Social Media and Online Advertising

The reading from the week I have chosen is by Robert W. Gehl. The chapter is titled, Standardizing Social Media. Gehl brings up three points that describe social media: decentralization, participation, and consensus

1. decentralization describes the distribution of certain things such as advertisements

2. participation is how certain people are able to contribute to advertisements

3.  consensus means the advertisements post things that everyone agrees on

The IAB- Interactive Advertising Bureau is in charge of how standards work and what they are intended to do. Gehl argues that standards are by no means democratic, standards are now argued to be “Template driven”. What this means is that they have an outline of what to put in when originally the user would have to use HTML. Standardized social media such as Facebook and Twitter are template driven because they already have the website set up in a way where you are able to just input your information and do not need to create any additional hassle by setting up your webpage

The role of contemporary standards consortia is a three part ideology that Gehl explains.

Consortia is an association typically of several business companies. This ideology consists of,

1. User problem- they present themselves as solving a user problem- their productions of standards is presented for a particular set of users and is aimed at producing public good that alleviates the confusion of incompatible technologies, rapid obsolescence, and high research and development costs.

2. Creates New Markets- after the user problem is solved consumers feel more confident about investing in technology and thus multiple companies can compete to win their favour with different designs and options.

3. Self Regulation- present themselves as privatized regulatory bodies that are far more responsive to technological change than are government regulators- this idea is deployed both as a means to counter state-based regulation and as an invitation to firms to join the consortia and help set the rules by which they do business

Gehl argues that for contemporary advertising the user is in control. Where as in mass media advertisers simply transmit their messages to a passive audience, new media allow for active audiences who are producers and consumers. An example of this is how Instagram and Twitter allow their users to exit advertisements and give a reason as to why they are exiting. They give choices for you to choose as to why you are leaving the ad, things like “I did not like this ad, or This ad is irrelevant to me” Therefore, they are able to draw information from you and what you like and dislike. However many people still feel out of control when it comes to advertisements, due to things such as pop up ads. Now, certain software and technology can track things like mouse movements. This can tell companies exactly what people are doing online.

Do you guys believe online advertising will become more advanced or has it reached it's peak? Do you guys think online advertising has gone too far?

Exploitation in social media

In the reading “Class struggles in the digital frontier”, Fisher introduces the concept of audience labor theory with regards to the exploitation concurrent with social media. He argues that unlike traditional media, the new media like social media platforms follow Marx’s view of capitalism due to its more collaborative and engaging environment with its digital users. Having said this, do you think there every come a day when social media platforms like Facebook will charge its users? Why or why not? 

Facebook friends

In the reading, “Who says Facebook Friends are not your real friends?” Jarrett examines the alienation and exploitation of digital media users with regards to their contribution to social media platforms such as Facebook. He identifies that Facebook friends can actually be our real friends due to the similar attributes that they possess such as showing compassion when you lose someone you love, send birthday greetings, and view pictures you upload and so on. However, as we discussed in class, we all can agree that Facebook friends are not always your friends that you have in real life. Having said this, could you guys think of some differences between your real friends that you hang out with, and your Facebook friends? 

Hacker Culture: Trolls vs. Activists

In Gabriella Coleman's Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy, she starts off by focusing on the trolling nature of members of the hacker group Anonymous. Anonymous has the reputation of seeking to ruin the reputation of people and organizations through the acts of exposing personal and often embarrassing content on the internet. Anonymous has no clear leader or consistent philosophy other than its dedication to the free flow of information. Members take part in 'lulz'ing (originating from the term 'lol') activities, referring to the dark humour of Anonymous members who seek to target personal, sacred, and secure information at someone's expense.

On one instance, members of the group took part in a trolling raid on the online community Habbo Hotel, where black men in gray suits and afros prevented members from entering the hotel's pool, claiming the pool was closed "due to fail and AIDs" when questioned. The trigger of this was due to rumours on 4chan, which accused Habbo moderators of racism, as it was alleged that they were banning players whose avatars were darker-skinned. Another Anonymous effort named OpBART targeted the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit officials who disabled mobile phone reception on station platforms. The group accused BART officers of killing innocent passengers, preventing people of their right to protest, and disabling people from using emergency services during the cellphone shutdown. As a result, Anonymous defaced BART's website and posted a nude picture of BART's spokesperson.

Media outlets have often characterized the Anonymous group in a negative portrayal. For instance, Fox News once described the Anonymous group as "the internet hate machine." During the summer of 2011, Anonymous started targeting Fortune 500 corporations, leading many companies to fear the group and its unpredictability. Coleman's introduction aims to illustrate the transition of how Anonymous went from a collective group of internet trolls to also becoming one of the most prominent activist groups today.

What are your thoughts on the Anonymous hacker group and their intentions? Do you think they are conveyed in a more negative light than they should be despite the often dark nature of the 'lulz'?

The Use of Apps & Counter Culture

As discussed within Fred Turner’s article, the virtual community “WELL” is reviewed. As Turner discusses the WELL is the oldest online community. In addition, the WELL formed a virtual community, which allowed others to connect with each other regardless of location and time. Turner described the interaction between users as rapid and continuous at the convenience of the user. Further into the reading, Turner described the WELL as a creation of counterculture as a network forum. This form of counterculture linked others to another culture. 

Within Jodi Dean’s article “Apps and Drive”, Dean explores the life of apps on our phones. In addition, Dean discusses the benefit that it gives to the consumers and producers of these apps.  Apps allow us to be connected to one another. As consumers, we have many options of what apps we would like to use as well. Apps allow us to withdraw from the world just momentarily into another world that is virtual.

