This was a very illuminating course for me. I will admit it, I am a little curmudgeon as it relates to the growth of the internet in the world around us. I dont utilize the internet to its full capabilities. So taking this course has shed some light on a lot of things that the internet and its devices offer.

I think what will stick the most for me from this course is how far reaching something like the internet is. The section that we discussed how people in Egypt utilized the internet to virtually overthrow a bad government was fascinating to me. And it really all started with Asmaa Mafhouz’s vlog on her Facebook page. Something as simple as a video snowballed into an entire revolution on the biggest stage. Utilizing the internet that way is utterly fascinating. It is a very very powerful tool and it should be treated as such.

Another thing was this weeks discussion on whether or not the internet should be treated as a utility. I think besides the whole Net Neutrality debate, this will be the biggest aspect of internet legislation? that we will be discussing for the next decade. It is so important in today’s society to have internet access even for something as simple as homework. Moving forward I really hope that us as a society really dig into this subject and make it happen.

Overall this was a very interesting course. You made us cover a lot of material in a very short period of time but for me, I sure got a lot out of it!

Mobile phones used to be just that…a mobile phone. Call, text, maybe play snake or something. Now we have a little computer in our pockets that possess the same capabilities of our desktop computers! We are able to access the all important Internet from virtually any place we find ourselves. Now things are not always perfect, there are certainly dead spots all across the country where we cannot use our mobile phones to their full capabilities.

In my experience I have not really come across a place that does not allow me to utilize my mobile phone. One place that put it to the test was when I made a cross country trip just 2 years ago and my brother in law and I found ourselves in the middle of nowhere Nebraska. The motel did not have internet but our cellphones had just enough internet for us to be able to create a hot spot so we could connect our laptops to them in order for me to do homework and he to do his work. So in my estimation location at this point really does not factor into how I access my resources. I will say this though. I had ATT when I first moved up to Boone. I had really no problem anywhere getting internet service. My family this winter made the switch to the “nationwide leader” Verizon. I have found SEVERAL dead spots in the places I regularly go. This has been quite frustrating for the extra 30 or so seconds that I have to wait for a page/song to load. It has made me realize how much I take for granted the ability to connect anywhere, and that I should appreciate the access and speed that we DO have. Being able to connect and say play music or get information from the web undoubtedly enriches our lives. Before people lived in a world where something like a piece of trivia being argued over couldnt be solved without going home/to a library. Now in the blink of an eye that information is easily accessible.

There also is another element that should be discussed as well. One that does in fact take away from the human experience. Now that we have the ability to be connected so easily and quickly, it seems that in some cases our in person relationships have suffered. People seemed to be buried in their devices to the point where they wont even look up from them when engaging in conversation with other people. We used to not have the distraction that mobile devices create, people would be more apt to engage with others. Now there is the ever present phone with internet that can take us completely out of our in person reality. I hope that moving forward we as a society realize that while having the mobility of the internet and our devices is for sure a good thing, it should not take away from our in person interactions.

I want to think about your online relationship to some organization, institution, or group–it could be an App State departmental website, or it could be a corporate brand, or it could be a non-profit or a community group, etc. Think about how you interact with this “social media presence.” What makes you respond? What makes you resist responding? Think about both flavors of “engagement” as we discussed in this module.

So I might actually be the worst person in our class to answer this question. I do not have the social media presence that many of my peers do. There is absolutely value in what Social media brings, I do acknowledge that fact, but for me personally its not something that is a big part of my life. So do I have any social media? The answer to that question is a resounding yes. When I think about what I use social media for, I cannot help but think that there is a portion of the population that does the same. In my case I have a Twitter account that I use to communicate my displeasure with a company. That is the sole level of engagement that I have using Twitter. I found that the old school way of emailing (old school lol), or even calling customer service was not as effective as it used to be. It seems in this new day and age that public shaming in the social media sphere is what motivates a company to fix customer service issues. I have gotten many an answer and problem solved by stating it on Twitter even as far as getting a fast food order refunded because they messed up my burger. I think that this goes to show how important social media engagement is in this day and age. If I call and make a complaint then a company can just brush it off as another “disgruntled customer” and I really dont matter. By engaging them in a place where their actions are on the record and the public can see, they are forced to take action on my behalf or risk a mob of internet users pitchforking and rallying on my behalf.

I say all of that while recognizing the benefits that we see from social media. It enables a company or cause to get in on the grassroots level with people and grow as their cause gains momentum. And not in an impersonal way either. There are actual people behind the keyboards and I think that many people appreciate that. Sometimes the content that is created can be a little cringey when social media mangers try to relate to their audience though. The US Army experienced this just recently with what they thought was going to be a feel good tweet that people could share their experience with the Army. Unfortunately they found that what most people wanted to express where the negative experiences they had while going through the Army. When people are passionate about something, be it positive or negative, then in the world of social media you are going to see it.

