#kennethvanderwalt

[kcb206group4]

Efficiency and Big Data

On face value, Big Data plays out like some nightmarish dystopian vision: Every click of a button and every tap of a button is recorded and then...well the vision (at least the nightmarish part) stops there. What follows is the intriguing question of what all this data is being used for. One could argue that it's being used to help tailor the individual needs of consumers shopping online, synthesize information about the world around us and help researchers with otherwise incalculable evidence. However I would argue that one of Big Data's most important uses is creating efficiency in a variety of contexts.

In my first year at university, I was constantly frustrated because I always found myself rushed in the mornings, leading to an unnecessarily stressful day. Waking up earlier wasn't an option because I really, really loved spending time with my bed and setting an alarm early would guarantee the hitting of the snooze button...a lot. So I decided to time myself doing every single activity which I might do on a particular morning for seven days. I calculated the averages, and found myself with a bunch of statistics which helped me measure down to the second how long I would need to get ready in the morning. I can now set my alarm so that I will be on time to whatever hideously early class I have that morning, but my brain can't trick my sleepy self into hitting that snooze button, because I will either be late or have to skip breakfast (and a day without bacon and eggs is a sad day indeed).

(Source: http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MjgxWDUwMA==/z/o5IAAMXQRDxREd9F/$T2eC16VHJGIE9nnWqrI7BREd9E4F1g~~60_1.JPG?set_id=8800005007)

In a similar but much more complicated way, Big Data can help all humans become more efficient. Of course, it's not about the data itself, but how that data is used. Consider UPS, who have installed telematic sensors in their vehicles to collect data. Information such as vehicle speed, direction, braking and drive train performance are monitored in conjunction with online map data to optimise the drivers' route structures. In 2011, UPS saved over thirty two million litres of fuel (SAS, 2014).

It seems that Big Data comes with some seriously big results, and the potential is endless. Some estimates predict that the correct implementation of Big Date could save the United States healthcare system up to three hundred billion dollars annually (Saracino, 2013).

We live in an exciting time, and with any luck, Big Data can be used to optimise the efficiency of everything we do.

References:

Harrington, Stephen. 2013. “Ch 18 Tweeting about the Telly: Live TV, Audiences, and Social Media.” In Twitter and Society edited by Katrin Weller, Axel Bruns, Jean Burgess, Merja Mahrt & Cornelius Puschmann, 237-248. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Saracino, Adria. 2013. "Interesting Ways Business Use Big Data To Improve Personalisation". http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/2263262/interesting-ways-businesses-use-big-data-to-improve-personalization. (Accessed 11/05/2014)

SAS. 2014. "Big Data". http://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/big-data/what-is-big-data.html. (Accessed 11/05/2014)

Siegel, Eric. 2013. “Introduction – The Prediction Effect.” In Predictive Analytics, 1-16. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

[kennethvanderwalt]

Social Change and Acquaintances on the Internet are not a Good Combination

Last week’s readings concerned themselves with the role of new media in the democratic process – particularly the extent to which they help to create societies of a democratic nature.

Different opinions are shared by three different distinguished individuals, all of whom present well-formed arguments on this topic. Morozof takes a negative stance, using the events of the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia to posit that New Media, “transforms the nature of dissent by shifting it into a more virtual realm” (2011). Shirky however, argues that New Media has the power to, “strengthen civil society and the public sphere” (2010) and uses the impeachment trial of Philippine President Joseph Estrada.  Finally, Gladwell insightfully contrasts modern activism with a Civil Rights protest in 1960 to demonstrate that “social media can’t provide what social change has always required”. I believe that this viewpoint is the most correct.

First of all, if anyone is qualified to draw conclusions about the role of New Media in today’s democratic society, it’s Malcolm Gladwell. All five of his books were on The New York Times Best Seller list, and his insightful observations of unusual phenomena in sociology and psychology, such as the concept of The Tipping Point, have received extensive critical praise. Essentially, he understands the ingredients required for social activism and change.

(Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Tipping-Point-Little-Difference/dp/0316346624)

Online activism is simply a different ballgame. Gladwell references sociologist Mark Granovetter who observes that, “Our acquaintances—not our friends��are our greatest source of new ideas and information. The Internet lets us exploit the power of these kinds of distant connections with marvellous efficiency. It’s terrific at the diffusion of innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, seamlessly matching up buyers and sellers, and the logistical functions of the dating world. But weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism” (2010).

