While reading chapters nine and ten of We the Media, I could not help but think about privacy rights of the ‘digital native generation.’ How are first amendment rights (freedom of speech) protected as the conversation expands at a rapid rate via the Internet?
In the case referenced on location 3959-69 (for all the non e-readers out there, sorry I do not know the page number) Intel Corp. vs. Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi, “the justices struggled, unsuccessfully for the most part, to come up with apt metaphors” to apply the first amendment to the case. In a small 4-3 margin, the courts in California ruled in favor of Hamidi, stating he “wasn’t legally trespassing on Intel’s computers by sending unsolicited email because there was no harm to the company’s system.”
I found this case interesting and applicable to my life growing up with constant change in technology, particularly because the justices struggled and required metaphors to make a final decision. I highly doubt the Framers of the Constitution anticipated freedom of speech and copyright protection to extend to the “copy-and-paste” nation on the Net that exists today .
Location 3997-4007 references the misuse of others’ work and society’s general concept to cheating; “We may never be able to precisely define fairness, but we all know what cheating is. Society accepts too much of it.” I found this quote extremely relevant to a case of academic integrity I found myself involved in last fall.
I took a course in the spring semester of my freshman year where a T.A. gave points back on exams if students asked him to do so in the recitation. Clearly, the students in this section considered it a no-brainer to get points back they had missed, and consequently, this T.A.’s student’s grades inflated and changed the class average. As a student who consistently struggled with the content of this course, I never found myself on the “winning” side of the curve and found it completely unfair the class curve was inflated because of this T.A. Long story short, after testifying in front of a Lehigh administration panel on my experience in the course, the grades were altered by the professor to their original marks, and everyone who took the course had a change to their grade. Even though I “played by the rules,” I felt guilty, as though I was in the wrong because I was going against the norm the T.A. set for the students, which they readily followed.
Before I had my hearing for this course, I was unsure how to contest my grade. I know I have a copy of the “Rules of Student Conduct” somewhere in my desk because it was in my freshman orientation packet, but does anyone really give that a read?
Three years later, I am now a student of political science and journalism, I would like to contribute to “the conversation” on the Internet, but also spread the knowledge of that conversation to my peers. How do I engage my audience though?
In light of the discussion we had in our previous class about formspring and other public mediums to spread conversation, I began to wonder – how much is too much and how can we, as students growing up in the ‘digital native generation’ be smart about what put on the Internet?
I know it would be difficult to keep up with the constant changes to Facebook, Twitter, and other social medias, but I think it’s important students understand the implications of their actions on these sites and how to appropriately protect themselves.
Maybe we can begin this change at Lehigh in some sort of freshman orientation/seminar type of workshop. I think the students should be aware of how their actions on social medias sites are permanent, in both positive and negative lights.
To help spread conversation, as discussed in The Cluetrain Manifesto, as well as to engage the Lehigh student population (which I feel sometimes exists in its own bubble exclusive from real-world topics), students should be required to start a Twitter or Blog account in their freshmen year. I personally feel the Twitter function for this course on Coursesite.com is a great addition to keep the students engaged with each other, the material and the professor. It is also a more interactive way to share information, as photos, hyperlinks and more can be “tweeted.” It would be great if every class could benefit from a class hashtag, just as we do in #J325.
However, this “orientation to social medias” should alert students as to how much access administration has to their personal social media forums, i.e. Facebook. In light of recent events within the Lehigh Greek system, where evidence found on Facebook lead to administration investigations of many organizations, I feel now more than ever is a great time to learn about risk management on the Internet. Perhaps a good idea would be to increase awareness within the student organizations about social media “etiquette,” as well as how much access the university has to student’s posts, photos and wall postings on Facebook.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Cluetrain Manifesto Reflection
Before I begin to reflect upon the content in The Cluetrain Manifesto, I feel it is relevant to share I read the entire book on my Kindle, which I feel is direct result of many concepts discussed in the book itself. Not only are e-readers, tablets, iPhones etc. extremely portable, they bring the book to life. For example, I was able to highlight and take notes on specific quotes, upload them notes to my computer and save them in a Word file. I am also able to share my notes/highlighted material to Facebook, Twitter or similar social medias directly from the Kindle though Wi-Fi or 3G networks. I can also browse through all of my ‘saved highlights and notes’ on the Kindle, click on and open them to reach the exact portion of the book it was derived from. To me, this is where I see the biggest connection between the Kindle’s function and its ability to expand conversation and markets.
