Internet Culture Generation

Nicholas Carr. Source: N.C. Bibliography

Nicholas G. Carr is a well-established influential writer. He began his career as the editor of the Harvard Business Review while he was studying for his M.A. in English and American Literature and Language from Harvard University. Previous to his studies at Harvard he obtained a B.A. from Dartmouth College. Carr has written several books, including The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains and The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google (2008) and Does IT Matter?. His main focus is on technology, culture, and economics.

His article, Is Google Making Us Stupid?, addresses the impact technology has on the human brain. Carr explains that information pathways in the brain can be reshaped and altered according to repeated behaviors. He recalls the ease in reading long complex books before computers existed and notes the change he has experienced since then. Carr argues that Google’s ability to rapidly provide information leads to a decrease in analytical thinking and a decreased ability to remain focused for long periods of time.

The style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace.

Carr goes on to argue that the sources we use “shape the process of thought” and “the Net seems to be chipping away [his] capacity for concentration and contemplation”. This statement is supported by Friedrich Nietzsche when he stated, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts”. This finding is similar to that of Jakob Nielsen when he discovered that people only read the first 11 characters of a link; the increased accessibility to information decreases our ability to think critically. Although we know more information, he believes that we are actually less intelligent because we are not encouraged to critically think through our sources. Our minds are “spread thin like pancakes”, we know a lot of things, but not in depth. In addition, the massive quantity of knowledge floods our brains and makes it more difficult to think.

Google Logo. Source: Science Week

One of the founders of Google, Sergey Brin, stated that, “certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off”. Carr disagrees with Brin because if you have too much information, your capacity to critically think will be overloaded. Despite his perspective on the negative impact Google is having on the mind, Carr makes sure to leave a warning for others to take his criticisms with a grain of salt. Although he may be spot on in the decreased capacity for critical thinking and comprehension in humans, he cautions that there may be many benefits that we cannot yet see.

I agree with Carr—I think that Brin is completely incorrect in his assumption. When analyzing his statement it is important to define what it means to be “better off”. I assume that Brin means that one would be able to live life more fully, complete more tasks, and become more successful and secure. These all link to attributes the common American has when they think about living a successful life; however, I think it is important to realize that one of the main sources of unhappiness comes from being overworked and overstimulated. In order to live enjoyable lives humans must have time to relax, reflect, and be in a state of quiet. Although knowledge is undoubtedly important to live a happy and successful life, complete knowledge of the world would take away some of the joy and wonder that comes from not knowing. Imagine how boring life would be if we knew everything.

Food for thought: “The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds. In the quiet spaces opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas.”

CNN Logo. Source: CNN

Naomi Canton is a freelance online and print journalist; she currently works for international newswires, national newspapers, news agencies and websites in the UK and in India. Previously she was a reporter and business correspondent for the Norwich Evening News. She also has experience as a special correspondent at the Hindustan Times in India. Canton earned her BA with honors in oriental studies from Oxford University. She has published numerous articles with CNN and timescrest.com.

In her article, How the ‘Silicon Valley of India’ is bridging the digital divide, Canton explains the current technological situation in India. The main city, Bangalore, harbors technological entrepreneurs; however, it fails to make the internet easily accessible to members of society, especially people who live in more rural areas. Although only 20% of India’s urban population and 3% of the rural population use the internet, there has been a growing effort to expand availability of the internet.

Here two men are riding animals, yet one man is talking on his cell phone. Once again, the irony of povery and technology appears. Source: CNN

One method of expansion is through the Internet Society (ISOC), which is attempting to educate and train Indians to become more tech-savvy. The skills being taught include, “picture [downloading], e-mail, video conference, instant message, use Excel and Word, as well [teaching locals how to] promote their products on Facebook and Twitter”. The goal behind bridging the digital divide is to teach locals how to use the internet to their advantage and increase their socioeconomic status.

Canton introduces an interesting dilemma when she questions the need for clean water and electricity over the access to the internet. It is curious to think that the issue of the digital divide is being discussed in India when many people still live day-to-day without their basic needs being met. This raises the question of where our priorities as a human race stand. Why are people fighting for internet accessibility for all instead of trying to solve deeper cultural and economic problems?

