You Are Not A Gadget

Jaron Lanier gives readers his steps to becoming more human within his first chapter.  Jaron argues that the world is coming more robotic, not just in the since of computers are more popular than others, but also we, as humans are changing right along with the timeline of computers.  Jaron mentions that we will have become dull and that the fad of anonymity has been wrongly empowered.  When the web first came into existence, Jaron writes about how flavor the web had because people created their own blogs and websites that were unique and companies were not a part of the picture yet, ruining the web with advertisements.  Jaron, wants to see the world wide web go back to hat and he creates a list that proposes to help change user's minds about how they operate and participate in the web.

• Don't post anonymously unless you really might be in danger.
• If you put effort into Wikipedia articles, put even more effort into using your personal voice and expression outside of the wiki to help attract people who don't yet realize that they are interested in the topics you contribute to.
• Create a website that expresses something about who you are that won't fit into the template available to you on a social networking site 

•  Post a video once in a while that took you one hundred more time to create than it takes to view

•  Write a blog post that took weeks of reflection before you heard the inner voice that needed to come out
• If you are twittering, innovate in order to find a way to describe your internal state instead of trivial external events, to avoid the creeping danger of believing that objectively described events define you, as they would define a machine.

-Lanier, p.20 

The advice that Lanier gives pertains to how he thinks that people should follow in order for the nation to have a better understanding of the current mistakes that the web harbors.  Lanier makes it clear that he does not like present social statures that the internet gives.  His first problem has to do with the fact that people post anonymously.  Posting without using your name gives the commenter a place to run or hide, or have no accountability for their actions.  If people stopped posting anonymously the community could lessen some of the cyber bullying,  because half of cyber bullies are from those that the victim does not know.  In this way, if everyone changed their own actions, then they could change a whole community.

Lanier wants the users of the internet to write blog posts after weeks of reflection and not when your emotions are at their peak.  This advice reminds me of the film, The Social Network.  In the beginning of the movie, Mark Zuckerburg blogged about his break up with his girlfriend while intoxicated.  It was a terrible decision and made life for his girlfriend terrible.  If everyone took their time blogging, instead of making rash decisions, life on the internet would be less unpredictable.

When many people change their actions to be a little more positive, then a whole community will be impacted  positively.  Lanier could just be over exaggerating with his need for the internet of the past to come back to what it used to be, or he could be making good points by saying that the internet has been degrading recently and the problem needs to be fixed.  He realizes the problem and then finds a way to fix it.

Does Google Glass Make Ties Weaker or Stronger?

Google Glass is a huge topic, not just in our class, but also around the word.  I think that Google Glass is the coolest thing to hit the shelves because it is a brand new technology that is futuristic and helpful.  I don't see the Google glass, however sweeping off the shelves because, although it is really cool the only feature that is worth having is the video camera, which cannot be used often.  Google Glass is ideal for bloggers, or those with interesting lives, but for those with not such an interesting like, how else would we utilize it?  Additionally , creating these Google. Glass only gives the option to share an experience.  Sharing first-hand experiences and moments are one the most intimate moments a person could share with another.  It creates insiders and reminiscences.  Is Google Glass creating weak ties or strong ones?

I found the concept of weak and strong ties fascinating because there is not only very truthful, but it is also very shameful.  There are plenty of people I have befriended on Facebook after only meeting them once.  I know that deep down in my heart, no matter how many times we chat each other, or tag each other in pictures and statuses, that we will never truly be friends.  When on Facebook, it is common to tell someone that I miss you, but with the concept of weak and strong ties in my mind, is that truly a sincere remark?  Especially if you have only met face to face once.  It also got me thinking of what consitutes a weak and strong tie.  Gladwell defines weak ties as this:

The platforms of social media are built around weak ties. Twitter is a way of following (or being followed by) people you may never have met. Facebook is a tool for efficiently managing your acquaintances, for keeping up with the people you would not otherwise be able to stay in touch with. That’s why you can have a thousand “friends” on Facebook, as you never could in real life.

He has a point.  A strong tie he defines are knowing someone as more than an acquaintance. He uses the example of the civil rights movement event, The Greensboro Sit In, to explain that the boys were as motivated as they were because of they knew each other and had a strong bond.

I wonder that if Google Glass is making strong ties by giving the public a first-hand insight into your life and the life of others.  Watching the video of Google Glass made me feel as though I shared a special exciting moment with these people.  Not only do I not know these people personally, but I don't even know what they look like.  When you post your Google Glass video to a social network like Facebook or Twitter, will that be opening the door to more intimate times with your thousands of Facebook friends, or will that be spreading the friendship thin and ending in shatters?  In the video featured, one man sends his picture to two specific people instead of a whole social network.  In this way the Google Glass seemed to be a lot more intimate.  Sharing something with the Google Glass makes it seem as though the owner wishes that you were with them.

