Computer Mediated Communication

     Hello everyone. This week’s blog is my humble opinion about how social media impacts all of us, both personally and professionally, in positive and negative ways. 

     According to Mohsin, there are 3.5 billion social media users worldwide (2020). Think about that. That statistic means that almost half of the world’s population uses some form of social media. For this reason, social media has become a very powerful tool for our daily lives when we think of communication, both for personal and for business purposes. 

      Many of us use social media sources like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and even Tumblr to chronical our daily lives, keep up with friends and family, purge our frustrations, and declare our views on a variety of subjects. Social media sites have become our journals, our photo albums, and some of our primary communications sources.

      What are the negatives to this form of computer mediated communication? Aside from reduced in-person interactions with our friends and family, social media can present a false sense of community for many, especially frequent social media users. According to Mohsin, the average social media user spends about three hours per day on social media and messaging (2020). That’s an average of 90 hours per week spent basically solitary with computer interactions. Social media sites and businesses who advertise with them are well aware of the potential influence they may have on consumers, and their wallets.      

      These sites have become rich marketing resources for business marketing purposes to consumers, they have become vital sources for internal and external communications, and they have become a crucial source for up-to-the-minute customer feedback, both positive and negative. 

      Social media advertising can appeal to a variety of age groups as well. In fact, 90.4% of Millennials, 77.5% of Generation X, and 48.2% of Baby Boomers are active social media users (Mohsin, 2020). Statistics like these are important to know to accurately market to their target age groups. For example, an anti-aging skin care line may not be as interested in targeting Millennial consumers as it might be with Gen x or Baby Boomer consumers. That same marketing strategy could be used for any specific group of consumers that businesses would want to market their products to.

      Social media sites use our own searches and words to predict our interests to create potential buying predictions they call algorithm-based marketing. Algorithm-based marketing can bring potential customers direct to small, medium and large businesses, which can be crucial for growth and stabilization of those businesses. “As technology becomes more advanced, algorithm-based feeds will become more intelligent and engagement will be the only metric that matters.” (Agrawal, 2016) This type of predictive advertising could be a benefit to businesses who want to target consumers based on gender, race, economic status, and a variety of other factors, because that targeting is based on that person’s interests and own posts. 

      As the process of algorithm-based advertising evolves, businesses will need to keep up with changing and sometime fickle consumer tastes. “As technology becomes more advanced, algorithm-based feeds will become more intelligent and engagement will be the only metric that matters” (Agrawal, 2016). 

      What are the negatives? 

      For consumers, this evolution will mean more intrusive use of our public and our private information. How much do we want to give up in exchange for social media interaction? 

      For businesses, anytime an algorithm is used to predict interest, there is room for failure, because the predictive form of advertising only knows what is input into that formula. Those potential misses may mean thousands of dollars in lost revenue to groups who may not be included in that predictive advertising. 

      What is the solution? While it cannot be denied that personally and professionally, social media influence can’t be underestimated, we must also understand that social media is not the end-all, be-all for us. We cannot forget that face-to-face interactions cannot be substituted, and we cannot forget that algorithm-based advertising on social media is not perfect. What are your thoughts?

Thanks for stopping by. 

- Laura

References:

Agrawal, A. (2016). What Do Algorithms Mean For You? Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajagrawal/2016/04/20/what-do-social-media-algorithms-mean-for-you/#7f0482e4a515

Kwayu, S., Lal, B., & Abubakre, M. (2018). Enhancing Organisational Competitiveness Via Social Media - a Strategy as Practice Perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(3), 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9816-5

     Hello again, everyone. This blog entry involves computer mediated collective action that has been reported in mass media with regard to several different criteria, as they have related to me and to all of us. 

      “Over the coming decades virtual reality will penetrate virtually all aspects of our lives for most people on this planet” (Inside The Metaverse, 2010). That is an exciting, shocking and somewhat sad prediction from a decade ago. Has the internet, computer mediated communication and a new reality already started to take over our society?” Is it our new reality?

      In the Netherlands, citizens are now notified via computer mediated communication about official government business through an official notification ping that there are messages in their personal portal. This new form of notifications is replacing traditional paper letters. 