Unfortunately, Social Media (in its current form) are not suitable for true activism in the traditional sense. I believe any individual would be hard pressed to think of a time when they were truly passionate about instigating change with acquaintances or total strangers. That sort of thing simply doesn't happen unless it is with people whom you have formed a close relationship with. The internet is incredibly impersonal because, at the end of the day, we are communicating with our computer screens, and the other users of the internet will always be secondary to this.

Furthermore, the simple fact remains that the majority of internet users are consumers, rather than contributors, and social activism requires serious contribution. Social Media are far more suited to things of a more trivial nature such as entertainment in the form of viral videos and memes, as opposed to serious content intended to create social change.

This spectacular fail of online social activism is definitive proof.

New Media are a powerful tool, but using them for social activism is like using a lawn mower to brush your teeth.

[kcb206group4]

Social Change and Acquaintances on the Internet are not a Good Combination

Last week’s readings concerned themselves with the role of new media in the democratic process – particularly the extent to which they help to create societies of a democratic nature.

Different opinions are shared by three different distinguished individuals, all of whom present well-formed arguments on this topic. Morozof takes a negative stance, using the events of the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia to posit that New Media, “transforms the nature of dissent by shifting it into a more virtual realm” (2011). Shirky however, argues that New Media has the power to, “strengthen civil society and the public sphere” (2010) and uses the impeachment trial of Philippine President Joseph Estrada.  Finally, Gladwell insightfully contrasts modern activism with a Civil Rights protest in 1960 to demonstrate that “social media can’t provide what social change has always required”. I believe that this viewpoint is the most correct.

First of all, if anyone is qualified to draw conclusions about the role of New Media in today’s democratic society, it’s Malcolm Gladwell. All five of his books were on The New York Times Best Seller list, and his insightful observations of unusual phenomena in sociology and psychology, such as the concept of The Tipping Point, have received extensive critical praise. Essentially, he understands the ingredients required for social activism and change.

(Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Tipping-Point-Little-Difference/dp/0316346624)

Online activism is simply a different ballgame. Gladwell references sociologist Mark Granovetter who observes that, “Our acquaintances—not our friends—are our greatest source of new ideas and information. The Internet lets us exploit the power of these kinds of distant connections with marvellous efficiency. It’s terrific at the diffusion of innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, seamlessly matching up buyers and sellers, and the logistical functions of the dating world. But weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism” (2010).

Unfortunately, Social Media (in its current form) are not suitable for true activism in the traditional sense. I believe any individual would be hard pressed to think of a time when they were truly passionate about instigating change with acquaintances or total strangers. That sort of thing simply doesn’t happen unless it is with people whom you have formed a close relationship with. The internet is incredibly impersonal because, at the end of the day, we are communicating with our computer screens, and the other users of the internet will always be secondary to this.

Furthermore, the simple fact remains that the majority of internet users are consumers, rather than contributors, and social activism requires serious contribution. Social Media are far more suited to things of a more trivial nature such as entertainment in the form of viral videos and memes, as opposed to serious content intended to create social change.

This spectacular fail of online social activism is definitive proof.

(Source: http://politicsinspires.org/kony-2012-the-latest-source-of-armageddon-fatigue/)

New Media are a powerful tool, but using them for serious social change is like using a lawn mower to brush your teeth.

References:

Adams, T. 2008. The man who can't stop thinking. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/nov/16/malcolm-gladwell-interview-outliers. (Accessed 04/05/2014)

Gladwell, Malcom. 2010. “Small Change: Why the Revolution will not be Tweeted.” The New Yorker, October 4.

Morozov, Evgeny. 2011a “First Thoughts on Tunisia and the Role of the Internet.”Net.Effect Blog, 14 January.

Shirky, Clay. 2011 “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change.”In Foreign Affairs 90:1.

[kcb206group4]

Social Cues in Text Based Conversation

It is considered common knowledge that body language and tone of voice communicate more about an individual's feelings and attitudes than what they are actually saying. In the age of New Media an important question arises: Since tone of voice and body language are obsolete in text based conversations (think texting and Facebook messaging…go read someone else’s blog for a discussion on webcam technology), does this mean that significant amounts of information and meaning are lost in this format?