There are limited features for the Google Glass, but I think that the video recording and sharing will be the most popular.  I cannot make a decision on whether or not the Google Glass makes a relationship a strong or weak tie but if I would have to decide then I would say that it creates weaker ties on social networks because it is as if it is the most advance check-in service or tweeter ever.  Sharing something personal, like first-hand ties can be a very big step, but if it is received wrongly by someone on your friend's list then it could be dire.



\

Be the Change You Want To See In the World

Both of these articles were truly relevant to me because I have seen blogs like Egyptian Chronicles and I have done some of those rebel activities that had no substance.  Ignorance is a contagious disease that has spread from generation, to generation; from country; to county.  Ignorance has started many wars and has been the foundation for a lot of hate and pain in the societies, especially America.  Education is the best way to cure the disease.  When you are educated on a topic, or a concept, or a people, then you have enough grounds and knowledge to speak intellectually about a topic.  I think that Egyptian Chronicles is here to educate the visitors of the blog.

Egyptian Chronicles is a blog that updates everyday about the social activism in Egypt from the perspectives of a young woman.  I believe the blog was created by the event that took place pertaining to the murder of Khaled Said.  Khaled Said fell victim to police brutality.  Khaled was quite the activist himself and this caused an uproar throughout Egypt that sent its government reeling.  I, personally, did not know that there were still things going on in the country.  Things have a weird way of going quiet once the media stops making it a big deal.  This blog educated me to see that there are still protests happening and even pictures and video.

In Gratwell's article he said that people will not stick to activism unless they are personally involved or know people who are personally involved.  Because the writer of this blog is a native it doesn't surprise me that she updates it everyday.  Its different to blog about firsthand experiences than if you were in another country.  Especially if that firsthand experience was about something in your home country.  Most people you come across with and communicate with is going to be a fellow countrymen.  I, have experienced falling out of an activist role because I personally was not being effected.  KONY2012 campaign came out last year.  When I first saw the video I was pumped to do something about it.  I was already checking my bank account to by a box full of their advertisement so that I could post it around school when I caught wind that the business was quite untrustworthy.  The campaign did not request a lot from me.  They only wanted needed money and advertisement.  I dropped the cause because I was not affected by it.

The blog surprised me because of its decorative homepage.  The top banner has beautiful images of Egypt and although the blog talks about how thousands of people are protesting their corrupt government there is still a very positive manner in which she delivers the news.  By the use of her color scheme I can already tell that protesting is a positive manner to her and her small biography on the right-hand side tells me that she loves her country.  I certainly do not use my social networking sites to try to do anything that she does.  I use most of my social networking sites to have friends and talk to people.  I never thought of using it to keep those same friends updated on today's current events.

Facebook and Privacy

"How did this get on here," is a phrase that I have come to accompany with Facebook and its tagging feature.  Tagging is the feature that lets you mention to a friend that they appeared in one of your photographs.  They usually get a notification that you "tagged" them, even though I remember hearing that they didn't used to give notifications.  This seems like a great idea, except not all photographs that everyone puts up is..."safe".  For example, I have many family members as friends on Facebook.  I went to a hookah bar with friends and joined in legal activity.  One of my friends posted a suspicious picture and tagged me in it.  In order to get it to come down Facebook made me send him a personal message asking him to take it down.  He took a long time to see the message and I was left answering to nosy family members.  Tagging is just one of the many problems Facebook has with privacy.

In the beginning, Facebook was exclusive to Harvard students only, just as the film, The Social Network illustrated.  I remember when they expanded Facebook to people younger than college students.  After that I started to receive messages about certain people that would ask me whether I knew a particular person on my friends list.  They would even send many warnings telling users to not accept people that you don't actually know.  I could tell that Facebook was really being careful about their security.

 But as the years went by,  it seemed as though Facebook stopped caring along the way. There were slip up, like when I sent someone a friend request their statuses would appear on my wall but when I tried to view their page I wasn't their friend and the friend request was pending.  I was friends even when they didn't want to be.  Another recent feature is the "seen" indicator in the messages.  This blurb appears on the sender's chat box when the receiver has seen the message.  This is a problem because you are able to send messages to people who are not on your friends list.  These users could be anyone including strangers, enemies or people you are trying to avoid.  When you read the message, they are able to see that you have read it and at what time.  This could prove awkward if you choose to not want to respond.

General sharing of information has its difficulties as well within the realm of Facebook.  There are privacy settings that any user is welcome to alter but the way to go about changing them can be a little unclear at times.  There is the option to let only your friends see your profile and pictures, then there is the option to let friends of friends see it too.  Facebook likes to post everything that you do on your wall and your friends wall such as, relationship status changes, new photos uploaded, and, if you have Spotify, what music you listen to.  The users are becoming more aware of the options surrounding their online security.

Between Facebook's tagging issues and ghost friends there is obviously a lot to be desired.  Not all websites are error free and Facebook, being one of the most popular websites, is no excuse.  Facebook is meant to be for social networking.  No one should put anything online they don't want others to see.  The information that Facebook sends to the people on your friends would be acceptable if it it was meant for everyone's eyes.  However, since we are human beings we live private lives.

