV. We definitely see digitization in current day, now more than ever.

Couldry, Introduction digital media and social theory

Couldry states in the article an apparent consequence of media. He brings up an interesting point, that even if it isn’t the smartphone or the tablet, years ago it was the news paper. There has always been something that has been stealing the attention of the consumer, and has made it’s mark on society.

“There is a long history of wonder at media’s role in transforming social scale. In the early twentieth century, it was the newspaper that astounded Gabriel Tarde: “even if the book made all who read it . . . feel their philological identity, it ws not concerned with questions both current and simultaneously exciting to everybody . . . it is the newspaper that fired national life, stirs up united movements of minds and wills” (Pg. 25 “On What Scale do Media Have Consequences?”)

The negative consequence of digitization and computerization is becoming way too reliant on devices and social media feeds. We expect that when we log onto Facebook, we are getting our fill of social media posts, as well as up to date articles about what is happening in our world. We often do not look beyond the platforms that are convenient for us, we often don’t research anything we find on Facebook because we expect it all to be there for us.

Overall, I do think that the digital revolution was a groundbreaking period for our generation, and I DO think that it has benefited us majorly. While we may have gotten too dependent on certain aspects of it, we have created a convenient and an ever-advancing part of our society. We are incredibly advanced as a species, and we are only getting smarter and more enhanced. Digital media is a fascinating part of our lives, and I feel that it is important to embrace it, rather than take it for granted.

Is this the peak of Digital Revolution? Or have we always been advancing in a Digital Revolution?

Are we better off as a species to be this connected and intertwined? Or was it better to have no external communication than face-to-face?