Basic human knowledge would dictate that this cannot be true, otherwise we would simply not partake in discourse over text – it would be wholly inefficient. At the same time however, there is no denying that it is less personal than face to face communication. It is so convenient that if there was so loss of meaning, face-to-face communication would be far more deemphasised in society.

"Jen, just open a chat window and we can all talk in it!"

(Source: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=o9pidk&s=8#.U0qPx_mSy8B)

Many responses during a survey conducted in 2002 sounded something like this:

            “I am more apt to be more affectionate and personable face to                  face...The internet is much too impersonal to communicate                      feelings.“ (Baym, 2010)

 Remember that this was the general view of individuals over twelve years ago, and it’s safe to say that New Media technology has improved quite a bit since then. Consequently, the efficiency of text based connection has improved, and the proof is in the pudding; despite its shortcomings, I myself and countless individuals utilise text based conversation to communicate this enigmatic phenomenon known as “personal feelings” on a near daily basis.

(Source: http://cdn2.crushable.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/right-in-the-feels.gif)

The reason this form of communication is adequate for most people is because it has formed its own ways of communicating social cues – the things that people mean, but is not explicitly said. In other words, both humans and this technology have adapted and have, to an extent, compensated for the lack of body language and tone of voice during conversation in this platform of communication.

Crystal writes, “The rhythm of an internet interaction is very much slower than that found in a speech situation, and disallows some of conversation’s most salient properties”. (2006) I agree with this statement, but I would argue that the rhythm of responses itself can often communicate meaning between two parties.

Imagine two people have been talking for half an hour and the entire time the responses have been almost instantaneous. Subject A asks an unusual question, and there is a ten minute delay before subject B’s response. While it is possible that subject B has decided to get a snack or their internet connection has dropped out, it is far more likely they either did not know the answer to the question, or worse, did not want to respond to it. As a technologically conscious individual, subject A derives meaning (particularly in regards to subject B’s personal feelings) from this online social cue, just like they would derive meaning from subject B’s body language or tone of voice.

There are countless other methods from which meaning can be derived, enriching the communicative experience. This includes when an individual, begins writing, then stops. Then begins again. Then stops. Continue ad infinitum. This usually means that the individual is considering their response very carefully and is constantly revising it. How about if the accuracy of an individual’s spelling, punctuation and grammar decreases? It is likely that they are rushing to respond and possibly becoming more excited or anxious.

Languages develop, and the language of online communication is no exception.

Baron, Naomi, (2008). Chapter 1 : Email to Your Brain : Language in an Online and Mobile World. In Baron, Naomi, Always on : language in an online and mobile world, (pp.3 - 10). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Baym, Nancy K, (2010). Chapter 3 : Communication in Digital Spaces. In Baym, Nancy K,Personal connections in the digital age, (pp.50 - 71). Cambridge: Polity Press. 

Crystal, David, (2006). Chapter 2 : The Medium of Netspeak. In Crystal, David, Language and the internet, (pp.26 - 65). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

[kcb206group4]

Your Argument Is Invalid.

Last weeks required reading was well, wrong - A word which here means “rushes to conclusions and fails to understand fundamental basics of the film-making industry and is therefore invalid.” Published ten years ago, Shefrin contrasts two successful film franchises and investigates Media Entertainment Culture in a participatory context, attempting to draw conclusions as to the relative success of both franchises. Sadly, the author ignores too many factors which comprise of the realities of film-making. Shefrin investigates two trilogies that were released during a similar time period, but one is a prequel, (Star Wars Episodes I-III) while the other is an original trilogy (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy). Attempting to compare the successes of both trilogies based on the extent of their participatory nature is wholly invalid since it is significantly harder for prequels (and sequels) to reach the critical success of the original trilogy which they are based on. There are a variety of reasons for this.

First and foremost, audiences base their expectations for prequels on the original trilogy, whereas the original trilogy can only be compared to its source material.

(Source: http://typewritermonkeytaskforce.com/2012/11/16/135-why-j-r-r-tolkien-is-awesome/)

(Source: http://www.criticspeak.com/george-lucas-declares-his-retirement-from-major-filmmaking/)

Source material courtesy of the brains of these two gentleman.