The Social Network

The Social Network truly intrigued me because of the irony in the creation and the creator.  Based on the reading and the movie, Zuckerberg wants social knowledge and openness on the web.  There are small critical things that every Facebook user is asked, such as relationship status and the gender you are interested in, that support the goal of opening the web a little more.  Mark Zuckerberg seems to be the farthest person from open and community  based on his portrayal in the film.  The directors did a very good job on creating a character that was both easy to hate and hate to love.  Since he is the creator of Facebook many moviegoers were expecting to see a lovable character whom they could send a friend request to, but instead they got the true Mark Zuckerberg and it is up to them whether they still like him by the end of the movie.
Mark Zuckerberg is portrayed as a rude person before the movie can even role the beginning credits with the scene of him and Erica in a pub together.  We see Mark being the one at fault in the break up scene and later doing what so many of us try to avoid now, which is rant on the internet about a person.  Cyber bullying    has skyrocketed because of the social networks like Facebook.  Mark obviously has a severe social awkwardness.  Facebook connects friends and family to each other using the internet.  Mark, who cannot even look people in the eye, is able to create a space where thousands of people can connect.

Oh the irony.

Google: Society's mirror

I found it eye-opening that Google was changing perspectives on authority by way of their website.  During class, it was stated that Google changed authority by democracy and it switched the role of the authority figure in society.  When Google was becoming a powerful web tool, businesses found ways in which their pages could come first by hacking the page to find the secret to such a website's success.  These  businesses saw Google as enemy number one because they felt that Google played unfair by controlling the search results to better suit themselves.  Google responded by passing the buck along to their algorithm.  Google publicly says that they have no say over the search results, besides safe search and moderate search.  The algorithm does not have a mid of its one, but more like a million minds.  Google uses the most popular pages that can be found in links on other pages.  The people are the ones who create these links as well as use them.  Google is able to do nothing while search results are compiled every second by society's wishes, rants and dreams.

Google's authority is their algorithm.  This equation is how the creators of Google can afford to take a step back from their creation and tell the businesses that they have no control.  It is very easy to throw the concept of God at this topic.  Here, you have an entity that is not quite human nor machine (more like an equation), that appears to know everything.  It is easy to see the Googlism, but if you take a moment to realize who is giving Google its searches, it will turn around and point at the users.  Google's searches are a mirror of ourselves, our society.  Whatever many people have searched, discovered, unveiled, linked, is what  Google shows us.  If I Google beauty in Google Images, I will be bombarded by the society's idea of beauty. 

Google's searches are not man made, or so Google creators tell us.  If they truly do care about the society and making limitless information available, then there is no capping of the searches.  Google is a power tools that is utilized by the many people, and therefore has many perspectives of many topics for its searches.  It is almost like walking up to about million people and asking them to take a survey.  Google's searches are powerful, but it can only be as powerful as the people who use it.

You Can Be Serious Without a Suit

Google reminds me of my past experience in a camp at a Microsoft business complex. The campers got the opportunity to see the different departments within Microsoft, in hopes to inspire young women to have an interest in Microsoft as a company.  One employee spoke to us and said this:

"Everyday is casual Friday because it doesn't matter how you look doing your work. As long as you did it well and meet the deadline."  

Experiencing Microsoft, it didn't surprise me that Google was along the same guidelines.  One of their "Ten Things We Know To Be True" talked about how being casual company did not deplete from the fact that their business still got work done when it came to doing what you had to do.  There are many religions that follow a traditional routine from dress to actions.  Based on one of  Google's points, one comes to think that some traditions may not be necessary.

The religious traditions that I am familiar with is Christianity and Islamic faith.  In the Christian community followers usually attend a church service on Sunday and the term "Sunday's best" is early learned.  Many churches will say that you should come as you are but there is a social stigma attached to the wardrobe that you choose.  A Sunday Best outfit can be compared to a worker's uniform or formal business attire.  This tradition, at least in the community I am familiar with, is not only a big deal but it is expected.  There is no guidelines that read what we are supposed to wear exactly, but everything must be in modest shape and form.  This outfit, by no means, makes the sermon better or worse but it affects the dynamic of the church experience.  Google's belief that the casual attire does not mirror their work ethic would tear away the traditional sense of Christian Sunday Best outfits.

In the Muslim community there are very traditional believers and those who are more casual and modern.  Many of the females wear a hijab over their heads to symbolize purity.  The elders wear longer garments also.  Clothing in the Islamic faith is has more meaning than the Christian faith and the point that Google makes is that formal attire wouldn't necessarily impede on the outcome of things.  That if teamwork and individual accomplishments is prideful, then there is no need for anything more.  Google's founders says that work should be challenging and that challenge should be fun because that gives its employees the motivation. Islamic faith plays into the hands of that a bit.  Muslims pray at certain times of the day and that motivation to do something for themselves and their religion is inspiring and Google would support that.  However, Google would probably not support the old tradition.

Of course believers of any religion have the right to freedom of religion and have the right to dress any way that they see fit.  I just find it interesting that this is the logic behind the casual style of Google.