Mobile Phones and Activism
“As mobile devices have become more popular over the years, big changes have come about as a result. I agree with my classmates that cell phones are more popular than the internet, especially because they cater to a wider range of people. I totally agree with Leah and Lindsey’s comments about their grandparents using cell phones but not the internet. ”
As stated above, lots of companies, networks, campaigns, etc. use mobile devices and apps as means of marketing and mass communication. Smart phones are basically miniature computers, but I still use my computer a lot. The screen size is something that will always be an issue, but if its not a smartphone its an ipad or a tablet, and if its not that then its the laptop, desktop last of course. Everyone loves the portability.
Gun control policy reform is currently sweeping the nation with many states now cracking down. Policy makers are making the case that of the many recent gun tragedies, the guns are to blame. Why? Because they are too readily available? Because the guns are not safe? Because the guns are dangerous? I would not say this is the case. I would say that too many advocates against guns are ignorant. Take this video clip from a Denver forum with the CO Rep. Diana Degette (D) for example. How is it that we elect people into these positions to make decisions on our behalf that they don’t even bother to educate themselves on? A fifteen year old girl from Maryland does a better job than Rep. DeGette on educating the public. What still manages to amaze me is how many people focus on the gun itself rather than the person using the gun. Saying guns are the problem is like saying pencils cause grammatical errors or vehicles are responsible for all accidents. Some states have already passed new laws on behalf of guns. Although new policy has been put into place in many states, the NRA is not giving up just yet.
So often we look to online media for answers and news, but what are we really reading? Who is credible?
When I find myself questioning information I find online as credible or fallacy it is often content on nutrition. It is so easy to get misinformation on this topic because it is always seen as sort of a fad. Your doctor can tell you one thing, you see another on TV, you get discouraged and overhear something from a stranger at the gym or you are searching the internet for that magical cure. The illusive trick to being healthy. Online especially, it is easy to associate a popular or well placed article, blog, recipe or whatever, as credible. Below I have listed a few articles:
Good and Bad Foods
Now, these are just a few of many, but which ‘facts’ are right and which are wrong? What is particular interesting to me is reading the comment section where you see people debate over what is and is not correct. So, who should we all be listening to? I do not have an answer to suit everyone, but I myself, follow none of them. Seeing as we are all different, I go see a nutritionist of my own and he evaluates my body and what is best for my health. Too often we self diagnose causing these messes in the first place. However, when I first saw my nutritionist I brought articles with me, trying to see what to believe. He told me something very simple that day, which is common sense, but often ignored. ‘If you really want to eat well then you can start by removing all the cardboard and plastic from your life.’ He meant cut back, or cut out completely, all the foods that are not fresh. Simplest advice anyone could give.
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.