#thefuturethisweek

Ok so how crazy is this??? It has recently been revealed that the girl above, Miquela, is actually CGI generated! She has over 1 million followers (more than I could ever dream) yet she is not real. There are so many issues that arise from this, but I want to focus on the marketing/advertising side. As we all know, Instagram is a popular platform for marketers to use influencers to sell their products. The line between real and fake is blurring, with users having an increasingly difficult time differentiating between the two. Companies could possibly create their own and use them to promote their products. Having their own CGI influencer could be incredibly beneficial and they can create a personal connection with the users and have full control of the messages being conveyed. A step further could also be to duplicate real person and manipulate them for their own benefit. 

Institute for the Future, 2027

Hey everyone! So I’m a little conflicted right now as to whether or not I think the style of the podcast/host was beneficial in delivering the podcast’s messages. On one hand, the podcast is really well structured and thought out. You get the feeling that most of it was already written out, since it flowed so well and clearly. This helps with the stories they discuss since they are sometimes quite philosophical or complicated. However, on the other hand, because it feels like it was pre-written, there is a lack of energy or the feeling of excitement about these new technologies. There is barely any feeling of ad-lib or spontaneity and this may affect the engagement of the listener, especially since the target audience is students. 

Hey guys, today I just wanted to touch on why I think podcasting was suitable for delivering effective messages in  The Future, This Week .

A big reason for me was the interaction and discussion that occurred between the hosts. The topics discussed, like big data, digital technology, the impacts and ethical issues surrounding them, all have a lot of grey areas. By having two hosts, there can be a back and forth discussion that written forms of media are unable to achieve. This results in a deeper discussion and therefore better understanding of the situation. While the discussion is quite philosophical and deep, the hosts keep the conversation simple and easy to follow. This compliments the audio format since our brains easily get distracted when listening. 

A story brought up by Sandra Peters this week on echo chambers made me consider a different point of view. It was an interesting news story by BBC and involved the concept of the echo chamber. This term is used as a metaphor to capture how messages are reverberated and amplified within an enclosed media space. As a result, the messages are magnified and the audience is insulated from rebuttal. 

Applied to social media platforms such as Twitter or Facebook, the idea is that users are subject to a narrow feed of information that only align with their own opinions and views. However, what the news story argues is that the online echo chamber is a myth. The reasoning behind this statement is in two parts. Firstly, contrary to common belief, our media diet is actually quite diverse, with only 8% of the participants in the study in Ottawa being classified as living in an echo chamber. Secondly, the reason why the echo chamber seems to exist is due to our human characteristics, rather than our media diet.