The stark reality of poverty is displayed in this image. It is ironic that in the same image there is an advertisement for internet and email. Source: The Commonwealth

Coming from the US it makes sense to argue for increased internet access because the education system and professional sphere rely heavily on it. People in the US who do not have access to a computer or the internet often struggle in school and work because they do not have the ease of access to information as their peers. In India, because only 23% of the population uses the internet, and many people Canton reported on made and sold products for a living, it is clear that the internet is not vital in the lifestyle of Indians.

In light of this discussion, Osama Manzar, the founder of the Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF), explained that clean water and electricity, “That too is a priority. But [Indians] have not been getting it for several centuries and if they do not join the information bandwagon now they will continue to suffer and be exploited. Being part of the digital media, they can at least share their grievances”. Often we think of the internet as a method to completing work, gaining knowledge, or social interaction; Manazar provides a unique approach to the use of the internet in society.

In retrospect, it may be an advantage to increase the accessibility of the internet to Indians because it would empower them to share their stories and a demand higher standard of living. One main dilemma to this is the cost of computers and data packages—which many Indians cannot afford and do not think they want. It seems as if once again, the internet introduces a new ethical and sociological predicament.

What do you think should be done regarding the digital divide in India? Should we push for internet for all? Or would India benefit more from funneling resources to provide basic human needs to all, such as clean water and electricity?

Script

Orange smoke flashes across the screen. Black human figures are running through the dust. People are screaming and running for help.

A man yells: “We have to get it back!”

Fade to white.

“5 minutes earlier” appears on the screen.

SETTING: Sitting on the playa in a crowd of people. Sunset. Watching the Temple burn.

MARCUS:

I’m so relieved that I might have a job when we get back to San Francisco. Looks like Burning Man ended up providing in more than one way.

ANGE:

 (Leans over and kisses Marcus on the cheek)

I’m so happy for you. This weekend has been so much fun and so relaxing. I wish the real world was like this.

MARCUS:

Seriously.

ANGE:

I’m just a little worried about—well about…you know.

MARCUS:

Yeah, yeah…don’t worry. It’ll be okay.

ANGE:

It’s just, it’s not fair that she can do so much evil and then expect us to cover her ass. What has she ever done for us?

MARCUS:

I know, but we owe it to Zeb. And Zeb and Masha are a team.

ANGE:

I guess. What do you think’s on there anyway? (She glances down to Marcus’s hand which is tightly gripped around the small USB stick)

MARCUS:

I don’t know. But whatever it is, I’d rather not know. If Masha’s involved it’s sure to be trouble.

(Marcus freezes. He sees something that terrifies him)

MARCUS:

Ange let’s get out of here!

ANGE:

But Marcus, the burning just started. What’s so important that we need to leave this beautiful setting?

MARCUS:

Ange, I’m serious, we need to leave. And NOW!

ANGE:
Alright, alright.

 (Pulls Ange up and they start hustling through the crowd towards the hexayurt they stayed at last night during the windstorm).

ANGE:

Marcus, where are we going? Slow down!

MARCUS:

Shhh, just come on (pulls her by the arm).

(They arrive at the hexayurt and Marcus pounds on the door. John, the older bearded man opens the door.)

JOHN:

Oh hello Marcus, Ange, how are you two doing?

MARCUS:

We’re fine. Can we come in? We need your help.

JOHN:

(Ushers them inside) Sure, sure, come on in. How is it that I can be of service to you?

MARCUS:

(Looks around the hexayurt and spots Wil Wheaton sitting at the table. He makes a quick judgment call and decides to tell John about the USB stick in Wil’s presence)

We’re in danger. I need someone I can trust.

JOHN:

Well, what is it?

MARCUS:

I need you to take this (hands the USB to John) and keep it safe.

JOHN:

What’s on this?

MARCUS:

To tell you the truth, I’m not exactly sure, but I know that it is valuable. It must stay a secret until I tell you to release it, or you know I have been captured. It is for the good of the people.

JOHN:

You can count on me. Of course I will help you.

(Ange notices a smile lurk across Wil’s face, she nudges Marcus)

ANGE:

Wait, Marcus (she whispers).

