Jarvis begins with the individual perspective of how we want to control all that goes in and out of our network and control all aspects of what we deem ours. After he moves to the perspective of the collective, “The thing that’s new about this new world is that we don’t just consume. In fact, the act of consumption is now an act of creation.” To me, this completely contradicts the first perspective. If our consumption is also our creation then we are all taking from each other. He says that we have this made possible by the enablers and poses the question(s), “What do the enablers deserve for enabling? And what do we as individuals and as members of the collective deserve for creating the wisdom? What do we owe each other in this exchange of value?” To which I do not have a complete answer for because no one would ever be satisfied if we had to start compensating for contributions. And all kinds of law suits and pointless arguments about intellectual property and privacy would arise. As if this isn’t a problem already.
To add another quote to the posts above, “A highly centralized media system had connected people “up” to big social agencies and centers of power but not “across” to each other. Now the horizontal flow, citizen-to-citizen, is as real and consequential as the vertical one.” This compares what the hierarchy in the media used to be and what type of division of power it is today. Like rmiller215 said, “without the audience, there is no media.” In my opinion, citizen journalism has taken away from traditional new media, that much is obvious, but it has also evolved traditional news media. Now practically every news magazine/journal/paper/station/radio has some type of online social media page and they use those things to give more news faster and find news faster. The main thing that we need to be aware of is whether or not the information we read in any news journal is accurate. With so much information coming and going so quickly it is easy to make mistakes.
” The third question the author asks says, “Are good online relationships as good as good face-to-face relationships where people can see, hear, smell and touch someone, usually in a social context?” He answers probably not, which I agree with, but later in his response he says “online relationships may be increasing the frequency and intensity of community ties.” I found this very interesting and it comes from an angle that I have not really thought of before. But online, it is much easier for some people to find the right community to be apart of, which helps me see why it can increase the frequency and intensity.”
I completely agree Matt and the author, that ‘good’ online relationships are not as good as those face-to-face relationships. I also agree that online relationships can strengthen those which are face-to-face. Having both allows you to devote more time to the relationship and build it up. As far as online relationships being used to fill a void in ones life, I can see how some people may feel the need for this, but I do not think it is the best, or healthiest option. In my opinion online relationships should only be used as an extension to those relationships which exists in our real lives.
“What constitutes a friend? In everyday vernacular, a friend is a relationship that involves some degree of mutual love or admiration.”
I do not believe that this definition of friend has changed. Almost every post I have read in this forum so far has admitted that they do not consider every ‘Facebook friend’ an actual friend. The term ‘Friend’ online does not mean the same thing in the social media game. In an effort to avoid the same pointless drama that a MySpace caused, Facebook was smart enough to say, forget all that nonsense, everyone will just have to be under the same term, ‘Friend’, we’ll leave it to the user to decide if they want to add or accept. When I talk about my Facebook, maybe I saw something funny on the newsfeed, I don’t always say oh my friend -insert name- posted a funny video. More than likely I would say in conversation to an actual friend in person, ‘oh I was on Facebook last night and saw this funny video that some guy I graduated high school with posted.’ I don’t have a Facebook, or any social network site, to increase my number of friends, nor do I care to have large numbers. Most people have better priorities than that. I use the social network sites for exactly that, social networks. Even in everyday face-to-face relationships, the people in our live social network, are not all friends, so why would/should it be any different online. Maybe you met the person once or twice so you added each other, who knows, maybe because they could be a good point of reference for something in the future. If in an unknown period of time you end up never connecting with that person in your network ever again, then you delete them. End of story, nobody needs to cry over it. Just like in the real world, if you don’t like someone and you don’t want to be their friend, no one says you have to, you decide to accept or decline. There are as many people in real life as online.
The introduction of this article did not surprise. Often times, we speak in my psychology and sociology courses of how people can recall the times when they had a traumatic experience. For many of us it is the story of September 11th. Another experience I had was one of the shootings at Virginia Tech (my school) last year. The first notice I had of it was an email from the Officer in Charge to the entire Corps stating that we were remain where we were and just notify our chain of command because there was a gunman outside. It is a large campus so gun shots on one side would not necessarily be heard on the other. I can remember the events of the day quite well. But if it wasn’t for the emails, VTalerts and Facebook updates. I wouldn’t know as fast as I did because the phone lines were jammed. Same thing when Osama bin Laden’s death and again with the missiles being fired in Libya. I got an email from the Commander notifying us and within a few hours it was all over social media. I think there is an importance to this fast communication, but there are many stories where the information is ‘leaked’ and you get half a story. It is only truly beneficial if it is the truth. But with the internet, you can never be positive. Can never be too careful.
Social capital is, “a resource that can be accumulated and whose availability allows people to create value for themselves or others.” The diagram in the reading shows how activities and interactions lead to social capital which leads to more activities and interactions. It can be an exponential cycle. The article continues with statistics showing the decline in social capital today and discusses how we can use technology to try and change that decline. “The concept of social capital provides a way of thinking about intermediate states, immediate effects of people’s interactions that have long- term consequences.” With this it continues with examples of various sites which help to connect large groups of people used for the purpose of getting the message out faster and to more people. This is beneficial and in some cases showed results of people “jumping out of the screen” and back into face-to-face settings.
Like the majority of class, question 4 was quite controversial to me. Sure, people could make some type of relationship, but not at the same level as an in-person relationship. It is too easy to be deceived by people on the internet because the internet allows people to present themselves any way they want. And it is not even limited to the internet. Technology in general allows people to distort their image far too easily. I would never want to sacrifice the value of face-to-face relationships.