Author Archives: Damla

Summary of Activity on this Site


Number of Posts: 12
Number of Comments: 5

tinder, okcupid, and match.com

This semester, I am taking a class called Contemporary Issues in Digital Media. Each of us had to do a 10-minute presentation about, you guessed in, a contemporary issue in digital media. Yesterday, a student presented about the false pretense of security that certain dating websites offer–specifically, match.com. I just thought it was interesting and I wanted to share what she said with all y’all.

So Tinder, OKCupid, and Match.com are all owned by the same NYC-based Internet company. IAC, which is owned by Barry Diller, has kept a relatively clean rep over the years. There were some issues with former-PR executive Justine Sacco and a racist tweet, but otherwise, squeaky clean. It kind of surprises me that IAC engages in the kind of deception that it does.

One would think that a company that manages three (seemingly) vastly different dating sites knows  a little something about online dating. For example, Match.com chargers a pretty sizable fee for monthly use, but its Terms and Conditions do not do the users any favors. Despite the fact that users have to pay, it’s not really a legit dating site as IAC might have them believe. People make fun of OKCupid a lot because stuff like this happens:

http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles/how-find-out-if-online-profile-fake

http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles/how-find-out-if-online-profile-fake

But it’s liable to happen on Match.com too! Match.com has a tendency to mindlessly approve fake profiles. Whether or not you believe in the validity of online dating, be wary of the platform you use.

 

 

 

the ever-controversial snapchat update

Snapchat is an app that allows you to exchange photos with your friends, but those photos only last for a maximum of 10 seconds. You can draw on the photo with a paint tool, you can add text, or you can put the photo through a series of filters. The other person can always take a screenshot of your photo, but because of the time constraint, it’s a little difficult. It was developed by Evan Spiegel and Robert Murphy and was launched in July of 2011.

Those of you who are ill Snapchat feens like myself are probably familiar with the recent update to the interface and services offered. In addition to the aforementioned features, Snapchat now offers a built-in text messaging function, as well as a video call function. According to an article posted on The Verge, “[Spiegel and co.’s] hope is to make video chats feel serendipitous, like a fleeting encounter on a street corner instead of a Skype call planned days in advance.” (http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/1/5670260/real-talk-the-new-snapchat-makes-texting-fun-again-video-calls, accessed 5/15/14) That same article goes on to praise the update, but I happen to feel differently.

Personally, I think the developers over at Snapchat are trying way too hard. The update was really unnecessary, and I do not foresee myself ever using either the messaging or the video call. It’s a mobile app–I can just as easily text my friends. I’m also skeptical of the reasoning behind adding the video call function. It’s supposed to have some sort of metaphorical resonance, but I don’t get it. Maybe it’s just me?

Instead of putting time and energy towards ridiculous updates, perhaps Snapchat ought to actually address the security breach that compromised 4.6 million users back in January. According to an article posted on digitaltrends.com, the whole issue then was that hackers leaked the usernames and phone numbers of those Snapchatters. To compensate, Snapchat released an update that allowed users to keep their phone numbers private from there on in, but that’s really not enough. Clearly, their team of developers needs to focus on making more changes to the infrastructure for security purposes. (http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/snapchat-apologiozes-for-security-breach-and-rolls-out-fix/#!NIJFf, accessed 5/15/14)

hw assignment no. 5

What practical steps have you taken or are you thinking of taking to make sure that you don’t find yourself trapped in a filter bubble or in a situation where you are giving up more personal information on the web than you’d like?

In terms of avoiding getting trapped in a filter bubble, I try to get my information from a variety of sources. Whether it be news articles, features of educational value, or even shopping deals, I do not really on one website to keep me informed. For example, even though I fall on the hyper-liberal end of the political spectrum, I read more than just The New York Times and TIME. I don’t like to rely on the likes of Buzzfeed for news either. (For the record, I try to only turn to Buzzfeed for leisurely purposes–basically just to kill time with pointless quizzes.) I follow a diverse group of people on Twitter, and when I try to fact-check news bytes that I come across in tweets. On a social level, I try to talk different kinds of people not only to help me broaden my worldview, but also so that they can introduce me to new things.