(Ten seconds later there is a loud pounding on the door. Startled, John slips the USB stick into his back pocket and tries to compose himself as he opens the door)

CARRIE JOHNSTONE:

Why hello there, is Marcus here?

JOHN:

Yes, he is, come on in.

CARRIE:

Hello Marcus, I believe you have something I want.

(Terrified Marcus grabs Ange’s hand)

MARCUS:

I don’t know what you are talking about. What do you want from me?

CARRIE:

Oh, you know what I want. You have the secrets to our government on that silly little USB of yours. Now all you have to do is give it to me and you can go along with your pathetic little life.

MARCUS:

I don’t have a USB.

CARRIE:

Come on now Marcus, you don’t want to have to go through waterboarding again like last year do you?

(Marcus shuttered at the thought of Carrie ordering men to pour water over his upside down head)

MARCUS:

I told you, I don’t have it.

(Wil approaches the gathering at the doorway)

WIL:

Why don’t you tell her who does have it Marcus?

(Marcus looks at Ange with an apprehensive face)

A loud explosion goes off right outside the tent before anyone else can say a word. Smoke, orange playa dust, and sparks fill the air. The hexayurt catches on fire.

MARCUS:
RUN! (He yells to Ange).

(They escape out the bottom curtain of the hexayurt, grabbing John along with them. Marcus, Ange, and John make it out of the tent and begin running through the crowd. All of the sudden Ange looks back and notices Wil has caught up to them and he grabs John’s shirt. John falls down).

JOHN:

Help! (John screams)

ANGE:

(Pulls on Marcus’s arm) We have to help him!

MARCUS:

No! It’s our life or his! We have to keep going or they’ll catch all of us.

 (Tears stream down Ange’s face. The explosions get louder. Next thing they know a hovercraft swoops down and grabs Wil and John)

ANGE:

Look! They got John!

(Marcus and Ange look towards the sky)

MARCUS:

We have to get it back!

CARRIE:

(Appears from behind them) Good luck with that…We’ll see how well you do when you don’t have your little friends coming to your rescue.

(Marcus and Ange turn to face Carrie. They see she has captured Zeb and Masha)

MARCUS:

Zeb! Masha! I’m sorry!

(Ange lets out a cry as a man in desert clothing grabs her hands and twists them behind her back. People look on, helpless and scared. Disrupted from the peaceful burning of the temple)

CARRIE:

You’ll be even sorrier when you find out what was on that USB. Good thing is that was the only copy and I have it now. You made a mistake trusting John in front of Wil. He’s been part of the plan all along. But don’t you worry Marcus, you’ll pay for what you have done. You will pay.

Gilad Lotan’s field of study is data and information flow.  He is the Vice President of Research Development His main focus is Social Flow. Social Flow is company that analyzes Twitter interaction to try to determine patterns and gather demographic information on Twitter users, the effectiveness of Twitter, and the most influential people on Twitter. Erhardt Graeff, Ian Pearce, and Devin Gaffney’s main project are Web Ecology. The web ecology project “asks questions of Internet culture, analyzes data, and otherwise engages with Web 2.0 phenomenon”.

Mike Ananny’s studies “how institutional, social, technological, and normative forces both shape and reflect the design of the online press and a public right to hear.” Ananny and Danah Boyd’s main project is Microsoft Research, which looks at the way Twitter interacts with the corporate world.

The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows During the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions investigates the impact that Twitter had on the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions in 2011. Number of re-tweets and information flow were analyzed in conjunction with the “actor type” of the tweets. The main aim of the article was to discern the role of different sources in information spread, and the impact of the information shared. This topic was of particular interest because of the impact on mainstream media on revolution changes. The researchers were curious to find whose information was viewed the most and retweeted the most. Tweets that are most retweeted are thought to be determinations of the trust other people put in the accuracy of the Tweets.

It was discovered that the most influential media source on Twitter varies depending on the country the media is received in. For example, bloggers’ tweets were retweeted the most in Tunisia, and non-media organizations in Egypt had the most retweets. The mainstream media, journalists, and activists were the most engaged in the information flows in Egypt. In Tunisia there were more journalists than bloggers that initiated information flow, however, bloggers participation in information flow was much larger.

