Questions for 11/02

1) In his talk "How cognitive surplus will change the world," Clay Shirky says cognitive surplus is made up of free time and a good media landscape. Do you think there are other factors that compose the idea of cognitive surplus? Also, Shirky says if we use cognitive surplus to create civic value, we can change a society. Do you agree with his idea? Why or why not?

2) Shirky poses a question at the end of his talk "How cellphones, Twitter, Facebook can make history": how should we use new media that are global, social, ubiquitous, and cheap? How do you respond to the question? In what way do we have to beware of media change?

1) Do you think that, in general, someone who read only the NYT's spin on the wikileaks coverage will bother to look at other news sources to get another view? Do you tend to look at one source for your news coverage, or do you look for several sources? If you look at several sources, do you think they tend to have the same slant?

2) The author appears to have a prior bias against the NYT's from the very beginning of the article, where he mentions "the NYT's sleazy, sideshow-smears against Julian Assange." Do you tend to pick up previous biases while reading online articles?

3) Greenwald is a well-known political pundit, and a very influential liberal voice in the media, with a long track record of exposing government and media deceptions. Do you take this into account when reading his articles? Do you look into who is writing the articles you read?

Questions on WikiLeak

1.) After looking at wikileaks.org for a better understanding, and reading the article by G. Greenwald, would you say you agree with his take on the situation, or would you tend to disagree? Why?

2.) Also, with the some four hundred thousand page document being release/ leaked, how would this help display the way technology has helped shape our society- or shown the way in which technology has advanced?

3.) Lastly, now knowing th info that was leaked, does it change the way you think about our government, military/ armed forces, in anyway, and if so why?

Questions for Thursday, October 28

1) In Chapter 9, pg. 159, Ling asserts that "The mobile telephone is the tool of the intimate sphere...perhaps at the expense of the non-intimates." If you are standing alone while waiting in a long line at the grocery store, are you more likely to interact with the strangers around you, or use your mobile phone to interact with non-present intimates? Why do you personally behave that way?
2) Ling reiterates the idea that the mobile phone reinforces already strong-tie relationships, perhaps to the detriment of weak-tie relationships. Do you think that the usage of Facebook is a way to make up for the fact that the mobile phone excludes non-intimates? How can network technologies be used to create a "correct" level of social cohesion? What do you feel is the "correct" level of social cohesion, where there is a balance between strong ties and weak ties?

Response to Questions: Phone Conversation as Filler and IM Lingo

Firstly, I find myself not only using phone conversations as a filler, but pretending to be texting on my phone as a filler all of the time. I don't even think that it is something that people think about anymore. For example one time I was in an elevator with a stranger and I noticed that we both started to look at our phone and go through it. Also if I'm ever walking by myself in the dark sometimes I would pick up my phone and call a friend. Actually, I even have pretended to be in a phone conversation to ease my discomfort of being alone and/or watched by somebody. Why do I do this? I guess to avoid looking or actually being alone in an awkward situation.
As far as instant messaging goes, I think that sometimes voice can be lost, or misinterpreted. Using the lingo such as lol, bff, or ttyl (etc.) has become more and more used in real life conversations as a matter of fact. I find it interesting how even adults have been starting to make the transformation--perhaps the entire language will be made up of simple abbreviations that we are required to know by heart, in the future.

Questions for 10/21

1) On page 105-106, Ling describes a woman who uses a cell phone conversations as a "filler" until her friend arrives. How often do you do this and why do you think this is?

2) How does instant messaging add voice to writing? How and why does language differ in IMs than in real life communication? Do you think that IM is the closest form to personal conversation without hearing someone else's voice?

-Brett and Matt

Solidarity on the Social Technologies

This is a response to Question for Monday 10/11

I don’t think the social technologies are direct results of Collins’ idea, but some parts of Facebook and Twitter may work to build solidarity. The functions of event invitations on Facebook and Retweets on Twitter can be used to expand information, movement, and ideas, and gather users. The users strengthen solidarity with others there by sharing a same interest. In the case of an event invitation on Facebook, a host sends invitations to other users and the guests can choose whether to attend the event. If they decide to attend, the information is known by other users who are friends of the guests, and this function may increase the numbers of the guests. The system of event invitations follows the process of how rituals are made, that is, “by shaping assembly, boundaries to the outside, the physical arrangement of the place, by choreographing actions and directing attention to common targets, the ritual focuses everyone’s attention on the same thing and makes each one aware that they are doing so” (Ling, 74-75). The social technologies may be applied to what Collins says in this way.

Yet still, it is hard to say that people use the technologies to create assemblies to make a change in social order. Facebook and Twitter are individual-based technologies and a purpose of the use depends completely on users. Also, the systems like event invitations usually work temporary so that the strong social solidarity is hardly given to the users. Thus, while I believe the social technologies have a possibility to produce emotional energy for gathering and cohesion, it is hard to say the desire for generating the energy creates the technologies.