#analinatone

                                            (Image Source)

As society continues to invest in being technologically involved, sharing information online is becoming a norm. Posting a status, liking a link, shopping online or browsing online sites are part of our online footprint which combined all together is understood to be Big Data. Woodford defines it as a large and complex amounts of information that are difficult to maintain or control; furthermore in each specific industry, Big Data acts as currency (Woodford, 2014). It is the constant monitoring and storing of any online behavior. I could login in to Facebook in the morning and post a status. If I did this 3 times in a day and repeated it everyday, such a simple act can contribute to a study conducting how many times users login and use Facebook a day.

Individuals are able to see the mass amount of information online however only industry experts are able to use Big Data to collect and analyze specific information to influence their target markets. The objective - varying depending on the industry – allows the experts to compile information as statistic evidence on their target demographics in order to determine what is happening and why. This is important for who the experts work for as it allows then to assess what is needed to influence the behavior of their target group to positively impact on their business interests. It is important to note that any information – knowingly or unknowingly – given online is contributing to Big Data.

Most common platforms that allow experts to analyse the public is through twitter and tumblr. Specific terms searched on both sites allow them to see public interest on such topics as well as which individuals these topics are relevant to. Unfortunately compiling such data without the knowledge of the individuals contributing blurs the line between public and private. Big Data research is often caught in the dilemma of ethical data collecting and conducting research that invades privacy. For experts working for media companies, they are able to use online platforms to affect marketing campaigns to benefit their company. However, individuals whose information is taken can counter argue with belief that such practice crosses an ethical line.

The Internet encompasses the ideal that every has a right to ‘freedom of speech’. However Big Data research ensures that such a right can later be used in order to target the individuals demographic. Personally I find this burdening as anything I do online can be tracked and monitored by such media experts. Although Big Data is beneficial when determining trends and behavior trends online, it is evident that online users be aware that what they share is open for anyone to track. What's mine is yours; subsequently what's yours is mine. Beware the online tracker.

  References

New media and communication structures have been forefront in facilitating modern social activism and mobilization through the dissemination of ideas and information to a gobal audience. There are inherent features in new media that enable it to ‘mobilise’ groups in a common place with a common goal. There is however instances where such ‘mobilization’ has lead to both positive and negative social activism.

Skirky believes that new media empowers users with increasing ability to provide input and have conversations on platform that was once one-way communication. It is – as mentioned previously – transforming the way information and ideas are disseminated to the public audience. However, Gladwell believes that even though it may allow individuals to converse more effectively than before, it will not bring about real life effects due to little impact in the form of ‘slacktivism’.

 The mobilization of individuals with the power of social media has resulted in various social activism events. A clear example in Australia and around the world was the Kony 2012 campaign aimed at finding and arresting African warlord, Joseph Kony. A video entitled ‘Stop Kony’ was released on Youtube and went viral with new media users around the world becoming invested in spreading the campaign through new media avenues. Even though such mass mobilization showed significant support for the campaign, most users were participants who observed without personally taking action to achieve the campaign’s goal.

Personally, I participated by retweeting the link to followers on my twitter and posting the link of Facebook. Unfortunately I did not actively pursue the matter and try to find Joseph Kony. This in turn revealed that I participated in a form of ‘slactivism’ – a minimal low-risk action taken to support a cause. This method is effective at raising awareness of the issue but as mentioned it does not achieve the social activism sought. I chose to use the video link and share it as my social activism however this should instead be the motivation to act out the purpose and goal of the social issue. 

This does not mean that social activism doesn’t occur, because there have been successful cases including the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US focusing on income inequality. Through the use of new media individuals were able to notify the public of the purpose of the event and provide insight into the campaign’s purpose of raising such awareness with the public. Although there was no tangible immediate difference to those individuals who participated, political notice of the social activism was taken and as a result future political campaigns included focus on such public concern.

It is clear that new media provides tools for individuals to partake in social and political change. After this weeks readings, I have grown to understand that participating in the form of ‘slactivism’ isn’t enough to ensure public concerns will be solved but that I must also actively act upon them. If each individual involved were able to act upon public concerns raised on new media, this would ensure a positive outcome for the wider public.

___________________________________________________________________

References

Gladwell, Malcolm. 2010. “Small Change: Why the Revolution will not be Tweeted.” In The New Yorker. Accessed May 4, 2014. Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all.

Technological advancement has seen computers gain the ability to mediate communication through new media. Such media give way to communication diversifying with various mediums enhancing and restricting such aspects of interaction. It is evident however that with the development of computer mediated communication; society has been gifted with the ability to interact with a global network. Such communication may be accessible instantly however there are inherent positive and negative consequences.

