Final Blog for 2011...

As I was going through and checking to make sure I had completed my blogs required for the semester, I noticed that I failed to post one for October 28.  Considering it was a "free" assignment, I decided to end this semester's blog postings with a free topic. (So there are 2 blogs for this week). 

I think it's important to see all the topics that have been researched concernign the Identity, Privacy, and Safety of the internet, recapping what we have learned.  It's clear that these issues are completely relevant concerns for this generation of internet users. 

We began the semester by observing how many different kinds of users are constantly on the internet: professionals, stay at home moms, kids, etc.  We can now understand how monitored we are in our uses of the internet, and we viewed a cartoon displaying the downsides of the internet, specifically in the social networking world. There is much need for caution when browsing the web.  We saw (with Pinterest) how the internet allows people to express themselves similarly as they do in Facebook or MySpace, posting things which they find interesting, explaining more of who they are.  And finally, we ended by understanding again how prevalent the internet is in our society.  So much of what we do is online, and so much is easier because of the internet's availability. 

The internet does allow people to express themselves, developing their online identies.  As people begin to post more and more on the web, the article mentioned in this week's previous post discussed the necessary concerns.  Every day, the line blurs between fame and privacy-invasion.  As our culture moves to exponentionally rely more upon the internet, the wisest thing its users can do is show caution in what information they choose to reveal to the public world.

A Scholarly Article Concerning Internet Identities and Privacy

This week I have chosen Emily Nassbaum’s “2007: New York: Do it Yourself” as the scholarly article which discusses the issue regarding the privacy of the internet, focusing mainly on the late teen/young adult generation.

There are several reasons that this article can be considered scholarly: it is peer-reviewed, the name of the author has been provided along with her credentials (she is an editor of New York Magazine), and specific quotations and real-life experiences are used to support the author’s claims.  Moreover, a vast amount of copyright information lies at the end of the article. Besides all of this, the article claims to be academic and scholarly.

In the article, Nassbaum makes several claims that she ends with.  She feels that young adults are now more prone and willing to publish information online that was once considered too personal for the world wide web.  Her second opinion is that when people see your public life, they judge you.  Nassbaum recounts a story of a Columbia University student, Xiyin. Xiyin began an online journal a few years ago that she now posts for public consumption (if of course you are her online friend).  In fact, she began her journals simply being honest but now reveals to readers anything she thinks will keep them reading her entries.  Moreover, Nassbaum looked at the social networking profile of Xiyin, finding pictures of her partying a few years ago.  Xiyin is well aware of this fact, and she in fact supports it.  It is with this piece of evidence that Nassabaum claims the avid internet users are starting to blur the lines between humiliation and fame.  Things that would once mortify someone to see online about themselves is now a means for easier discovery of who they are.  Hence, the more about you that is available, the more people see you, and the more people konw you. 

In the article, a rhetorical message is obvious to readers and well conveyed.  Nassbaum supports her view that internet users are in fact swapping personal lives and privacy for the chance at fame.  If you read her piece in detail, you can see the concerns she has, an uneasy and almost disapproving tone flowing through the entire article.

"Back When I Was in School...."

"Back when I...(fill in the blank)."  How many times have we heard that from someone of an older generation?  I can recount my mom telling me of how she didn't have the internet with all the journal, magazine, news, etc. sources available to her when she wrote research papers in college.  It was up to her to find the pieces on her own, and this definitely required a TON of work!  More so then I've had to do for my papers at least.

So this week I have chosen to consider what it would be like were the internet not available to students around the country, specifically college students.  I chose to observe the prevalence of the internet in our studies after having completled the writing assignment for English class. 

For the writing assignment I went online, found the topic I wanted to discuss, then searched several news websites in order to gather the closely related articles.  After I found what I wanted, I was able to reread (or rewatch) each piece online however many times I wanted.  There was no going to the library, turning on the TV, or searching the newspapers involved whatsoever.  I canNOT imagine how much extra time that would have required for the analysis assignment.