Secondly, there is significant pressure from studios to recoup the escalated budget for a prequel, resulting in a compromise of artistic integrity. Take the example of the recent Hobbit trilogy: Production costs of the first two films alone have already cost five hundred and sixty one dollars, more than twice the expenses of the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy (Perry 2013). This becomes all the more intriguing considering that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer nearly filed for bankruptcy during pre-production for the Hobbit trilogy (Chapell 2010), meaning that the studio will almost certainly go under if all three films are not successful commercially. Were you surprised that the adaptation of a rather slim book has been stretched to three full-length films? You can thank the money hungry studio executives for that.

(Source: http://www.shutterstock.com/s/avarice/search.html)

The company that makes these photos should be called "shudderstock".

The audience disappointment of Star Wars I-III compared to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was not due to George Lucas’ failure to utilise New Media to engage his audience. Correlation does not necessarily imply causality.

In fact, one would be far better off comparing the successes of both original trilogies, and their respective prequel trilogies separately. To Shefrin’s credit, the Hobbit trilogy had not yet been conceived when the article was written, but she is still wrong.

The critical success of both original trilogies is actually quite similar, regardless of technological advances in New Media. The first instalment of the Star Wars Trilogy: Episode IV - A New Hope, received a 93% approval rating based on professional critics’ ratings on review aggregator, Rotten Tomatoes. Meanwhile, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring received 91%. This creates a more accurate idea of the effect of audience participation during film production: It doesn’t really matter, since the decisions are ultimately up to the creators of the film.

Still not convinced? Comparing the first instalments of both prequels, Star Wars Episode I received a 57% approval rating, while The Hobbit – An Unexpected Journey managed 65%, a meagre improvement.

To conclude, I believe that, in the case of filmmaking, the participatory nature of New Media contributes to the reinforcement of hierarchies (the creators of the franchise rather than the audience). New Media have a long way to go before they are truly interactive, co-productive and participatory in the entertainment industry.

References:

Shefrin, Elana. 2004. “Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Participatory Fandom: Mapping New Congruencies Between the Internet and Media Entertainment Culture.”Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (3): 261-281.

Perry, N. 2013. "'Hobbit" Trilogy costs $561M so far". http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-hobbit-trilogy-cost-561m-so-far. (Accessed 06/04/2014)

Chapell, B. 2010. "'Hobbit' At Risk? MGM Files For Bankruptcy". http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/11/03/131047816/-hobbit-in-danger-mgm-files-for-bankruptcy. (Accessed 06/04/2014)

Acuna, K. 2012. "THE HOBBIT HEDGE". http://www.businessinsider.com.au/heres-the-real-reason-mgm-needs-the-hobbit-split-into-3-movies-2012-8. (Accessed 06/04/2014)

[kcb206group4]

Wikipedia: The Angelic Face of Crowdsourcing

The concept of crowdsourcing was a prominent topic in last week’s lecture and required readings. It refers to the process of getting work or funding, usually online, from a crowd of people (Bratvold, 2014). Essentially, work is outsourced to a crowd of workers (often volunteers), in stark contrast to the more traditional model of actually paying money to an employee. It can take many forms, from the innovative concept of gamification to the ambitious idea of open innovation which harnesses the collective mindpower of a crowd to “bring about radical breakthroughs for the benefit of humanity” (Anderson 2014.)

However, I believe one supremely important method of crowdsourcing has been glossed over: Distributed knowledge.

I have lost count of the amount of times this scenario occurred during my high school years:

“Excuse me Mr/Ms, can we use Wikipedia as a source for this assignment?”

The teacher scoffs and remarks incredulously, “Well it’s a good place to collect some background information for your topic, but it is simply not reputable. You will be marked down if you reference it.”

(Source: http://super-sooyoung.tumblr.com/)

This blatant misconception of the site’s credibility probably stems from the early stages of Wikipedia over a decade ago, when admittedly the site was prone to vandalism and rather inaccurate information…but that’s like arguing that Van Gogh was a terrible artist based on drawings he made as a five year old.

Now look what you've done.

(source: http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/drawings-and-paintings-compared.html)

Today, Wikipedia is remarkable. Its Alexa Popularity Rank is number 6 worldwide, competing with the top worldwide search engines and social networking sites (Alexa 2014). Furthermore, it is the only non-profit website in the top 10. But here’s the clincher: The Wikimedia Foundation employs just 57 staff, yet has a staggering 408 million monthly visitors. (Nurmi 2011) This is even more amazing considering that other websites employ hundreds and even thousands of employees, yet do not come close to such a high number of visitors.