Overall, this information is valuable because it shows that the source of information that is most valuable and trusted depends on the country and the people. With each different culture there is a different media system and a different perception of media. Therefore, one type of “actor” or reporter on Twitter is not more influential or valid. Especially in the midst of a revolution, information is often spread without sourcing the original vender-instead it is simply linked to the last person who tweeted on the subject.

Jakob Nielsen received his Ph.D. in human-computer interaction in Copenhagen from the Technical University of Denmark. He was a Sun Microsystems Distinguished Engineer from 1994-1998 and his chief responsibility was increasing web efficiency. Nielsen’s work and books have revolved mainly on what makes websites functional.

In First 2 Words: A Signal for the Scanning Eye Nielsen explores how internet readers gather information on the internet. Research was conducted using 80 participants, the majority of which were under the age of 30. The study had two tasks-first, view the first eleven characters in a link and determine what would be found at that link and second, view a list of 10 truncated links and attempt to perform a specific task from those links. The research revealed that links only need to:

• Allow users to confidently predict what they’ll get if they click.
• Be clearly differentiated from the other links.
• Not be misleading or promise too much.

The value of strong links is that consumers or viewers of your page are more likely to click on the links if they have a strong assumption that they know what the link will lead them

This screenshot from Eco-Pro is an example of good links.

too. Eco-Pros is an example of good links because link descriptions are succinct and descriptive. Improving links can result in a potential source of increased revenue because time is money, and the less time people have to take to read your link, the greater chance they will click on it and thus potentially purchase something from your website. Tony’s Links is an example of bad links on webpages because they are too long and very general.

This screenshot from Tony’s Links represents an example of bad links.

Although this study was interesting, I am uncertain of the benefits of knowing the reading patterns of internet users. The study mentioned that although concise, distinct links are best,

In real life, links aren’t truncated on the page. Even if users see only the first 2 words or so during their initial scan, they can immediately read more if their eyes stop on the link.

I would argue that the additional second it takes for a reader to complete reading the link to gather information will not be a deterrent to selecting a particular link. It would be interesting to compare longer links with shorter links and determine if perhaps a longer more descriptive link is selected more.

The second point the article makes is that when reading lists, people tend to read the first few lines very closely and then skip down the list reading only the first few words. Based on this data, I would argue that if the information was written in a paragraph more knowledge would be gleamed because readers would read several lines intently before beginning to skim. If there were 3 descriptive lines in a paragraph in comparison to a list with three short lines, more points could be made in the paragraph. However, from personal experience I find reading bullet points much easier to learn information because the main points are separated and distinct.

Overall, is it more important for internet users or website creators to be aware of the reading habits on the internet? I would say it is more valuable for the reader to be aware of reading habits so they can try to compensate for the natural tendency to glaze over certain words and paragraphs. On the other hand, poorly constructed webpages make it difficult for any reader to gain the maximum amount of knowledge, regardless of their attentiveness. Therefore, there must be collaboration between websites and readers to maximize the knowledge absorbed by the reader.

Henry Jenkins is an avid reader, writer and researcher. He has a passion for popular culture and science fiction. He has written and edited over a dozen books and he is currently the Provost’s Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California. Previously he was the director of the MIT Comparative Media Studies Program and the Peter de Florez Professor of Humanities. In 2007 Jenkins wrote a blog on the Nine Propositions Towards a Cultural Theory of YouTube, in his post he proposes nine ways that YouTube will influence society. He projects conflict between opposing groups, visible and widespread marketing, increased awareness of politics, the shift in the cultural economy, and development of skills will all be present with the rise of YouTube.

The Proposition I found most relevant to movement and growth amongst society was proposition number 8, which states:

 In the age of YouTube, social networking emerges as one of the important social skillsand cultural competencies that young people need to acquire if they are going to become meaningful participants in the culture around them. We need to be concerned with the participation gap as much as we are concerned with the digital divide. The digital divide has to do with access to technology; the participation gap has to do with access to cultural experiences and the skills that people acquire through their participation within ongoing online communities and social networks.