Going forward, just so I feel more comfortable with how much personal information I’ve unwittingly put on the Web over the years, I will try and read the Terms and Conditions of every new website/service I sign up for. When websites change the Terms and Conditions on me, I will actually try and pay attention. Furthermore, I will try and take advantage of stopdatamining.me, which tells users what websites broker their information and how to remove their information accordingly.

generation like

I’ll be honest—I didn’t really like Generation Like, though I’m still having a little trouble digesting all of the ideas presented. Unlike Digital Nation, which frustrated me to no end, Generation Like hit a little bit closer to home. I am newly 19, so I guess I still qualify as a teen? I can’t figure out if I’m supposed to be one of the troubled kids that Doug Rushkoff and the other experts constantly refer back to.

Personally, I do not consider likes to be a currency. The favorites I get on my tweets do not validate my existence. I do not take social media seriously enough for it to make that much of an impact on my self-worth. That being said, I definitely know people who value and internalize likes. I don’t think social media encourage one type of behavior or another; they just amplify a user’s pre-existing desires. It’s a matter of perception.

Rushkoff talks about teens like he knows what’s best for them, but they deserve a lot more credit than what he’s giving them. I hope he doesn’t think that all teen friend groups sit around the table and help each other develop their social media brands. (That was a little weird, it has to be some sort of social anomaly.) There’s a difference between what those teens were doing—cultivating their personal brands for the sake of likes—and what Tyler Oakley does.

I’m not a fan of Oakley’s work. I’m glad that he’s doing well for himself, but I feel like the Web is over-saturated with his presence and I’m sick of it. Apparently, he knows how  to play the game though. In fact, he’s self-aware enough that he can give corporate presentations. However, when “Ceili Everdeen” spends four to five hours daily promoting The Hunger Games via all her social media platforms, it’s the game that’s playing her. I don’t think it’s about “fame by association,” rather feeling engaged.

Oakley makes actual money because he endorses these brands in his videos in a way that’s transparent but still productive. Ceili earns sparks because she makes GIFS on Tumblr or shares a Facebook post on a friend’s wall. I’m moderately sure that Ceili knows the difference between sparks and money; fangirling is not an occupation. There’s a lot of layers to the issue that Rushkoff presents, but I don’t think he does it justice. Though the economy of likes is thoroughly stratified, he seems to want to treat Oakley, Ceili, and the kids from Jersey gathered around the table meticulously planning out their profiles all the same.

The economic underbelly of the Web has always confused me, and Generation Like only added to that confusion. To balance that with a little more positivity, I do like Rushkoff’s style as a documentarian. He’s very good at smooth transitions and developing an ideological arc.

watts and strogatz

Watts and Strogatz cited 27 sources of their own, and were  themselves cited 8,709 times. 23.926% of these citations fell under physics multidisciplinary, where 25.592% fell under physics mathematical. 4.047% fell under computer science information systems. The top three authors that cite Watts and Strogatz. There is an upward trend in these citations, with 13.942% of them occurring in 2013. The three top authors who cite Watts and Strogatz are Chen Gr, Wang Bh, and Zhou T. It seems that this article is more based in mathematical/physics theory. Shirky took their findings and applied them to suit his own needs in terms of technosociology.

“why the social media generation never really breaks up”

A friend of mine linked me to this article from New York Magazine, which details the difficulty of moving on post-break up in the face of social media activity.

This is something we’re all of aware of on some level. If you’ve had a falling out with a partner, or even a friend, you still see them pop up on your social media feeds. You see their selfies on Instagram, the pictures their friends tag them in on Facebook, their tweets about going out, etc. Even though this person no longer has a constant physical presence in your life (or maybe they do, in which case the effect is amplified), you can still keep of track them. Whether you want to or not.