People get out of social media a lot of good things, but also alot of bad things. For me the bad far out weighs the good which is why I abstain from using it aside from a shaming mechanism. We like to think that it mirrors what we experience in our day to day social life, but in reality it just sheds light on our most visceral emotions.

 We have talked about two different perspectives on social media–the affective (“ambient intimacy”) and the informatic (social graph, relational data). Does one way of thinking about social media take precedence over the other? Does it make sense for us to analyze social media as an either/or (either it is socially engaging or it is all just a ploy to extract our data) Or, as Willson suggests (using Nancy), is there a both/and explanation for how we can describe our relationship to social media? How do these ideas tie into Wednesday’s reading (and the discussions we had last week regarding the digital public sphere?)

Well all have some form of it. Social media. It has taken over most of our lives in some shape or form. Even those of use that dont use it, the content and what we consume are formed around or by it. The forms of social media take on many different forms. From the self ego centric nature of the Facebooks and the Instagrams, to the other end of the spectrum of online anonymous forums like a Reddit there is a rainbow of ways it manifests itself. In our readings we have come to learn of the benefits and detractions both from an affective and informatic perspective. In the Wilson reading using Nancy as a guide we understand that Ambient intimacy is important in the sense that it creates a connection between two things. A tangible connection that blends two thoughts or ideas into a common action. When manifested between two people either online or face-to-face that connection is very strong and given despite what it looks like we are a very social culture. This ambient intimacy enables us to care for the mundane in others lives and to get closer and develop a care at a distant. That is one of the main aspects to how social media works! There are some dectrors to this idea though. Given the form it takes we find ourselves almost overloaded with Ambient intimacy sometimes. So much so that people are know to “sign off” for mental health issues! That being said, overall I think on this level we are all happy with that being what social media is and that it doesn’t represent more than a tangential way to keep up with old friends and make new ones. Unfortunately that isn’t the case and what its out there on social media is not simply the ideal that we want it to be. From fake news proliferating through our feeds, and companies disguising regular content as a type of guerrilla marketing ad, social media has its fair share of struggles. And its not just limited to those things. There is the scary bad “big data” up in the sky that is taking all of the information that we are putting out their in the online public sphere and turning that into information used to sell us products, influence our decision making, and even affect political and social agendas. This is an incredibly dangerous slippery slope as there hasn’t been a powerful tool like this that people WILLINGLY give up their own personal information to the public. It should be treated as the delicate information that it is. There has to be a blending of these two approaches towards social media or otherwise society will move on to the next social construction. I think for the most part users of social media (unless they live under a rock) recognize that companies, political persons, even employers place a high value on what happens on social media. We have to acknowledge the value that our information is to “big data” but they must also themselves be accountable for what they do with that information.

So I think my skills lend them self much more so to the idea of creating some type of content rather than to attempt to write an 8-10 page research paper. I am able to work in the Beasley studios so I think that I want to utilize the equipment there to produce a high quality video project. Now, onto the nuts and bolts of the project…what I am going to talk about. I was thinking it would be really cool to do a pseudo news story. One that is set in a world that is not connected to internet and people have to deal with life not connected. That would be one “package” the news reporter is reporting on. Then as we cut back to the studio after seeing how people deal without the internet (they dont know OF the internet its just a way of life) there is a spell that is cast over (think like bubbles on the screen a la Wizard of Oz) everyone and we are back to present day WITH the internet. Then a package is played where we see people utilizing the internet in all the great ways that it can be used. Now that I think about it I think I might switch the order of the two clips for continuities sake. I could also do an “apocalyptic” take on it where there is some dire reason that the internet was taken away from us. Maybe zombies or something. But ultimately I want to stay within the framework of a studio news broadcast. Things that I am going to highlight in these video packages are: using the library to find information (think Rolodex)/using the internet to find the same info, interacting with friends face to face/ using something like face-time to accomplish the same interaction, paying someone back money with cash/venmo, how music used to be bought or consumed/ the streaming options we now have, using a map/using gps, and several more juxtapositions that are similar that will showcase the difference between a life with the internet and a life without it. I think that this video will do a good job showcasing the impact that the internet has on our daily lives and how much both we depend on it and how much easier it makes our lives. My backup idea if I am not allowed to use the Beasley to do my studio work would be a podcast in the same vein. Just instead of having a hypothetical event that causes it, I will simply be reflecting my thoughts on those same juxtapositions that I noted earlier. In the case of the podcast I would bring in a guest or two so that there are multiple points of view on the subject and you dont have to just listen to me drone on for 5-10 minutes! Overall the point that I want to get across is simply how important and dependent we are on the internet and I think that either of these media options will do a fine job articulating that.

I want you to connect the dots between the Good Copy Bad Copy Documentary and the readings we have for today. How has streaming services and platforms like SoundCloud changed the music industry–and more importantly perhaps the music ecology between listeners, artists, producers, and distributors? You might explore as well various microgenres that thrive in online environments, and how digital networks fragment (and reassemble?) markets and cultures.