Just as Cluetrain describes the Internet 2.0 and the various ways in which it has changed the way businesses and people communicate, I feel the innovation of e-readers will revolutionize publication and medias – for the better. First off, I am able to download any print document instantly at a cheaper price than the hard copy, which in addition to saving money and time also saves paper. As mentioned in Cluetrain, users are always looking to make the most of their purchases and want to upload them on multiple devices. Because the Kindle is also an app, I can open any book downloaded to the Kindle on my phone, my iPod touch, or my computer.
I am not a mind reader, but I foresee the e-reader and similar tablet devices replacing print items, much like the Internet replaced its predecessor, the telephone. The e-reader/tablet series bring the overall experience of reading to an entirely new level. However, e-readers receive much criticism from ‘book nerds’, who feel digital books will never replace a physical book. This is where I see a fault in the e-reader, much like Cluetrain pinpoints customer service as a fault to the Internet. Is the replacement of physical books, magazines and newspapers the e-readers’ ‘fatal flaw’?
One obvious difference between reading a ‘real’ book and a book on the Kindle are the page numbers. I do not even know how many total pages Cluetrain is, but I could tell you at any given point in time a percentage I have read. However, I do not feel this hinders my ability to understand the content. We shall see how long I can survive with the Kindle before I run to the library or borrow a hard copy of a book.
In addition to my personal contribution to the conversation that is the Internet though use of my Kindle, I could not help but to compare concepts from Cluetrain to the evolution of the Facebook. What began as a platform for nerdy Ivy-leaguers to meet girls has become a company valued at $1 billion today. When Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook in 2003, it differentiated itself from the likes of MySpace, Friendster and Match.com because of its exclusivity – one could only have a Facebook account if they received an invitation from an existing user. This limited the Facebook users to college students, which is what made it ‘cool’.
Today, my grandfather has a Facebook (this boggles my mind) and uses it to connect with old friends, while my mom uses her Facebook to advertise and promote sales for her jewelry company. In a mere seven years, Facebook’s ability to build relationships between people via the Internet has exploded. Facebook has evolved into a site where users can utilize their relationships and networks for their own intentions and make conversations in specific interest areas.
One area in particular Facebook has expanded since its creation is in the, “‘attention economy’ that includes promotion, public relations, direct marketing, and other ways of pushing messages through media.” This is where I find that today’s Facebook supplements an incredibly different niche than it did when it was created. According the Cluetrain,
“…the attention economy will crash [because]…its detached from the larger economy where actual goods and services are sold to actual customers; its inefficient and wasteful, and a better system will come along where the ‘intention economy’ will outperform the attention economy.” (Weinberger, et al. 2009)
I would like to continue to follow the evolution (shall we say revolution?) of Facebook to see if the later portion occurs.
It does not surprise me hacking was involved to create Facebook. When Zuckerberg created Fashmash.com, the pre-cursor to Facebook, he hacked into Harvard students’ private profiles to extract information. Similar to Linux hackers, as discussed in chapter four, Zuckerberg created a “whole market” that is the Facebook today, through hacking; “whole markets can rapidly arise out of conversations that are independent not only of business, but also of government, education, and other powerful but hidebound institutions, in large measure to something hackers helped invent precisely for that purpose: the Internet” (Weinberger, et al. 2009). Is it ironic Zuckerberg was blogging while he was creating the Fashmash site? I don’t think so – he wanted to be heard, and he was; “the Internet is not written in pencil, it’s written in ink.”
Facebook appropriately recognized, “… everything that happens in a marketplace falls into just three categories: transition, conversation, and relationship” and thus surpassed its competition to become the dominant platform for relationship building. I am curious though, what made Facebook so appealing that allowed it to grow so rapidly? Why didn’t MySpace.com or Friendster expand in the same fashion Facebook did? While I am unfamiliar with the creation of the competing social networks, perhaps Facebook dominates because it focuses on conversation via ‘the Wall’ and surpasses the “fort business” concept, mentioned in chapter five (Weinberger, et al. 2009).
However, as I read recent headlines that Goldman Sachs has invested large sums of money into Facebook and the possibility the company will make an IPO, I am stumped on my opinion of Facebook – is it too dominant and has “lost control” over its niche audience or is the ideal example of “markets as conversations” (Weinberger, et al. 2009)?
