Written by Mark Blankenship, “How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education“, discusses how the Internet and social media can affect learning. Blankenship introduces the article by stating he is a professor and that he had talked to a class through the use of Skype. He claims, “except for the fact that I never shared a physical space with them, my experience with the students was remarkably similar to the experience I’ve had
with students in the actual world.” This idea that a professor can teach a class
without leaving his home through the use of the Internet is intriguing. This not
only opens potentials for education but poses questions in terms of social media
relationships. In his description of teaching a class through Skype, Blankenship
mentioned that this experience was difficult because he could not make eye contact with the students. This concept is not only literal as he could only look at the camera and not convey a personal contact with the students, but metaphorically as well. This statement
shows the impact of social media on individuals’ personal relationships. When one uses the social media sites to communicate, though they are “talking” with another individual, how meaningful is the connection when they cannot make a face to face connection, such as eye contact?

Blankenship also addresses the use of Internet resources in education. One example he states is the use of the Internet to help students participate in class. Blankenship claims,
“students who don’t share in class, who maybe don’t feel comfortable talking,
might feel comfortable writing.” this is an interesting point as he also states that the use of Internet  resources can help increase the interest of students. I believe that if used in conjunction with a class, social media and the internet’s resources as a whole can help a class he more intriguing and enriching.

In Jeffrey Rosen’s article “The Web Means the End of Forgetting” he discusses the inerasable memory of the web. The article introduces a woman who was a victim of how the internet can harm a person’s image. The internet is an on-going, live record of every little thing we do, say, and think. We may think we have deleted something of our facebook, twitter, or blog page but some other person may have already saved that little piece of information we are trying to forget forever. That is the problem with many social outlets. Unless we limit the access of our information to the public then anyone can use the information we put our there to do some kind of harm, whether it be personal or business related. We may think that the information we share on the internet is innocent or fun and can’t really be taken in a negative way. But what one person may perceive as positive another may interpret as negative and offensive.

Then again, we are also responsible for the information we choose to share on the internet. If we think for a second that anything we post or discuss on the internet can’t come to bite us in the butt, then we are all sadly mistaken. A person cannot act as a victim or cry for help when something on the internet is linked to them. One needs to take ownership for any content they share on the internet, good or bad.

In “The Untapped Potential of Social Media“, Natch Greyers  examines the use of
social media in political campaigns. According to Greyers, the strategic use of social media sites can benefit a politician running for office. He claims, “campaigns that continue to send impersonal messages out into the new media environment are wasting their time and money, while savvier operatives are advised to develop messages targeted to the
specific interest and sensibility of potential supporters in the new media
sphere.” The author provides the example of President Obama’s campaign that
included YouTube videos and Facebook. In addition, using these outlets can help the politician to counteract any bad publicity is being spread about them.

I agree with Greyers’ view that social media can benefit a political campaign
when used to be marketed toward a specific group. This can be a good tool to
spread a campaign to a different demographic, such a younger age group that can
vote but are not informed as to the positions of the politicians. In the Obama
campaign in 2008, it seemed that Obama’s use of social media appealed to a
younger demographic that in turn voted for him. As Natch Greyers mentioned that
campaign ads on webpages, I thought of the overall debate regarding the
advertisements that take keywords from webpages to determine the ad. This can be
viewed as an invasion of privacy and might be associated as spam when one is
trying to avoid such displays, which can have a negative effect on the campaign.  Greyers predicts that for the 2012 campaign, the clever politicians will use social media even more to promote their campaign. It will be interesting to see how this will affect the
outcome of the race if perhaps both politicians use this method but in different
ways.