     When pinged, citizens must log into the portals for full messages. The question the study asked is whether or not this form of official government business notification through CMC is effective, and whether some citizens are missing those notifications. The question I ask is this - what is the burden that the government must bear in order to ensure all of its citizens are informed, and what are the consequences of assuming that all citizens are equipped with CMC sources and knowledge to use this communication? Can you hold citizens responsible for the content of something that they either may not have seen, or may not have been able to access, and how disconnected do citizens feel about a government that uses this form of communication, versus paper notifications? 

    “In the case of the paper letter and a paper envelope, the notification is physically connected to the message: the letter that contains the information is literally inside the blue envelope. The only thing that is needed to consume the information is to tear open the envelope. In the case of an e-mail notification, users need to connect to a government service (a digital message box inside a so-called MyGovernment portal for which a user name and password is required) in order to actually read the message” (Ebbers & Van de Wijngaert, 2020).

     Taking into account education and computer skills, the study found that those who are familiar with CMCs and that are computer savvy, naturally were notified and able to respond to the notifications much quicker; however, not everyone is computer savvy, especially those who did not grow up with computers or CMC. How obligated is the government to ensure that those citizens are informed, as well? 

     To be sure, CMC is a much more timely way to relay information. For instance, I have multiple news sources on my computer, my laptop and my smartphone. There is virtually nothing that I cannot research and find an answer to within a few keystrokes, and major news events are usually broadcast to my devices quickly through alerts. However, I can’t help but feel that there is a segment of the population that may be left out of the technology revolution, and there are those who don’t necessarily want to be burdened with the cost of internet and wifi costs, along with cell phone plans. 

     In my opinion, there is certainly an overall agenda for governments to keep costs down, and printing and mailing costs being what they are today, pushing out an online notification is surely more cost effective, however, what are they/we giving up by going digital? Do we miss that personal touch of opening a letter or “official business” envelope, causing us to maybe not think of the notification as important? The study thought so, and so do I. There’s just something about opening a letter that makes it more personal, more serious, than an internet notification. If I had to categorize three different types of notification that I find personal and serious, they would be (in order of preference): mail, television notification, and then digital communications. 

     Don’t get me wrong, I would not be completely truthful if I said I only get my consuming news via post office notification. In fact, most of my news is either seen and heard on television, or by social media notification. However, I don’t feel that social media or any form of CMC can ever fully replace news sources such as newspapers, television or radio. Why? I believe it’s because not everyone has access to the internet at all times, and not everyone wants to have access. Let’s talk about theses traditional sources by listing pros and cons:

     1. Newspaper. Pro - Official, tangible, and able to be kept long-term for review and collection. In fact, I collect newspapers and periodicals from major news events such as the shuttle explosion, presidential elections, celebrity deaths etc. Con - Costly and not very timely or up-to-date, since most newspapers are printed either daily or weekly and ink rubs off on the readers’ fingers. 

     2. Television. Pro - Timely and there are a variety of sources from which subscribers can get news from, including local stations and national news channels. Con - Not everyone has access to television at all times, and cable is becoming more and more out of date, in favor of internet-only plans, due to costs. 

     3. Radio. Pro - Local radio is timely and DJs keep listeners informed as they receive information. Con - Satellite radio doesn’t always have that option, and most people don’t listen to the radio unless they are driving or riding in a vehicle. 

     I will acknowledge that online news communication is timely and up-to-the-minute, it’s informative, and it’s able to be updated in real time. When credible news sources are utilized, there is perhaps no better way to stay informed for national and world news. 

     For me, as computer mediated communication evolves and replaces other news sources such as newspapers and other traditional media sources, the credibility of news and its sources has become more and more questionable as valid and true. Perhaps this is because anyone can post anything online, or maybe that we are becoming more tuned to and seek out the CMC that fits into our own realities and ideologies as we know them to be. We are continuing to pay the price for media evolution, to include privacy compromises, belief in CMC articles that aren’t necessarily credible, inability to shut news, social media, games and other media sources off in our daily lives, and ability to find whatever suits our personal preferences as truth. 