It is important to recognize the value that YouTube provides to those who have access to it. It contains a plethora of information, ranging from funny videos to politics to education and skills. Not only is YouTube a valuable asset to learn from, it is also a key component to being successful in the economic world. People without access to YouTube are at a disadvantage because they cannot simply look up “how to…cook lasagna”. Instead they must use more timely methods to discover the recipe such as find a cook book and read the steps, or call a friend who might know how. YouTube reduces the amount of time spent on tasks and the same information is easily distributed amongst a group of people. For example if a company wanted to promote a new product, they could create a YouTube video on the product and send it to the employees. This way, all employees are gaining the same information, and the cost of promoting the product is reduced because the video can be replayed multiple times and sent to many people. Whereas in person communication takes much more time and must allot time for questions and clarification.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1YLPL0KOWE[/youtube]

It is often forgotten that the internet is not available to all people, and because of that, a specific demographic is being left in the dust when it comes to advancing in cultural competency. In addition, some people have access to technology but their culture resides mainly offline. Therefore, skills that could be learned and communities that could be developed online fail to thrive and people are left to make up the difference.

Jane McGonigal has a PhD from the University of California at Berkeley. She researches games and their impact on society and has published many articles and a book on gaming. She has taught classes on game design and game theory at UC Berkeley and the San Francisco Art Institute and also created games and game strategies in more than 30 countries.  In an excerpt from her bestselling book, Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, McGonigal proposes games are the solution to the problems of society and can create a greater amount of happiness in the world. She explains that there is a growing discernment that reality is broken; people lack motivation, rewards, challenges, and thrill in their lives. She proposes that taking the strategies behind video games and applying them to real life can change our world for the better.

The truth is this: in today’s society, computer and video games are fulfilling genuine human needs that the real world is currently unable to satisfy.

McGonigal explains that humans yearn for challenge, rewards, creativity, success, social interaction, and connectedness. She refers to these innate human desires as our “hunger” for success and growth. These “hungers” are not satisfied in the physical world, but are achieved in online gaming worlds all the time. Games are designed to motivate players to collaborate, work hard, persevere, and welcome challenge because great rewards are granted in return. McGonigal believes that game developers need to be the ones who develop a new system, in other words a large game, that all of society works and lives in.

Game developers know better than anyone else how to inspire extreme effort and reward hard work. They know how to facilitate cooperation and collaboration at previously unimaginable scales. And they are continuously innovating new ways to motivate players to stick with harder challenges.

The idea of using strategies developed for games in the real world is unique and new to most people. Is it possible to harness the motivation and energy in the gaming world and apply it to the real world? Perhaps it is. The characteristic of working together as a team to achieve a goal could result in more efficient work at a higher quality. However, the difference in the real world in comparison to the gaming world is the level of reward people are given for their work and accomplishments. In many games, team work and determination results in a reward of a large sum of money, new challenges and levels, and the unlocking of special treasures. Often times this is not the case in life. Hard work does pay off, just not to the extremes of games.

I believe that McGonigal is over zealous in her approach to applying game tactics to society. This alternate approach could possibly have a positive effect on society, but to say that it will solve the problems of the world such as health care, world hunger, and world peace is a stretch. In addition, McGonigal fails to address single player games where solidarity is an advantage and the goal is to beat all others in order to win the ultimate prize. In a TED talk given by McGonigal, she states that “when we are in game worlds we are the best versions of ourselves”. I question how the best version of ourselves is portrayed when we play violent and aggressive video games. How do the not-so-positive games influence our motivations and goals?

Overall, the strategy and reward systems from games could benefit our society by restructuring our approach to problem solving. However, in contrast to McGonigal, I do not believe that games can solve larger world problems-in the end, the reason people enjoy games in the first place is that they contrast reality so remarkably.

Dr. Danah Boyd attended Brown University where she earned her bachelor’s in computer science and then attended MIT and received her master’s degree in sociable media. In 2008 Boyd received her Ph.D. in Information from UC Berkeley. She is a researcher and professor at many different universities around the world, such as University of New South Wales and New York University. She has numerous publications and is currently writing a book.

