"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.