I believe that Turner’s and Dean’s article have a deeper underlying connection. To further explain, Turner’s article discuses the early beginnings of a virtual community known as WELL. This created the means of allowing others to connect on a new level, prior to the expansion of the Internet and apps. Dean takes more of a modern approach to how apps allow for others to be connected on an even deeper level. With using such apps, we have become dependent on finding value in their purposes with interactions. I believe that apps and the WELL both hold the same purpose of keeping others connected in which can allow relationships to form.

 I found a blog online that is ran by a mother who refers to herself as a “counter culture” mom.  The blog post that I found very interesting was titled “The Best Goal Setting Apps to Live By”. I found this tied in the idea of a "network forum" and the use of apps. The apps listed are not considered very mainstream in comparison to Instagram or Twitter but they are still available to all of those who have access to the App Store.

I posted the blog below.

http://counterculturemom.com/the-best-goal-setting-apps-to-live-by/

-->

Do you think there is a “standard” involved when perceiving something or someone as apart of counter culture? Do you believe that counter cultures still exist in our world today based on how connected society is? Do you think it makes sense to label yourself as being apart of “counter culture” if you still participate in using apps?

"A Hole in the Hand Assemblages of Attention and Mobile Screens" in accordance to surveillance

This blog post will discuss J. Macgregor Wise’s article “A Hole in the Hand Assemblages of Attention and Mobile Screens”. Wise claims, mobile screens are assemblages and it is important to locate them in the “Clickable World” which is a social imaginary where actors navigate themselves in ‘real life’. A main characteristic of the Clickable World being that, it provides humans with feelings of agency. In saying this, mobile screens have the ability to capture our undivided attention, but they are not attentive to us. In fact mobile screens rely on other forms of attentiveness, such as wifi signals, cable connectivity, or other forms of technologies. Wise discusses assemblages of attention, one of them being the attention of the Camera to Object/Subject. This form of attention discusses how a ‘mobile screen’ such as the camera, can be set up as an assemblage to surveil a particular landscape. Here, I thought of the article “Strategies for Materializing Communication” by Jeremy Packer and Stephen Wiley. This made me think back to their claim within aspects of technology and our relations, given that communication (content captured in camera) is always manifested through technology (camera itself). They mention Foucault,“…wherein media are mechanisms for extending and organizing governance and the formation of subjects” (109). One can see how the development of certain communicational technologies also creates new forms of public governance.

With the rise of new communicational technologies, do you think we are more inclined to being agents or subjects?

The traffic camera is set up by institutional authorities and due to this, the cameras placement has a dominance on those whom it surveils. People seemingly act ‘freely’ in public spaces, but it the objective experience i.e. knowing we are being surveilled, which dominates our subjective experiences i.e. how we demonstrate the self in the public sphere, Once can see how surveillance objects act as a form of control and governance over our bodies.

Upon finding external sources, I discovered the ‘smart city’ which is an urban development that uses information and communication technologies (ICT) and Internet of Things (IOT) to manage cities assets. The smart city uses resources such as cameras that examine cities quality and flow for the purpose of improving city livability. As data accumulates through examining living spaces, it informs others to see if the city is reaching its peak in productivity and meeting peoples needs. On one hand this form of surveillance can enhance living situations, but also, can be controversial upon the discussion of surveillance. 

Here is the link for few ‘smart city’ participants today: http://smartcities.ieee.org/about.html

I also found an article that discusses how Singapore is taking the ‘Smart City’ to whole new level: http://www.wsj.com/articles/singapore-is-taking-the-smart-city-to-a-whole-new-level-1461550026. Singapore appears to be collecting data on daily lives of beings, and the government use sensors and camera to monitor the density of crowds and movements of vehicles.

Do you think conditions of the smart city are necessary to improve public life in cities? Or is this yet another way for people to take advantage of our privacy and a new development to govern us? What sort of agency do we have in the environment if we are surveilled and controlled by devices?

Information & E-Waste

Within Brophy and de Peuter's article “Labours of Mobility”, they discuss the process of how cell phones are created and built. They go through each phase in which they describe how the mobile phones are constructed. As Brophy and de Peuter state that their work takes a materialistic approach for their study. There are 6 moments in the process: extraction, assembly, design, mobile work, support, and disassembly. The process of building a cell phone is actually very tedious and involves several steps.

In our world today, technology becomes old “quick” which results in waste. Brophy and de Peuter discuss the concept of “e-waste”. At large, most of the products we use and “throw out” or get rid of, end up back in other countries such as China. de Peuter and Brophy suggest that China is the major manufacturing country in the world and things end up back where they started and complete a full circle. China’s black market “e-waste” is worth $3.75 billion US dollars, importing around 8 million tons of discarded electronics. Ultimately, this type of waste is not healthy for humans or the environment as it is very toxic. The individuals who are impacted by this type of waste feel the most of the toxic side effects. Upon doing some research, I discovered that individuals actually handle the “recycled products” and break them down. 

Below I attached a video demonstrating the process of “E- recycling”. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ikFMTuS9c

Recently, I had to purchase a new Apple Macbook charger as mine broke. I handed in my old laptop charger to Apple’s “recycling” program. Apple informed me that I could “recycle” any old iPhones or Apple products that I had at home. Apple also told me that the phones would be wiped off their previous content. I considered recycling my old iPhones but upon reading this article, I was informed of where these products actually end up. I am not sure where or who's hands my information or old iPhone would end up. This led me to think about how easy and simple it is to just give personal information to social media platforms where our information is never really “erased” or deleted. There is not any way to ever assure that our information is really safe in the hands of others. 

Have you ever thought about those responsible for “erasing” the information on the products we are “recycling” and where it ends up? Do you think there is a better use for old technology rather than just “throwing it out” or recycling? (For example, companies like Apple promoting fixing products for a lower price, expanding memory capacity etc)