Current Events Presentation: "What The Internet Knows About You"

So for my current event presentation in class, I chose to present an article called "What The Internet Knows About You," by Jessica Rose Bennett, which was about the Newsweek reporter herself, who asked a company named "Reputation Defender" to compile any background information they could find about her on the Internet. The company had nothing to go by except for her name and email address. Within 30 minutes, they were able to find her social security number, address, body type, and health status. They then published a whole report about her that ranked her education, body type, attractiveness, sexuality, health, drug and alcohol use, and financial status. They also compiled numerous photos of her. One interesting finding that really shocked me was the fact that they rated this reporter as a heavy drug user because they'd found pictures and references of marijuana that were associated with her name even though it was actually because she'd previously done a report on medical marijuana. The fact that this company was able to find all of this information, which should be kept confidential and private, within a half an hour is very scary. Credit card companies and data collectors sell this information to advertisers everyday and it's perfectly legal. When you use social networking sites such as Facebook, your information is often given to third parties. All of this information could affect a person's insurance premiums or chances of getting a loan or a job. The article later mentions that there was a situation in Canada where this women was given sick leave for her depression but after her insurance company found her Facebook profile with a picture of her smiling, they revoked her insurance benefits. I believe that this practice is totally unfair and unethical, as did the rest of the class. Various companies should not be allowed to use information they find about someone on the Internet to make assumptions or accusations that may not even be true. While most companies explain their terms and conditions, such as their rights to sell one's information, before a person signs up to use their services, it is often hidden in fine print that people don't understand or bother to read. While hearing about such practices does make people a little weary about what information they put on the Internet, most of our generation is so desensitized to these unethical practices. We have some how just learned to accept that this is the way things are.

The following is a link to the article: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/22/forget-privacy-what-the-internet-knows-about-you.html

Critical Analysis- The Facebook Effect (Part II)

Pages 107-214 in the book, The Facebook Effect, by David Kirkpartrick, are mostly about new features that were added to Facebook, as well as the many successful companies that were interested in buying the company from Mark Zuckerberg. It also touches upon MySpace's success and Facebook's great desire to be everything that MySpace isn't/wasn't.  As I read further and further into the story of Facebook, I start to develop mixed feelings. Where on one hand, I feel that all the newly added features and openness to allow everyone on Facebook are great, at the same time, I also feel that Facebook begins to kind of sell out as time goes by. I mean, maybe they had no choice, but to make Facebook accessible to everyone or to rapidly expand their advertising seems like a loss of authenticity. People were able to convey a very clear and real picture of themselves through their Facebook profiles when networks existed, but when networks were eliminated, people felt the need to be more guarded or protective over themselves. Without a more tight knit network, a sense of trust is lost.

The invention of a news feed on Facebook was a great idea. When the news feed function was first introduced to Facebook, many people were outraged because they did not feel comfortable with their status information and whereabouts being posted instantly for everyone to see. But as uncomfortable as everyone was, it did not take long for people to get used to. Today, as a user of Facebook, I feel like the news feed is Facebook's number one attraction because you don't need to visit every single individual's profile in order to obtain an update on one's life; the news feed instantly publishes updates on your friends lives in real time. It is also a quick way of keeping in touch with multiple people at the same time without actually having to communicate with them. These days, people rarely have time to stop and converse with everyone on their friend list. The invention of the news feed on Facebook was one of the reasons that MySpace rapidly differed from it until they too, invented a news feed. Also, where MySpace was a place where you could create your own profile and meet new people, Facebook is a place to keep in touch with people who are already your friends in real life. I admire Mark Zuckerberg's determination to keep Facebook mostly under the ownership of himself rather than under big corporations like MySpace currently is. There is a reason that MySpace is failing and Facebook is not.

Midterm Project- My Wikipedia Audit Experience

Wikipedia should not be used as a scholarly source because there is a very large chance that it contains biased or slanted information as well as unrealiable sources. Even if an article does not contain such things, one would have to spend an enormous amount of time researching the subject and auditing the sources just to be reassured of this, which is not only a waste of time but is especially inconvenient. Wikipedia is great to use as a starting point for an overall view of a subject but research on a certain subject should be extended beyond a Wikipedia article. This would not be a problem if the average person actually went above and beyond to do this when learning about particular topic, but unfortunately they do not. People all too often make the mistake of not taking things they learn from Wikipedia with a grain of salt. While Wikipedia is great for a quick reference and contains almost anything anyone can dream of, it has its flaws. Articles may be deemed unreliable because of Wikipedia's anonymity. Anyone can edit or delete anything that he desires, whether correct or not.

These strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia tell us a great deal about the potential effects of technology on our society in many ways. Wikipedia's strengths show us that technology has the ability to help people share knowledge with others. The more knowledge and different points of view that are out there, the better it is for our society. These technologies, such as Wikipedia, have helped to broaden the way we think and have brought convenience to our finger tips. Because the vast majority of people in the United States frequently refer to Wikipedia for its promptness, it implies that we are a culture who yearns for quick responses and when we do not receive one, we get frustrated or impatient.  When people participate on Wikipedia, whether writing or reading articles, despite the weaknesses, such as the anonymity and lack of credentials, it implies that people may not know or even care that they may be writing or reading flawed articles. It is evident that our culture is becoming more accepting of things without actually questioning their validity.

Although I have never used Wikipedia as a scholarly source in the past, I have learned from our article audit that I definitely shouldn't believe everything that is written. Even if every source that is sited in an article is legitimate, the article may still be slanted towards one position since people can pick and choose what information to provide. Because of this, many sources are not used wholly. I will probably always use Wikipedia if I need to know get a generalized overview on a subject but I will never take the information learned to heart.

Critical Analysis-The Facebook Effect (Part 1)

So far, I love love love reading the book, The Facebook Effect, by David Kirkpatrick. I think that because Facebook is such a recent technology and because it has such a direct impact on my life being that I have a Facebook account, it makes the read that much more enjoyable and relatable. I find that after both viewing the movie, "The Social Network" and reading the first part of the book, I am always left thinking about how this social network grew so quickly from what it was and what kinds of implications Facebook creates for the world.

Surprisingly, I find that the movie is actually pretty close to the book, although the book does cover the development of Facebook in a lot more vivid detail. The book cracks me up because although Mark Zuckerberg and his partners are portrayed to be very serious about the creation of Facebook and the business aspects behind it, it is also evident, judging from their partying and dirty house, that deep down inside they were truely just a bunch of guys from college. Harvard undergraduates they may be, but college kids nonetheless. This is something that is not only very comical to me, but it's also something that makes the story of Facebook even more amazing. Facebook wasn't created by powerful and experienced men, it was created by a college student who knew exactly what other college students and younger generations desired. Facebook was created to be clean cut, authentic, and private in a sense that one would actually feel comfortable revealing their true selves. Facebook was meant to be a true social connection where networking would not only be possible to help people expand, but where people's networks would also be clearly illustrated for others.

I believe that Facebook grew so quickly not only because of its ease to use, but also because of its emphasis on un-anonymity and networking/mutual friends. If everyone was anonymous, then no one would know who anybody was or if they really knew the person or not, thus preventing a network. By being anonymous, one can choose to portray himself however he chooses and that is not real. I think after a decade or more of remaining mostly unidentified on the internet, people were craving the sense of feeling like a real person again, especially because we all spend more and more time on a computer now a days and this may be our only method of communication. Facebook was successful because it was created for a generation of college students who were used to multitasking and completing everything on a computer. It was also successful because unlike Friendster or MySpace, it was one of the only social sites that required an .edu address and a real name, which helped to create a sense of real community.

I remember when I first signed up for a Facebook account and it still required an .edu email address and verification from someone else in that network to join. Boy, have we come a long way from that.. Now, Facebook is open for everyone, which I think was inevitable. People graduate college, make more friends and connections on the job and before you know it, everyone is demanding Facebook. It's such a great way to connect with long lost friends and family members without having to leave your living room or buy a plane ticket. I recently "met" my cousins from California and Florida, whom I've never met in my life, on Facebook. Now, thanks to Facebook, I feel like I've known them all my life.

Critical Analysis- Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America (Part 3)

So the book is finally completed!! What to say, what to say.. Overall, it was interesting. I found the beginning of the book more enjoyable than the ending but maybe that's just because the ending focused more on the invention of computers. Towards the end, it was very similar to the book, "Computers: The Life Story of a Technology" because it went into detail of the history of calculators and computers. Computers are a product of obsolescence in that smaller, faster, and more efficient computers are constantly invented.  Computer software has forced people to fall victim to product obsolescence because of constant updates, even if only minor tweaks have been done to the program. We live in a society that now has a major e-waste problem. Cell phones that could have probably lasted for at least a good five years are just thrown away at the young, ripe age of one and are replaced with more "up to date" phones. We have this notion that our forms of technology quickly become "worn" out even when there is nothing wrong with it. This idea of obsolescence isn't new or limited to just computers or cell phones, but has affected just about everything, including calculators, home video game consoles, and coin operated video game arcades which the book later mentions. One major component described by the book that increases the risk of obsolescence in a product is the emphasis to create smaller, handheld products. We crave convenience and intimacy with our technology which is why we quickly replace things, but what is ironic is the fact that our technologies have actually caused us to be less intimate with ourselves. Another point that the book emphasizes is the fact that before the 1960's, obsolescence was only applied to physical objects, but now this concept can be applied to people's knowledge and skills. This is problematic in that people in the workforce must constantly strive to keep up with new technology and ways of doing things. If someone does not keep up to date then he may have a chance of losing his job and being easily replaced by someone who is more qualified.