skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This article, written by Danah Boyd, talks about the socio-economic class division that can be seen in people who join MySpace verses people who are members of the Facebook. Boyd believes that Facebook kids tend to be the goodie two shoes, athletes, etc. who come from families who put priorities on education and were raised in suburbs where everyone was similar to their neighbors. She also claims that they are in "honors classes, looking forward to the prom, and live in a world dictated by after school activities." On the other hand, she talks about how typical kids on MySpace are the alternative kids who like to be different. They might be goths, homosexuals, artsy kids, and/or in various minority groups. She talks about how these kids are less likely to be expected to go to college and get a high paying job. As this article is quite outlandish (and a complete stereotype) I was interested to see what my other classmates thought about this article and Boyd's opinions. Do we agree or disagree with her claim that MySpace is for the 'other' kids who are 'different' and that Facebook is for the 'goodie-goodie?'
This is a really cool site that involves creating your own 3D Avatar where you can chat with friends (or meet new virtual people). Although it is almost identical to Second Life, it is more lively and colorful with better graphics. At the IMVU catalog, you can browse for new clothes, hairstyles, furniture, and more. You also get to create your own personal homepage where you tell people a little more about who you are. You can even customize it however you want. I think this site is really pertinent to our class because it is solely based on social networking and the idea centered around the rise of the Pro-Am who wants to 'get noticed.' I think everyone in our class should check this website out, because it is another creative alternative to Second Life. Also, it was cool to see the different applications and characters.
This controversial article was quite interesting, as the author reported that more than 120 arrests were announced in what is being called the "largest steroids crackdown in U.S. history." Five different men were accused of trafficking and selling these anabolic goods via MySpace, which is obviously quite a popular site that adolescents visit as many as numerous times in a single day.
What is the underlying issue here? The fact that young children have access to anything they want via the Web. With a few clicks of the mouse, these kids can have their hands on anything from porn to steroids, and this issue is becoming highly problematic. Should parents be the ones to crack down on what their children can and cannot be looking at on the World Wide Web? Or is it the government's duty to intervene? Finally, this article parallels what we discuss in class lecture, as it ties in the controversy of technological advancement. Our world is finally beginning to struggle with what I like to call "technology overload."
In a recent survey, one in three parents have reported that they feel their children are spending far too much time on the Internet.As obesity and overweight rates continue to climb the charts over the years, parents are worried. Children becoming more addicted to the Internet are more likely to decrease physical activity, like playing outside, engaging in sports, or even riding your bike. It will be interesting to see the correlation between children, the Internet, and inactivity come twenty or thirty years from now, also. The article discussed that nearly 75% of parents admit that they have "issues" with what, exactly, their children are looking at when they are browsing the Internet.
This article parallels what we talk about in class, because it looks at how technological advancement will affect future generations. Although many critics and tech-gurus are avid believers in using the Internet to broaden one's mind, should we be worried about how online activity could lead us to becoming couch potatoes?
This article, written by Cynthia Wetzler, was very interesting. Personally, when I first heard about Second Life, I questioned the incentive of being involved in something enitrely virtual. After reading this article, however, one can see that there are so many benefits to partaking in this metaverse. Whether it is a good place to began networking with people (social networking), or a place where you can merely escape from your own personal identity, you can also generate a vast revenue. Hundreds of people that are involved in Second Life have made thousands of dollars off this business endeavor, which is quite inventive. I think that in fifty years, our society will be far more involved in Second Life, and it will be interesting to see how involved people are in it. What will come of our society? No one can really predict it until the time comes. Will it be a similar situation to the Facebook? Will it just blow up overnight and become an instant sensation?
This particular article, found in The New York Times, parallels what we discussed in class, regarding Second Life. As many people may have a difficult time grasping why others spend hours upon hours of their 'real' lives to gain status, earn money, and make friends in a 'fake' life, this article follow one college student, in particular. Meet Janine Hawkins. Your average twenty-something who lives her life as a student by day and a French translator by night. What most people don't know about Janine, however, is that in the Virtual World, she is Iris Ophelia, the buxom brunette fashion editor of Second Life's fashion magazine. She spends hours of her day dedicated to her job as fashion editor of this virtual magazine, and one might ask why?
This article explores what we talked about in class as being the rise of the amateur, or the Pro-Am Revolution. As Janine wants to escape from her 'normal,' mundane life, she opts for something new and exciting. Second Life is where Janine can become an attractive, young fashion editor and no one will question her. Second Life is about giving people the chance to virtually recreate themselves, and upon completion of this article, I felt as though I understood the incentive to participate in something like this unknown, virtual realm.
Steven Levy's article entitled "Mao's Revenge," written for Newsweek International is something I really enjoyed reading. First, as he criticizes Jaron Lanier's article "Digital Maoism," which we read for a previous class lecture, I agreed with his many points. For instance, I was compelled with Levy's argument that Lanier has been too much of an ambiguous critic by simply critiquing the Web's ability to disseminate information and deliver it to millions of people. In his essay, Lanier tears apart websites like Wikipedia, that rely on ordinary people to create informative postings on millions of worldly topics. And although this is perhaps a good point, his reason for disagreeing with Wikipedia is what I have a hard time coming to terms with. Lanier feels that the move toward Pro-Am culture will, in fact, hinder our youth's creative expression. I firmly disagree with this. I believe that our youth will actually be more creative, exploring options via the Web that our generations never even knew existed. Finally, I agree with Levy (the author of the article criticizing Jaron's "Digital Maoism") when he brings up the point that Lanier's rant "was the equivalent of poking a stick into a beehive." Hence, although he is probing -which can be a positive thing, as it's important to question hierarchy- he should really dig deep into the issue. I believe this article is a great supplement for our class because it is a brief counterpoint to Lanier's article that we already read. Also, it made me rethink many of the points that Lanier touched upon in his efforts to comment on Digital Maoism.