I think it's very easy to take for granted the extent to which information is available within a space of not even 5 cubic feet (namely, your computer).  It was so easy for me to simply get back on the internet, retype my search in google or the URL address bar, and access the desired information within seconds.  Within the past 2 decades, the internet has drastically changed the way people go about writing papers, collecting information, catching up on headlines, etc.  I am hardpressed to think of anything in fact that I cannot discover on the internet.  Needless to say, I am so thankful for this somewhat new technology!

"Facebook." (Now that I have your attention...)

Facebook is a huge industry that has taken over the lives of the teens, the young adults, and the older generation.  With the exponential growth of the Facebook-World population, the question has emerged: Should children under the age of 13 be allowed on the website??

The New York Times came out with a story titled "Why Facebook is After Your Kids".  The title alone positions Facebook as the bully and children the victims.  The article is quite long, so we will only examine the major claim made regarding Facebook's intentions of accumulating more users via allowing pre-teens access (legally that is, since "7.5 million kids age 12 and younger are on Facebook").

The article discusses why Facebook, specifically Zuckerberg, wants to allow these kids access to their website through passing legal rights.  Here, the NY Times makes the claim "What is clear is that Facebook thinks it needs access to kids' lives in order to continue to dominate its industry."  On the flip side of their argument, maybe alllowing kids to sign up earlier can "accustom them to 'sharing'" and get them comfortable with the "big audiences that are at their small fingertips." 

But the NY Times provides evidence to support its view of Facebook's selfish motives.  They discuss the trippled "spending on lobbying" and the "political action committee" from officials connected to the Bush and Obama administration that Facebook has acquired to allow the pre-teens access online.  They even further their argument's support by ending the article in a discussion on facebook's non-endorsement of the "Do Not Track Kids" legislation; this has been supported by both the Republicans and Democrats (a "rare show of bipartisanship").  Just before this piece of information, the NY Times discussed the economical gains facebook can aquire by keeping things "private" but not too-private.

In their article, the NY Times has appealed to the views they believe readers hold.  One warrant includes their assumption that adults are their main audience, as they constantly appeal to information regarding online parental protection. (Since when do children care about that?).  They assume that safety is a concern of the older, mature generation.  Otherwise, they would not have discussed that facebook users don't really change their privacy settings that much.

The NY Times obviously has its concerns about the allowance of children under 13 using Facebook, but whatever the results, it will be interesting to examine several issues: whether or not the "Do Not Track Kids" legislation will pass, how many more young kids will be entering into the Facebook world since so many already use it illegally, and what new safety regulations Facebook will provide in order to create an (almost) ideally safe environment for its users.

Quite "Pinterest"ing...

This week I have decided to write about one of my favorite websites, one that has been rated by Time in the top 50 best websites of 2011 (in other words, it's extrememly popular): Pinterest. 

What is Pinterest you ask? Well, according to the website, it is a "virtual pinboard" that allows its users to "organize and share all the beautiful things you find on the web."  With its several categories including topics such as Food, Humor, Kids, Life, Weddings, Art, History, Home Decor, etc., Pinterest allows its customers (or should I say addicts?) the ability to create their own online bulletin boards on which they collect (and thus share) their favorite things.  These things can include pictures, recipes, ideas, quotations ...you name it!  So, each user creates an identity, if you will, by pinning the pieces of their choice.  According to Ben Silberman, the founder of Pinterest, the items which one collects on their virtual pin boards, "says a lot about you."  While the site is addicting simply because of its content, it also explains much about the user as seen in his/her pinterests.

Certainly, every consumer can view the activities and pinnings of the followers of this website.  Thus, a common question arises concerning the "security" of the profiles.  Well, a typical internet user can view the recent pinnings, but no personal pinning or profiles can be made without an invitation to to become a ligitimate "pinterester".  But by a simple click of the mouse, users can receive an invitation via email and thus begin their online pinning.