To reverse that equation, you may be so used to interacting with this person on social media that you accidentally continue to do so, even after the break up. After my last break-up, i found myself actively seeking out my ex’s activity on Facebook. I sent him Snapchats out of sheer habit. 

Erasing an ex is no simple task. Blocking has implications — do you want your ex to know you’re that agitated by their social media presence that you have to block them? Facebook gives you the option of unfollowing your ex’s posts, which is less of a statement than unfriending your ex altogether.

This article doesn’t go into the algorithms that, say, Facebook may use to determine just how close you are with your friends. If Facebook doesn’t know that you and your ex have broken up, it might continue to rank them as one of your “closer” friends.

How do you move on when you still have to make these complex decisions about your ex’s social media activity?

The New York Times: Web vs. Online

James Johnson, Damla Bek, Maricia Newton, William Wong

The content published uniquely in this (obviously daily) newspaper is what’s submitted by the deadline. Some articles—especially time-sensitive ones—are available online before they can actually be put in print for the next day’s edition. The website is updated in real time, as reflected by the Times‘ coverage of the Olympics. There are also videos available on the Times website, though this is obviously not feasible in print.

There’s no search bar in the print edition, so you have to leaf through the pages carefully. Since the print edition is actually tangible, you can use it for other things after you have no use for it anymore. You have easy access to old articles/editions through the website, and the online articles also have hyperlinks. Contractions must be printed in the next day’s edition, but online the articles can easily be updated to reflect false reporting.

In terms of aesthetics, the website, is more user-friendly. There are blogs as well as a New York Times store. The print paper is kind of impenetrable and unwieldy, whereas the website is far easier to manage and navigate. More than that, advertisements are the glue of the print edition. Lastly, when stories from the front page are continued on other pages, more often than not, you have to go searching for it.

The Times website has comments sections open on each article, allowing users to share their input. There also buttons so you can conveniently share whatever article you please via email, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, or Reddit. This makes the website a little more interactive for readers.

Given that subscription to the daily delivery of the Times is more expensive than solely digital access, we would imagine that wealthier people tend to read the paper in print. Environmentalists and people who use smart technology might favor the online edition.

 

 

clifford nass

Nass, Clifford, and Youngme Moon. “Machines And Mindlessness: Social Responses To Computers.” Journal Of Social Issues 56.1 (2000): 81. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.

Database: SocINDEX with Full Text (via EBSCOhost)

spoken word about life in the digital age

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY88nAbrn9Y#aid=P9ofHV2I-oY

Awhile ago, as I was wading through a sea of slam poetry videos, I came across this well-done, poignant piece about technology overuse. It raises a lot of important issues that I, even in my own optimism, am still grappling with and working through.

I don’t think this poem is necessarily an attack on technology. Technology, like pretty much every other source of good in the world, ought to be used in moderation; too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing. As I understand it, this is more of a reflection (or maybe even a warning?) on what happens when you let it consume you.

I’ve always thought the Internet not only as a piece of information technology, but also in terms of an organic network of (slightly-modified) people. But the alternative presented in this video is a future with people-turned-robots who have lost all sense of humanity. Not to sound dismissive, but I just don’t understand that deterministic perspective that comes into play so often. The Internet is shaped by its users, not the way other way around. What matters is that those users are capable of self-control and critical thought (which I like to think we all are, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to have these kinds of conversations). The Internet cannot transcend us.

Marshall Soulful Jones is right. Touch is good. Human contact is good. Connecting with people face-to-face is good. But so is being able to Skype your relatives halfway across the world. So is being able to virtually and freely sit in on course taught at Harvard. You just have to be able to maintain equilibrium and know your limits, that’s all.  I mean, that’s probably easier said than done. But the point I’m trying to make is that nobody should be too resistant to change.

thinking ’bout clay shirky

I came into this course with previous knowledge of Clay Shirky’s work. We watched one of his many TED talks in my ENG 2150H class, and I also had to profile him/his ideas for SOC 3085. I was really excited about our text, because I tend to agree with Shirky on the majority of his ideas about the Internet. Many will argue that he’s far too idealistic, but his positivity really resonates with me.*

As we delve further into Here Comes Everybody, I thought it would be useful for us to get a better sense of how Shirky perceives the Internet’s capacity for good.

