Seriously...my head is spinning!
Let me see if I can make some linear (or circuitous, not sure yet...) attempt at piecing this information together. There seemed to be a thread ebbing throughout these pieces for me in that our world is truly digital, increasingly smaller, yet eerily primitive in some ways. Chris Anderson's TED Talk conveyed this message loud and clear. He spoke about how reading and writing are relatively new phenomena but storytelling is age-old or primal. There have been a couple of posts and discussion threads in this class asking if digital media is nothing more than advanced cave pictographs and Anderson's point seems to echo that sentiment. Are we really only getting back to our "roots?" I also liked the way in which David McCandless ties this thought together with his graphic that depicts our senses and how much we perceive visually versus how much awareness we have. He claims that visually, we have the bandwidth of a computer network but only .7 percent of awareness...breathtaking! It is no wonder that two people can look at a piece of art and come to such different conclusions as to its interpretation.
And what about perception? Why do some people decide that the "mask of anonymity" is enough for them to ditch societal norms, morals and values and engage in "virtual rage and fantasized violence?" (Adams, 2011). Are some people predisposed to being assholes in "real life" and ramp up the venom in their online personas or is the guise of anonymity simple enough to bring out the worst in otherwise morally conscious people? Which beings me to Alexandra Wallace...was she serious? I can't decide if she was attempting some satirical improv or just downright ignorant and racist. Regardless of her intention, I think this brings up another point; the girl got run out of town! Apparently the backlash was so overwhelming that she felt she needed to quit school and leave UCLA. Our lives are SO public these days (albeit, if we CHOOSE them to be) and moments that may have been embarrassing and regretful are now reasons to quit school and possibly even fear for our safety.
Which brings me to another point. I LOVE the idea of the "Reputation Economy" as posed by the Thompson piece on wired.com. The fact that truth (or some semblance of truth) and transparency in business and economics has somehow become profitable and expected is remarkable! Don't get me wrong; I think we are far from knowing every trade secret or backroom deal but it seems that CEOs are realizing and embracing the idea that "CEOs who can write and blog have a competitive advantage" (Thompson, 2007) and we, the consumer are watching. However, a statement made by one of the contributors of the piece concerns me somewhat when he says, "...I've always felt that political campaigns ought to be totally transparent. There ought to be embedded cameras and journalists who have 100 percent access to all meetings, with all content being posted on the Web. That would distill legitimate dialogue from the spin very quickly" (Thompson, 2007). Hmmmm...
Would our world really be a better place if cameras where everywhere and every conversation were public? I realize that this commentator is wanting more transparency in elections and government with which I agree, but I question the loss of privacy and intimacy that could be gone if our lives were that public. Maybe I really don't want to know and maybe its none of my business!
Good question...what would it be like if someone was always watching? And who, exactly is watching? Journalists? Government? Computers? Algorithms tracking our every move and flagging us based on what they have been programmed to consider "erratic behavior?"
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly something to be said for being "off the record." Even journalists must concede that this is how they get a lot of their information. So and so spoke on condition of anonymity. Just like in the internet chat room, you get very different results when you are allowed to express opinions that you wouldn't want your friends to hear. 24 hour news has made politics such a PC thing now, the rhetoric is becoming more and more empty. I can't imagine what cameras behind closed doors would do to the discourse. I think it would stifle it beyond recognition.
There has to be a balance between access by the media and the ability to speak freely. We have a fundamental right to privacy. Even politicians have that right.
You make the point that our lives can be made very public on the internet, if we so wish to do so...sort of. Many of us share pictures, videos, quotes, and update statuses for all the world to see. There are GPSs in all smartphones as well as in computers that can track your exact location at all times if prompted to do so. VERY eerie if you ask me. Technology has given us the ability to have absolutely no privacy whatsoever. Alexandra Wallace's video went viral and completely ruined her life all because she sent her "statement" (or whatever it should be called) to an infinite audience. Had she kept her opinions to herself of just vented to a friend of PRIVATE, PAPER journal, her studies at UCLA wouldn't of had to stop.
ReplyDeleteI think what many internet users tend to forget is that NOTHING on the internet is private anymore. And it is important to have a reminder of exactly what the web is capable of doing.
The other day some co-workers and I were talking about the issue of "tagging" someone in a picture on Facebook. One of the girls thought we shouldn't be able to tag someone in a picture without their permission which I hadn't thought of. Even if you try to keep a low profile on Facebook, in theory, someone else could take a picture of you at an event and tag you making your profile all that much more public. I realize you can un-tag or maybe even prevent other people from tagging you but the conversation got me thinking; Is there some level of privacy that we should be able to expect on social media sites or are all bets off? I think Jodi has it right in that nothing on the internet is private; and even though I am careful about what I share, this issue makes me question my participation on Facebook.
ReplyDeleteThe tagging issue is a true concern - even posting photos of someone else can prove to be an issue. A couple of years ago, I posted a photo on Facebook of a Halloween party from a few years prior. Very quickly one of the photos had been emailed to a friend who had not joined Facebook. The image was of him in a cowgirl outfit (very cute). Unfortunately, the friend in question was very unhappy (he is now a reporter and was sure the photo would be frowned upon by the people he interviews). In my mind the image was of friends in Halloween costumes, in his it was a photo of him in "deviant" attire.
ReplyDelete