Just as Cluetrain describes the Internet 2.0 and the various ways in which it has changed the way businesses and people communicate, I feel the innovation of e-readers will revolutionize publication and medias – for the better. First off, I am able to download any print document instantly at a cheaper price than the hard copy, which in addition to saving money and time also saves paper. As mentioned in Cluetrain, users are always looking to make the most of their purchases and want to upload them on multiple devices. Because the Kindle is also an app, I can open any book downloaded to the Kindle on my phone, my iPod touch, or my computer.
I am not a mind reader, but I foresee the e-reader and similar tablet devices replacing print items, much like the Internet replaced its predecessor, the telephone. The e-reader/tablet series bring the overall experience of reading to an entirely new level. However, e-readers receive much criticism from ‘book nerds’, who feel digital books will never replace a physical book. This is where I see a fault in the e-reader, much like Cluetrain pinpoints customer service as a fault to the Internet. Is the replacement of physical books, magazines and newspapers the e-readers’ ‘fatal flaw’?
One obvious difference between reading a ‘real’ book and a book on the Kindle are the page numbers. I do not even know how many total pages Cluetrain is, but I could tell you at any given point in time a percentage I have read. However, I do not feel this hinders my ability to understand the content. We shall see how long I can survive with the Kindle before I run to the library or borrow a hard copy of a book.
In addition to my personal contribution to the conversation that is the Internet though use of my Kindle, I could not help but to compare concepts from Cluetrain to the evolution of the Facebook. What began as a platform for nerdy Ivy-leaguers to meet girls has become a company valued at $1 billion today. When Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook in 2003, it differentiated itself from the likes of MySpace, Friendster and Match.com because of its exclusivity – one could only have a Facebook account if they received an invitation from an existing user. This limited the Facebook users to college students, which is what made it ‘cool’.
Today, my grandfather has a Facebook (this boggles my mind) and uses it to connect with old friends, while my mom uses her Facebook to advertise and promote sales for her jewelry company. In a mere seven years, Facebook’s ability to build relationships between people via the Internet has exploded. Facebook has evolved into a site where users can utilize their relationships and networks for their own intentions and make conversations in specific interest areas.
One area in particular Facebook has expanded since its creation is in the, “‘attention economy’ that includes promotion, public relations, direct marketing, and other ways of pushing messages through media.” This is where I find that today’s Facebook supplements an incredibly different niche than it did when it was created. According the Cluetrain,
“…the attention economy will crash [because]…its detached from the larger economy where actual goods and services are sold to actual customers; its inefficient and wasteful, and a better system will come along where the ‘intention economy’ will outperform the attention economy.” (Weinberger, et al. 2009)
I would like to continue to follow the evolution (shall we say revolution?) of Facebook to see if the later portion occurs.
It does not surprise me hacking was involved to create Facebook. When Zuckerberg created Fashmash.com, the pre-cursor to Facebook, he hacked into Harvard students’ private profiles to extract information. Similar to Linux hackers, as discussed in chapter four, Zuckerberg created a “whole market” that is the Facebook today, through hacking; “whole markets can rapidly arise out of conversations that are independent not only of business, but also of government, education, and other powerful but hidebound institutions, in large measure to something hackers helped invent precisely for that purpose: the Internet” (Weinberger, et al. 2009). Is it ironic Zuckerberg was blogging while he was creating the Fashmash site? I don’t think so – he wanted to be heard, and he was; “the Internet is not written in pencil, it’s written in ink.”
Facebook appropriately recognized, “… everything that happens in a marketplace falls into just three categories: transition, conversation, and relationship” and thus surpassed its competition to become the dominant platform for relationship building. I am curious though, what made Facebook so appealing that allowed it to grow so rapidly? Why didn’t MySpace.com or Friendster expand in the same fashion Facebook did? While I am unfamiliar with the creation of the competing social networks, perhaps Facebook dominates because it focuses on conversation via ‘the Wall’ and surpasses the “fort business” concept, mentioned in chapter five (Weinberger, et al. 2009).
However, as I read recent headlines that Goldman Sachs has invested large sums of money into Facebook and the possibility the company will make an IPO, I am stumped on my opinion of Facebook – is it too dominant and has “lost control” over its niche audience or is the ideal example of “markets as conversations” (Weinberger, et al. 2009)?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)