Boyd’s article, Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life, addresses the privacy and barrier issues teens are facing on the Internet. Boyd explains that there have always been mediated and unmediated spaces for teens to interact with each other, but before the widespread use of the internet most teens were mostly under constant surveillance from adults. The internet provides a public unmediated space for teens to explore their identity and transition into the adult sphere. Contradiction arises when parents want to view their teens’ online profiles and teens object. Adolescents believe that although they are posting about their personal lives in the public arena of the internet, it does not mean that everyone should be reading it. One young girl expresses her frustration of parental interaction on her social network site:

“My mom always uses the excuse about the internet being ‘public’ when she defends herself. It’s not like I do anything to be ashamed of, but a girl needs her privacy. I do online journals so I can communicate with my friends. Not so my mother could catch up on the latest gossip of my life.”– Bly Lauritano-Werner, 17

Boyd continues the discussion of private versus public into the conversation of identity. Social norms are created by social interaction with peers and the environment. Teens today must learn to “write themselves into being” through their online profiles. While teens want to display their identity and creation of self to friends, they also want to keep their identity hidden from their parents and other adults. As teens express their personalities online, they often put forth images and expressions that will make them cool with mainstream ideals of teens. However, these characteristics can conflict with the image they want to portray to their parents, teachers, and employers. There is importance in gaining input from peers because they help socialize us into what is acceptable amongst our peer group. However, only receiving input from our peers can hinder our growth because it prevents us from socialization into adult life:

While peer socialization is obviously valuable and important, it is fundamentally different from being socialized into adult society by adults themselves; generations emerge and norms rapidly change per generation. By segregating people by age, a true dichotomy between adult and teen emerged.

Boyd argues that adults want to have control over their children because they want to prevent them from making mistakes. She says that this is dangerous because teens need to learn how to make mistakes and learn from them.  Facebook and Myspace provide a good place for teens to grow and develop their identities through thought out messages and pictures. Although I agree with Boyd that mistakes are important, I also believe that it is important to be cautious of the comments are made online because those actions are forever recorded in a digital footprint for all to see. Before the internet, when teens made mistakes people usually only heard of it through word of mouth or by witnessing it. Now, teens’ mistakes are open for all to see and analyze. As the socialization culture changes more rapidly than ever before, we must look at the impact it is having on our society. Should internet mediation be more prevalent? Or do parents need to relax and allow their children to create their own identities and learn from their mistakes in the process?

Andrew Keen is an Internet entrepreneur who focuses on the “impact of digital technologies on 21st century business, education and society”. He has a chat show called “Keen On” and he works for many newspapers, radio stations, and television stations. In his book, Digital Vertigo, Keen is in London for the “Silicon Valley Comes to Oxford” conference. One day he spends some time alone in the middle of the city observing the preserved body of Jeremy Bentham, on display for all to see. During his time in London, Keen asks the successful social media entrepreneur, Biz Stone, what the future holds for society. Stone replies that “the future will be social”. Over the duration of Keen’s time in London he spends time reflecting on our social and virtually connected society and the implications these systems of behavior influence society. He comes to the conclusion that although more people will be virtually connected, they will actually be less social. The more information one displays of themselves, the less personal they are actually becoming:

The man who is his own image in the digitally networked world, I realized, is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere, and the more completely visible he appears, the more completely invisible he actually is.

Keen argues that as we display more of ourselves to the digital world, we actually become less in touch with our true selves because we are too caught up creating an image that we want others to see us as. Keen cautions against openness, sharing personal details of life, and extreme transparency because of the threat they pose to true happiness. Privacy and solitude are the keys to a successful and happy life:

Privacy is not only essential to life and liberty; it’s essential to the pursuit of happiness, in the broadest and deepest sense. We human beings are not just social creatures; we’re also private creatures.

As we enter into a society that is ever more digitally social, we must keep in mind the value of privacy.