In “The buzz on social media“, Elfrieda Abbe discusses ways in which authors use
social media sites to promote their works. Abbe interviewed six authors to see
what they thought abbot these sites and how they used them to their advantage.
The majority of the authors have a personal social media account and another one
for their work. One author, David Farley, uses social media sites to post
historical facts regarding a concept he discusses in his book. Another
individual, Pamela Skillings, views social media as a great contribution to her success. According to Skillings “social media present amazing opportunities to connect with clients and influencers, who can help you build your business.” All of the authors agree that social media can definitely help a writer increase recognition and promote their work. An
interesting point that Skillings makes is that “success in social media requires
authenticity, but too much authenticity can compromise your brand as a
professional. You have to find the right balance.” This point is valid as social
media sites require a balance in various aspects. One must find a balance
between what to share and what not to share, and also how much to share wiu
individuals they may not know in real life. These authors work at finding that
balance by having 2 accounts, a personal one and an account geared toward self
promotion. An additional point David Farley makes is that overusing social media
can become negative. This goes along with the idea that social media requires a
balance and using it too much can cause consequences.

I found the authors’ use of social media very interesting. These individuals took advantage
of the opportunity of reaching more people and building their recognition by
using these sites. They even have found that this use has helped their profits
through more people finding their work and bonding with fellow writers. This
article demonstrates that if one takes control of their social media image, they
can promote their work and gain a profit.

Written by Arnold Brown, “Relationships, Community, and Identity in the New
Virtual Society” analyzes the various effects that social media has on
individual connections. One of these aspects that Brown writes about is dating.
He predicts that finding a mate online will be increasingly common. He even
claims that these sites and social media sites will “change the nature of
relationships”. Arnold Brown mentioned in his article a Chinese role playing
marriage site, “Wang Hun”, that are causing increased tensions among actual
marriages when this is viewed as cheating on a spouse.

As dating sites begin to increase in quantity and more members join, I find that Brown’s claim is valid that more people will turn to these sites to find a companion. However,
I do not agree with his proposing the idea that there will be “virtual spouses”
in “virtual marriages” inthe future. While it is true that the internet has
become a popular source for connections among individuals that share common
interests and perhaps seek romance, I do not think that a “virtual marriage”
will outweigh the meaning of an actual marriage. We have discussed in class how
social media potentially affects relationships. I agree that the intrnet has
both strengthened and weakened casual relationships, however I believe that to equate a
virtual marriage where the two individuals have not even met face to face with
an actual marriage is pushing the prediction a little too far. While friendships
may be made online based on common interests, marriages have a deep tie that I
do not think can be recreated online. Brown does mention that “the big mistake
that the fearful always make is to equate change with destruction”, a statement
that I agree with. There may be more ways to meet individuals online, however
they do not eliminate the methods of meeting someone in person.

After watching Josh Harris’s documentary in class I learned how his childhood days(exposure to the television) affect his later years of life. Harris was forced to watch television to keep his mind of mischievous acts.This resulted in his, what I feel, obsession with Gilligan’s Island.Since he focused on numerous characters on television,he developed into these characters, as mentioned.Do you think an individual can become addicted to the web/or any form of social media in a short period of time, or does it occur over years.

The documentary puts great emphasis on the mother/son relationship Harris endured.I am a big believer in the importance of having a strong, supportive parent or guidance in ones life for success to be possible.However, he seemed very distant from his family especially his mother.As his family members stated,she had the least bit of time during his years of development.This resulted in his relationship with the television.I mention this because I felt Harris had no remorse to his mother’s death, in later years.The fact that he sent her a video with his last words before she passed was memorable.It was in a way an exchanged gift.

Today’s a big day for Facebook. President Obama will be doing some kind of town hall function at the Facebook headquarters as he seeks to reach into the pockets of the rich through more taxes. That in itself should be fun to watch since he is in the land of billionaires but what is getting more attention is a quote from a Wall Street Journal article from Facebook lobbyist Adam Conner as the social media giant looks to expand in areas where free speech is not the norm (China folks, it’s China).

Conner’s curious statement was

“Maybe we will block content in some countries, but not others,” Adam Conner, a Facebook lobbyist, told the Journal. “We are occasionally held in uncomfortable positions because now we’re allowing too much, maybe, free speech in countries that haven’t experienced it before,” he said.