One interesting note is that Pinterest, when sending the invite to users, requires that your account be connected to either facebook or twitter.  Its users not only can interweave the web of their online activity (pardon the pun) but also must have their pinterest activity related to profiles in other social networking sites.  Though this appeals to some, others are not quite happy about the forced association.  For instance, I created a twitter (though somewhat embarrassed to admit it) simply to pin things and not have them show up on my facebook wall.  Perhaps this is because my entire wall would be completely filled with my "pinterests," but that is another story entirely.

Whatever one's views of the pinterst website, it definitely addresses the issues of online idenity, online privacy, and social networking.  It very much so demonstrates the further development of the digital dossiers of internet users.

So go check it out! (Unless you've got work to do because it can be quite distracting.)

Not So Anonymous...

Two blogs, "No Identity Left Behind" and "Be Careful You May Be Exposed!!! Protecting Your Online Identity," are quite informative; they portray to internet users the consequences (which may be positive or negative) of online identities.

The first blog, “No Identity Left Behind” discusses how Twitter can reveal the usernames of its followers to almost anyone who asks.  The author explains how one can find a desired user and “see exactly what they’re doing…pages they visit…where they came from, how long they stayed.”  In this blog, the author uses both logos and ethos to appeal to the interest of readers. The evidence of the information one can gather on another user (seen by the images and charts) is the appeal to logos, but it also enforces ethos.  The facts and figures support the author’s claim while they also produce a cautious attitude in readers that may not have existed before.  The blog carries both a guarded and disgusted tone, and the textual elements support the overall theme.  The simple colors used do not take away from the piece so that the focus remains on the facts, and the pictures serve as illustrations of the discussed issues.

The second blog “Be Careful you may be exposed!!! Protecting your online Identity” addresses a topic similar to that in the above piece.  The second, however, focuses more on the effect of posting what one thought was private on the internet when in reality it is quite public.  It explains that “the information is synchronized across and is made available on various search engines.”  Like the first, the second digital literature makes use of images to support the argument.  Logos appears in the statistics such as “73,330,000 results” found on Google for removing one’s online identity.  Pathos stands out in the blog as well because readers are introduced to more truths, and feelings of caution and maybe even regret formulate in their minds.  Furthermore, the second blog keeps the design and color scheme simplistic (like the first one) to support its ideas.

Both blogs demonstrate how the writers feel regarding the not-so-anonymous internet identity issue.  Each conveys to readers the necessity of practicing discretion when interacting online.  Both authors are extremely effective in the statements they make; each supports the claim with factual evidence and admonishes the readers to consider their actions online.  After reading the blogs, one should recognize the importance of acting wisely on the web.  You never know who is watching…and they can watch practically anything you do.

Google Yourself!

Everybody has asked the question one time or another: "How much about me is available for people on the internet?"  Obviously some information (like what people post on their profile pages) is private, but private seems to be a relative term.  How private is "private" really?  Well, one way to answer the question is simply to Google yourself.  The amount of search criteria you insert is directly related to the amount of information about yourself that Google (or some other search engine) will return.

Consider the first example: typing in only a name and a hometown.  Personally, three pages of the top five listed revealed information specifically about me.  Two were somewhat impersonal, relaying stats from my high school volleyball career, but the third page was my facebook profile.  Information such as my name, activities, interests, groups, preferred music, books, and TV shows was available for every internet user to see.  More importantly, non-facbook users have access to this information as well.  Fortunately, the pictures and more personal information require both a facebook account and an accepted friend request.

As the second trial consider typing in a name, hometown, and high school (or other defining but not unusual piece of information.)  A greater percentage of the websites returned will be specifically about the one being googled.  

These results lead to the idea behind the digital dossier.  Notice that much of the information available on a specific person was not added by the individual.  Rather, a third party added the information for whatever reason, and the person of whom it regards is most likely unable to delete it.  So take a look for yourself.  See how much information about you is available online.  And remember, you've only just scratched the surface of what's actually there.