Computer mediated communication is different to mediated communication where ‘face-to-face’ communication was considered the main avenue of communication. With CMC, individuals are now able to network on a 24/7 basis globally without being impeded by space and time (Baym, 2010). This is clearly a positive as society continues to be interconnected on an offline level e.g. trade, business, travel etc. CMC allows individuals with the ability to network at the increasingly global market in terms of business as well as socially where family and friends are given the ability to stay in touch at the click of a button.

Personally I agree that CMC is beneficial to individuals as I am able to stay in contact with friends and family whom I would otherwise have no contact with. It not only allows me to maintain my offline social network but provides me with the ability to expand onto the global network in terms of making new friends, talking with people overseas online or collaborating with overseas companies online. All that are aspects, which I believe, are positives for all online users.

However with the positives come the negatives. With the ability to socialize online open to a global and diverse market, individuals are able to create identities that can be shallow and harmful to others e.g. pedophiles, hackers etc. CMC can also cause spoken and written language erosion where an online language overtaking society’s accepted version (Baron, 2008). Abbreviations are one such online language where LOL, OMG and TMI dissolving accepted English literacy that is crossing from online to offline forms of acceptable language. Furthermore the age-old argument that CMC detracts from the formation of tangible relationships (Baron, 2008). With Bayme (2010) supporting this with evidence compiled through a survey depicting the belief that CMC was viewed to be the least personable communication method.

I believe that although such negatives do exist, it is the responsibility of the user to be aware of the failings of CMC in order to avoid the pitfalls. Personally in terms of avoiding harmful users, I ensure my networks are individuals I have met offline and make sure what I post protects my privacy and doesn’t share personal information such as contact details, address etc. In battling the erosion of the English language, I ensure that what I write online is NOT what I write offline. I believe there is an online culture that makes such language acceptable however offline that is not the case. Lastly as society continues to evolve and technology develops I do not believe CMC is the least personable form of communication. With the development of new tools e.g. Skype, these forms of communication are quite personal to users including myself. I believe such arguments are incomparable to the positives.

___________________________________________________________________

References

Baron, Naomi, 2008. ‘Ch 1: Email to Your Brain: Language in an Online and Mobile World.” In Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, 3-10. 

Technological advancement has seen computers gain the ability to mediate communication through new media. Such media give way to communication diversifying with various mediums enhancing and restricting such aspects of interaction. It is evident however that with the development of computer mediated communication; society has been gifted with the ability to interact with a global network. Such communication may be accessible instantly however there are inherent positive and negative consequences.

Computer mediated communication is different to mediated communication where ‘face-to-face’ communication was considered the main avenue of communication. With CMC, individuals are now able to network on a 24/7 basis globally without being impeded by space and time (Baym, 2010). This is clearly a positive as society continues to be interconnected on an offline level e.g. trade, business, travel etc. CMC allows individuals with the ability to network at the increasingly global market in terms of business as well as socially where family and friends are given the ability to stay in touch at the click of a button.

Personally I agree that CMC is beneficial to individuals as I am able to stay in contact with friends and family whom I would otherwise have no contact with. It not only allows me to maintain my offline social network but provides me with the ability to expand onto the global network in terms of making new friends, talking with people overseas online or collaborating with overseas companies online. All that are aspects, which I believe, are positives for all online users.

However with the positives come the negatives. With the ability to socialize online open to a global and diverse market, individuals are able to create identities that can be shallow and harmful to others e.g. pedophiles, hackers etc. CMC can also cause spoken and written language erosion where an online language overtaking society’s accepted version (Baron, 2008). Abbreviations are one such online language where LOL, OMG and TMI dissolving accepted English literacy that is crossing from online to offline forms of acceptable language. Furthermore the age-old argument that CMC detracts from the formation of tangible relationships (Baron, 2008). With Bayme (2010) supporting this with evidence compiled through a survey depicting the belief that CMC was viewed to be the least personable communication method.

I believe that although such negatives do exist, it is the responsibility of the user to be aware of the failings of CMC in order to avoid the pitfalls. Personally in terms of avoiding harmful users, I ensure my networks are individuals I have met offline and make sure what I post protects my privacy and doesn’t share personal information such as contact details, address etc. In battling the erosion of the English language, I ensure that what I write online is NOT what I write offline. I believe there is an online culture that makes such language acceptable however offline that is not the case. Lastly as society continues to evolve and technology develops I do not believe CMC is the least personable form of communication. With the development of new tools e.g. Skype, these forms of communication are quite personal to users including myself. I believe such arguments are incomparable to the positives.

___________________________________________________________________

References

Baron, Naomi, 2008. 'Ch 1: Email to Your Brain: Language in an Online and Mobile World.” In Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, 3-10.