 All of its content is written and edited by volunteers from over one hundred countries around the world. This makes for content that is astoundingly diverse and highly collaborative in nature, far beyond the scope of a traditional encyclopedia. More recently Wikipedia has been used for highly up to date information on news and current events, thanks to its use of collective mind power and subsequent rapidity and accuracy of information.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370)

At its core, Wikipedia is the perfect application of crowdsourcing for a noble cause: The collection and organisation of information. Founder Jimmy Wales boldly encapsulates this notion with the following quote, “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of human knowledge.” (2005)

During this exciting yet perplexing age of new media, it’s time to give Wikipedia the credit it deserves.

References:

Alexa. 2014. “How popular is Wikipedia.org?” http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org. (Accessed 30/03/2014)

Anderson, E. 2014. “XPRIZE.” http://www.xprize.org/. (Accessed 30/03/2014)

Bratvold, D. 2014. “Daily Crowdsource.” http://dailycrowdsource.com/. (Accessed 30/03/2014)

Pingdom. 2011. “Internet companies with few employees but millions of users”. http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/01/17/internet-companies-with-few-employees-but-millions-of-users/. (Accessed 30/03/2014)

Schilit, J. 2014. “Crowdsourcing Goes Further Than You’d Think”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schilit/crowdsourcing-goes-furthe_b_5043879.html. (Accessed 30/03/2014)

Wales, J. 2005. “The birth of Wikipedia”. TED Talk video, posted July 2005. (Accessed 30/03/2014). http://www.ted.com/talks/jimmy_wales_on_the_birth_of_wikipedia.

[kennethvanderwalt]

"Repercussions of Audience Empowerment"

There is no denying that we live in an exciting time. The blurring of consumption and production in an online context is leading to never before seen possibility. Historically (in the context of modern western civilisation), the average individual who did not have a publishing contract could essentially only express their thoughts to those who were within earshot. Today however, these opinions can literally be broadcast to the entire connected world, in what is surely a dream come true for whoever created the First Amendment.

In 2014, this guy would definitely be smiling (and it would probably be a selfie).

Source: http://www.history.com/photos/james-madison

But sadly, many have not yet realised the ugly side to this audience centred approach. Green and Jenkins state, “Web 2.0 has set us free! Powerful new production tools and distribution channels are enabling the mute to speak and the invisible to be seen, are realising long deferred hopes for a participatory culture” (2011). While the article is informative, it fails to point out that far too often, the mute and invisible (figuratively speaking) are mute and invisible for a reason.

Empowered audiences essentially mean that there is no “filter” for the internet. In other words, the world is now forced to hear the opinions of racists, homophobes and people with an IQ slightly higher than a rock. In fact, a study conducted this year has shown that a staggering ten thousand tweets containing racial slurs are tweeted every day (Prigg, 2014). Also consider the outbreak of homophobic views expressed over twitter when Tom Daley came out of the closet. Finally, on a lighter but still frustrating note, in 2012, when too many ignorant humans managed to confuse the death of astronaut Niel Armstrong with cyclist Lance Armstrong, who was in the news at the time for a very different reason.

 Source: http://www.okmoviequotes.com/you-are-literally-too-stupid-to-insult.html

The empowerment of audiences also has a powerful effect on how information is distributed.  While the current system of communication is preferable to the hypodermic needle model (Lasswell, 1927) or a two-step flow model (Katz: 1957. pp. 11), it too has its flaws. Initially this empowerment meant that individuals could seek out whatever information they wanted, and not worry about the rest. However, it appears that the majority of individuals seek out information that is not exactly relevant, and since the news is everywhere, every individual actually has no choice but to “keep up with the Kardashians” and other pointless drivel. It’s a rather counter-intuitive idea, but since everyone can choose the information they want delivered to them, the majority partially choose some information for everyone.

New Media has brought on positive change in many aspects of information and sharing, but unfortunately at the cost of the accentuation of the views of individuals which are at best irrelevant and at worst, downright wrong and insulting.