     Mobile technology has certainly changed my life, considering that I did not grow up with computers or internet technology. From the time I wake up to the time I go to sleep, technology is a part of my life. I utilize CMC for my job as a manager in a retail location with email, webex video and audio conferences,  I have watched the evolution of information technology evolved and have been online classes, and many other forms of CMC. For leisure, I utilize social media, email, smartphone apps, and many others for connection to friends and family, online bill pay and for other reasons. I am truly amazed at the progress in the last 35 years or so, and have grown used to using CMC in my everyday life. However, I wish that CMC didn’t necessarily mean that payment for that progress would come in the form of shortcuts, misinformation, identity scares and elimination of other forms of traditional communication. What are your thoughts? 

                                                 References: 

Ebbers, W. E., & van de Wijngaert, L. A. L. (2020). Paper beats ping: On the             effect of an increasing separation of notification and content due to                       digitization of government communication. Government Information                     Quarterly, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101396

Fishman, B. J. (1999). Characteristics of students related to computer-mediated       communications activity. Journal of Research on Computing in                             Education, 32(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1999.10782270

The term computer mediated communication is a term given to modern day communication with others. This communication is computer based, and may involve sending, receiving, or posting information, such as emails, instant messages, social media posts, blogs, etc. The vehicle for these forms communication could be phones, laptop and personal computers, modern cameras, and others. 

In my daily life, I use my smartphone and laptop to access Facebook, email, and instant messaging to communicate with my friends and family, as well as my colleagues at work and others. By far, I utilize Facebook on my cellphone more than any other form of computer mediated communication. Sometimes even before I lift my head off of my bed pillow in the morning, I feel an overwhelming urge to check my Facebook page and instant messages, and check friends’ pages for new, interesting and even opposing social and political views. 

What is it that leads all of us to favor computer mediated communication, versus one-on-one verbal interactions? Why have we adopted a form of communication that largely bases its interactions on words sent and received over the internet in an often impersonal manner, instead of conversing with people and forming personal and professional bonds with one another in a face-to-face manner? 

Optimists may say that internet forms of communication allow for faster, more streamlined communication, such as WebEx meetings in offices that may be on opposite sides of the globe. They allow allow friends and family the chance to communicate when face-to-face visits are impossible. 

Pessimists may take the opposite view, that computer mediated communication such as social media websites give participants a false sense of community and unity, that it facilitates a separation of family and friends that truly care about us, in favor of a series of impersonal posts that aren’t real.

My stance is that I fall squarely in the middle of the two views. I feel computer mediate communication has given us so much to be thankful for, like scientific collaborations, more streamlined processes for things like voter registration, census taking, social security changes, etc., and it has allowed many of us to find and communicate with childhood friends and other loved ones that we may have not been able to find otherwise. However, the nuances that come with traditional communication may become lost on all of us, if we continue the trend that computer based communication is our new favored form of interaction.

We must all remember that computer mediated communication does not come without a price tag. With the evolution of this relatively new medium, we now have to worry about cookies from our website visits storing information that may be used by social media to sell us products, information that may be stored and used against us in the future, and information that could be stolen from us, including our own identities. It’s a price many of us have in the past, and one that we continue to pay with each day that we log into websites. 

For instance, if I were to click on a blouse that I find stylish in an ad on Facebook, I might receive ads for that blouse and other apparel from that company and others in the future, based on my choices. If I were to log onto a patient portal for my medial records, and that server is hacked or if I were to use a password that isn’t strong enough and hackers are able to discover that password, all of my personal health information may not only be uncovered, but it might be used against me in the future by those who may want to harm me and my identity. We can counteract these threats by honestly being smarter about what we put out there about our lives, and we can also be smarter about answers to our security questions and passwords. 

The future has no limit with regard to computer mediated communication. Who knows, maybe in the future, video calls may consist of hologram “in-person” chats with business colleagues, friends and family. Maybe instead of watching videos and movies on our smartphones and computers, the scenes will act out in a hologram short of way, to bring us into a virtual reality without headsets. We may be able to have preventative and diagnostic medical visits in the same way, in order to be treated without even going to a doctor’s office, and have national medical records that store information about allergies, medical issues, etc. that make emergency medical treatment easier, and abuse of prescriptions a thing of the past. Truly, the possibilities are endless. What an amazing and exciting time we live in, with this kind of media evolution being within reach.

However, we must never forget that getting smiles and hugs from our family and friends and sharing our daily experiences with one another cannot ever be replaced - there is no substitute. Like anything else in life, we must proceed into the future with caution and common sense. 

That’s my view. What is yours?