[ted id=896]

This TED Talk is especially empowering. Shirky talks about this idea of “cognitive surplus,” which, as I understand it, basically asserts that we are more than the sum of our parts; you are my resource and I am yours. If together we devote our enough free time and enough effort towards a collaborative project, we can be productive and successful. I appreciate that Shirky addresses the broad spectrum of participation. I was thinking about it, and nobody I know is really a passive consumer, because we can just as easily share and create things too. To compare: engaging in the realm of the Internet is activity, watching TV is a passivity.

I like the idea that we are all connected through the Internet, which is why I’ve always thought of such technology as a kind of extension of humanity. And above all, I’m tired of alarmist, anti-Internet ideologies that depict us (millennials more so than any other generation) as incapable of focusing, thinking, innovating, etc. To tie that in with the concept of cognitive surplus, I would say that the Internet allows us to work and think in tandem, but still leaves enough room for individual development.

*Okay, I’m rereading this post and realizing that I may sound a bit overzealous. Therefore, I think it’s prudent for me to say that I disagree with a lot of the points that Shirky brings up in chapter 3 of our text, especially in reference to the journalism industry. But that’s a post for another time.

professor cheryl smith

According to her biography on the English Department’s website, Professor Smith is a voice of authority in the fields of composition, environmental literature, and early literature. She has produced a number of publications. For example, in terms of environmental literature, she published an essay titled “Giving Voice to the Novice Authority: Silent Spring in the Composition Classroom” in the anthology Teaching North American Environmental Literature. This is her Twitter. Her biography indicates that she is writing another book as well.

the library!

When I think about the library, I think of…the Midwood branch of the Brooklyn Public Library system.

I grew up in that library, I have over 300 community service hours clocked in at that library. And as of last fall, I am part-time employee of that library. It’s all kind of come full circle for me.



Comments:

"The fact that privacy is packaged and sold as a commodity is really alarming to me. But websites like datamining.me offer the same kinds of services free of charge, no? I also wonder if the companies who sell privacy are deceiving their customers. Either way, the people whose privacy is being violated are always at the bottom rung of the power structure."
posted on May 15, 2014, on the post Has Privacy Become a Luxury Good?

"I will admit that I'm a little biased -- I adoringly keep up with Kimye. I love how much Kanye loves Kim (see: the video for Bound 2) and how he gushes over North. That being said, I don't really see anything wrong this photo shoot. I know Vogue is getting a lot flack for featuring the world's most talked about couple on the cover, but still. I don't really see anything wrong with Kanye taking a picture of his kid and his soon-to-be wife."
posted on Mar 25, 2014, on the post Vanity Fair in Vogue?

"I think Google Glass is pretty fetching already, but as that initiative expands the eyewear will probably become more aesthetically appealing. They're already looking into making Google Glass available with prescription lenses. Anyway, the concept of technological couture is really interesting. This could totally be the next big thing; I have a feeling people would take to really quickly. But because it's in its infancy, it doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose beyond coolness for its own sake."
posted on Feb 24, 2014, on the post Technological Couture

"I was actually really excited about Facebook's decision to expand the gender options. Again, I think it's important to differentiate between sex and gender, and I appreciate that Facebook is sort of encouraging its users to think critically about that distinction and the way it applies in their own lives. Maricia, I don't think that Facebook is trying to make things complicated. It's more an issue of representation and actually having the means to assert your gender identity in the first place. It also helps your friends and family understand the intricacies of your identity a little better."
posted on Feb 23, 2014, on the post Facebook Expands Gender Choice Options

"I love how quiet the fifth floor of the library is, especially early in the mornings."
posted on Jan 30, 2014, on the post Private: Library