References:

Brake, David. 2013 “Are We All Online Content Creators Now? Web 2.0 and Digital Divides.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. Published online before print: 8 Nov 2013. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12042

Dolloff, M. 2012. “Twitter Confuses Neil Armstrong With Lance and Louis.” http://mix1041.cbslocal.com/2012/08/27/twitter-confuses-neil-armstrong-with-lance-and-louis/. (Accessed 23/03/2014)

Green, Joshua and Henry Jenkins. 2011. “Spreadable Media. How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy.” In The Handbook of Media Audiences edited by Virginia Nightingale, 109-127. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell

Illinois First Amendment Center. 2014. “The First Amendment In History”. http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/history.php. (Accessed 23/03/2014.)

Katz, E. 1957. “The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-To-Date Report on an Hypothesis”. Pg. 11. University of Pennsylvania.

Lasswell, H. D. “The Theory of Political Propaganda”. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Aug., 1927), pp. 627-631.

Nichols, J. 2013. “20 Disgusting Homophobic Tweets In Response To Tom Daley Coming Out”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/homophobic-tweets-tom-daley_n_4372196.html. (Accessed 23/03/2014)

Prigg, M. 2014. “Just how racist is Twitter? Study finds 10000 slurs a DAY posted on social network.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2558890/Just-racist-Twitter-Study-finds-10-000-slurs-DAY-posted-social-network.html. (Accessed 23/03/2014).

Rosen, Jay. 2006. “The People Formerly Known as the Audience” PressThink: Ghost of Democracy in the Media Machine, June 27.(short blog post). Avaliable at:http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html

[kennethvanderwalt]

Blog Post #1 - Kenneth van der Walt

A few weeks ago I went on a beach trip with friends. While in the ocean, I noticed a few teenage girls walk down to the flags and proceed to whip out their phones and take some photos. Nothing wrong with that I thought naively. They're just capturing this nice moment in their collective friendship. But soon things took a turn for the ridiculous: After literally half an hour, selfies of every conceivable angle and pose (there were handstands at one point) had been taken. Finally, without so much as touching the water, the group walked back up to the beach, packed their things and left.

(Source: http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/185168)

Numerous claims have been made that new media has become increasingly immersive.  Papacharissi and Gibson (2011) remark in their book “Fifteen Minutes of Privacy: Privacy, Sociality, and Publicity on Social Network Sites” that sharing things about our lives has become the default. Furthermore, Mark Dueze, associate professor at Indiana University argues that "media cannot be conceived of as separate to us, to the extent that we live in media, rather than with media.” (2011). It would appear that there has been a shift in priorities – in the case of the aforementioned teenagers, the most important thing to them was not that they were at the beach, but that everybody else in their lives knew that they were at the beach.

Those who haven’t grown up with new media see privacy as a major issue. During the emergence of new media, The New York Times ran a headline which read, “‘Kids today. They have no sense of shame. They have no sense of privacy.” (Gross, Acquisti: 2005). However I would argue that, as a generalisation, this is inaccurate.

Somewhat more concerning and interesting is the phenomenon of image crafting. Beer and Burrows (2007) have found that “we see little attempt here to conceal information. Rather the emphasis appears to be about revealing as much information as possible in line with the projected image that the user wishes to cultivate.” New media is being used as a tool for teenagers to craft their identity. By choosing to post only highlights of one’s life, a rather sensational image of the individuals life is projected on their social media platforms of choice.

To conclude, I can't help but feel concerned when individuals forego enjoyment and fulfillment in their real lives for the sake of their online identity. Thankfully, most of us have the discipline to use new media and image crafting in moderation and can laugh at those who take it too far...

(Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/people-who-should-have-their-dating-privileges-revoked)

References:

Beer, David and Roger Burrows. 2007. "Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations." Sociological Research Online 12(5). Available at: http://socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html

Deuze, Mark. 2011 “Media Life.” Media, Culture & Society 33 (1): 137-148.

Gross, Ralph and Alessandro Acquisti. 2005. "Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks." Paper presented at the Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES), November 7, Alexandria, Virginia. Available at: http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/privacy-facebook-gross-acquisti.pdf

Papacharissi, Zizi and Paige L. Gibson. 2011. “15 minutes of Privacy: Privacy, Sociality, and Publicity on Social Network Sites.” In Privacy Online: Perspectives on Privacy and Self-Disclosure in the Social Web, edited by Sabine Trepte and Leonard Reinecke, 75-89. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.