As I read through the excerpt of Digital Vertigo by Keen I could not help but wonder why our generation has such a strong desire to make our lives known to the public. Are we, as individuals, so insecure to be alone that we need to be in constant communication with others? Are we afraid that if we remove ourselves from the digital sphere that we will be forgotten? Keen alludes to this when he says:

While social media, for all its superhuman ability to see through walls, might not quite guarantee immortality, its impact is certainly of immense historical significance

In reflection on this article I have come to the conclusion that I am a much happier and confident person when I am away from social media such as Facebook, email, and texting. I enjoy being by myself. Often I feel the loneliest when I am on Facebook, looking through my pictures, or my friend’s pictures. I feel disconnected from even my closest friends online due to not only the technology barrier, but also the extreme vulnerability of others knowing personal details about my life. It is interesting that Bentham’s “Inspection-House” is now the reality that the majority of the population blissfully enters into.

The app industry is allowing the “Inspection-House” to merge even more into our daily routines. There are now apps that allow you to view where all of your Facebook friends are. As seen by the interview with Chad Mureta, apps can be a very successful way to make money. But at what price? Even though a certain app could make you a lot of money, does it mean it is always ethical to create? Take for example the Breakup Notifier App. Before this app was blocked by Facebook, what message was it sending to society? It is acceptable to make money at the expense of exploiting the heartbreak of another human being? These are some important questions we need to address before so easily signing up for the virtual world.

Lucas Hilderbrand is an associate professor for film and media studies, visual studies, and women’s studies at UC Irvine. He received his Ph.D. in 2006 from New York University in Cinema Studies. His article, YouTube: Where Cultural Memory and Copyright Converge, discusses the impact social media, YouTube in specific, has on access to information and debates copyright issues that arise with the massive redistribution of information. Hilderbrand believes that information on YouTube should be available to view and use without violation of copyright laws. He refers to the Betamax case for justification of why YouTube should remain without severe privacy or copyright restrictions. The Betamax case had three significant findings:

First, that home video recorders must be allowed because of their potential for non-infringing uses; second, that the dominant uses of the machines were for timeshifting…and third, that Sony could not be held liable for its customers’ misuses of the machines. The court saw fit to expand the definition of fair use—reproduction of copyrighted content for educational uses—to include personal consumptive uses as a way to broaden the potential audiences for television programming and serve a broader public interest.  

Hilderbrand states that YouTube is less of a “peer-to-peer” site, and more of an information collection site in which people can post copied, appropriated, or original videos for others to see. He argues that YouTube is user friendly, offers a large variety of content, and allows for instantaneous discoveries. He explains that YouTube does not only provide funny videos, but it also serves as an educational outlet:

I am suggesting that YouTube does not pro- mote willy-nilly piracy but rather enables access to culturally significant texts that would otherwise be elusive and the ability to repurpose videos in the creation of new derivative works.

YouTube makes life easier for professors because they have access to educational material that they would otherwise not have access to.  The rapid speed comes in exchange for poor quality and fosters entitlement and instant gratification. Our society has become comfortable with the vast amount of information we have available at our fingertips. This makes it difficult to imagine a day without access to whatever we want:

Perhaps more than at any time before, audiences and users seem to reject the content in- dustry’s proprietary claims, complaining when a video goes offline or even reposting new versions of formerly disabled clips. Expectations for access have developed into a sense of access entitlement.

It has become increasingly common for YouTube to remove links due to “infringement” and there have been lawsuits against YouTube for copyright. Although videos are often re-posted, Hilderbrand makes an excellent point that most people on YouTube are not trying to take credit for other people’s creations, in fact, most people simply share the YouTube link in an email to their friends. In this sense, the video is still being shown from the original uploader’s site, and the video has not been downloaded or reproduced.

At base, copyright allows rights owners the right of publication and, in exchange for offering cultural works for public consumption, of profiting from such publication.

It is a fine line to balance when considering copyright laws. We must face the reality that movies, television shows, concerts, lectures, etc. are now readily available online. What are we as a society going to do about regulation of these videos? Should we charge a fee to view or download them, or should we allow them to be free to all? With such rapid reproduction of the same video it has become increasingly difficult to pin down the original owner of the video. People who decide to post their videos on YouTube should realize that their clip is most likely going to be re-posted and they may lose control over the direction their clip takes. If someone does not want their clip reproduced, they should not upload it. Perhaps copyright laws will eventually come to a solution on how to better regulate the redistribution of videos on YouTube, but until then, individuals must fend for themselves in order to protect the ownership of their videos.