(UPDATE: No new news but I wondered if anyone else finds it more than a little ironic that Facebook’s lobbyist’s name is Con-ner. Get it?)

Hold on there big fella! Isn’t Facebook the defender of the free world having been the linchpin of the revolt in Egypt? Isn’t Facebook all about information for everyone all the time? Isn’t Facebook for the people, by the people etc etc?

Apparently not when so much money is on the line in a huge market like China. Where Google said it wouldn’t comply with China’s censorship policies and effectively left the market, Facebook is playing softball with free speech, at least according to their lobbyist in the nation’s capital.

The Journal spoke with some power brokers about what Facebook faces if it decides to play intermediary for what’s free speech and what isn’t in other parts of the world.

Facebook’s plans may not sit well with congressional leaders already incensed with the company for sidestepping congressional inquiries on its China plans. Last spring, Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee’s panel on human rights, rebuked Facebook for refusing to appear at a Capitol Hill hearing on “global Internet freedom.”

The company hasn’t joined the Global Network Initiative, a group that includes information-technology companies like Google and Microsoft and human-rights groups that have agreed to common principles of conduct in nations such as China, which restrict speech and expression.

What’s interesting is that while the press has played up Facebook’s role in the fight for freedom around the world the company itself has stayed relatively mum on the subject.

Neither Facebook nor its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, have said much publicly about Facebook’s role as a tool for pro-democracy activists in Tunisia or Egypt. In Tunisia, where Facebook took technical steps to counter government efforts to steal users’ Facebook passwords, the company said its efforts were driven by a safety and security breach—not politics.

So now with China looming on the horizon as a possible market to conquer (likely through a partnership in the country) it seems awful convenient that Facebook throws open its headquarters doors to the leader of the free world for some campaign work (oh, let’s be real, that’s what it is). By cuddling up to the Whitehouse does Facebook expect that Washington will turn a blind eye to activities it pursues in other parts of the world that are all about the benjamins and less about the freedoms?

If this quote is any indication it looks like a risky play to say the least.

“Blocking content in some countries—but not others—would deeply damage Facebook’s brand and raise troubling questions about its commitment to human rights and Internet freedom,” said Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate’s human- rights panel.

So while all of this political yow-yowing and posturing is business as usual for the Beltway set what about you? If it were discovered that Facebook was engaging in content censorship so they could do business in countries that represent big dollars but have horrible human rights records, would you be upset with Facebook?

If your answer is no let us know why and if it’s yes let us know why as well. Would you be upset enough to stop using the service? Would how Facebook maneuvers politically around the world impact how you use the service in the future?

I get that these are not marketing questions per se but the lines have blurred so much in the world because of the amount of information that is available to people today. As marketers what would happen if there was a huge investment of time, money and energy into Facebook marketing campaigns only to see end users walk away from the service in protest? Or is the idea that people would actually take a stand against Facebook and give up their online ‘friends’ as an act of protest just pollyannish because in reality no body cares enough to actually do anything about it?

So many questions. Do you have any answers?

According to the article Facebook is looking for business in China, where free speech is not the norm as in the United States. A Facebook lobbyist person said to the Wall Street Journal, maybe Facebook will block some content in certain countries among them in China. However, it is questioned that what is free speech in one country and what is it in another one. Many argue that, blocking some information will damage Facebook’s prestige and would be against human rights. Others question that wether it is right to censor the information in order to have a billion dollar business.

The author at the and of the article asks some questions, that I will like to answer:

I wouldn’t be upset if I found out Facebook were censoring the information on its sites. I would still use Facebook without any bad feelings. I grew up in a country where free speech was not allowed, or at least people couldn’t say whatever and wherever they wanted to. I think everybody should be careful what put up on the net. There are information that should not be shared on Facebook. There are different channels for that. I think Facebook should be a page to entertain ourselves, meet friends, have fun. It is not the place to talk about politics or business.