It has certainly brought to light many artists, producers, and distributors that once were struggling in obscurity. I think that music, as much so as any medium that we have, really is something that should be as unrestricted as anything. Anyone can create, mix, and come up with musical content (whether it is good or not is beside the point). Places like Soundcloud and others really allow users to be able to make what seemed like an unattainable goal be closer than ever. Sure there is idea that I am sure most of you have heard and probably laughed at before….”oh yeah, thats my buddy hes a “soundcloud rapper” hahahahaha”. But isn’t that amazing when you sit back and reflect on it? Here a person has the ability to put metaphorical pen to paper and attempt to make their dreams come true. I think there is some serious value in that concept that should not be overlooked or diminished. These places provide a soundboard for people to get feedback on how much their product is good OR bad. They also provide the ability for us to discover a niche market that we, the users, may not have been exposed to otherwise. Think back to say the 1980s when death metal was at its dawn. You weren’t able to find an online community to share your passion, or your own take on the music. Hell you were lucky to find someone in your real life that didnt think it was just the devil himself coming back to get his fiddle he gave to Johnny so many years ago. So now to have a place where your niche is not so much niche anymore (at least in the traditional sense of the word) is so powerful. We are enabling this generation of artists to not be creatively stifled like music has always seemed to have a problem with it. At this point I dont think there is any turning back, and for that I am thankful.

Reflect on Lessig’s discussion of R/O vs R/W culture. Do you think that networks and digital technology create a cultural conflict between users (and their public/commons expectations) and owners (and their claim to intellectual property)? Do “bad” laws breed good pirates? And what would “good” laws look like?

I believe in the idea that what can come out of “bad laws” are “good pirates”. Laws only exist because somewhere along the line, those who could make the law, made it for whatever reasons. The reasons could be good and the law protects and serves society for the better. The reasons could be bad or arbitrary and the law only protects and serves those who made the law in the first place. I think that in the case of this idea of protecting intellectual property as it relates to media, the laws were unknowingly bad because of a rapidly changing approach towards how we approached our media consumption as consumers. And sometimes the laws just simply dont work because of this rapid shift. Take for example the Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes the comic) stickers we see everywhere. The creator Bill Watterson had zero desire to license his creation out for good or for bad, he just simply didnt want to. Ultimately what happened is now this wholesome character is more recognized for peeing on a chevy logo, ford logo, political opposition, etc. rather than the awesome comic character that he was. Bill’s intellectual property was not protected though we have an abundance of laws that should have protected it. I bring this up because I think that in the current world that we live in you cannot really control this idea of protecting intellectual property, at least on that scale. Once the ball gets rolling on something that does infringe then it almost seems like no amount of cease and desist letters with stop it. And to that point there are going to be good examples of this and bad examples like Calvin. Given that we live in a country that supposedly prides itself on all these freedoms that are afforded to us, I believe that you have to take the good with the bad. Who is to say what a “good” law looks like anyways? Laws in general draw a line in the sand and someone or some content is going to fall on the other side of laws line. I think that a good law is one that protects and serves all and takes into consideration the context of the issue. The music industry for example championed this idea that piracy is bad and the artists and their labels where suffering a significant financial blow. Well we know that this is not true. So while its easy to chant “STEALING!” the laws should reflect what is ACTUALLY happening rather than some emotional response from those who feel they are losing money on their intellectual property.

Back to the idea of “good pirates”, I think that the music industry has shown us how infringing can be a good thing. I made this point in the discussion board, but an absolute prime example of this is DJ Danger Mouse exposing an entire generation of rap fans to the Beatles in the Grey album. While what happened to poor Calvin is certainly what bad can come from it, DJ Danger Mouse to me is the good that come out of this idea of lawbreakers in the intellectual property game.

Are hoaxes and pranks effective forms of political engagement in a society where so much of our political and social interaction takes place through the media? What opportunities for political expression does “culture jamming”allow for, that might not otherwise occur?

I think that all depends on what our definition of effective is in this context for whether or not hoaxes and pranks are effective forms of political engagement. I mean they do engage an audience about the subject of politics dont they? It gets people talking about whatever the political story is being highlighted. BUT the issue arises when people take things at face value and take these outlandish stories and run with them without doing the due diligence required to vet a story that you might come across. Given how much of our news and information that us the citizens consume through the media, ideally that content should come without bias and we SHOULD be able to take their reporting at face value. But that is not the reality that we live in. Case in point we talk about “news networks” but in a lot of cases its not news reporting but rather commentary by pundits ON the news of the day. Thus creating this illusion that they are simply passing along the information but it still goes through a pundit’s filter. The fact that there is no accountability for the pundits is the biggest issue. It reminds me of sports pundits. When NFL draft “guru” Mel Kiper Jr says that Jimmy Peanuts Clausen is going to be a star QB in the NFL but in reality he is out of the league in 3 years there is no one to say “Hey Mel you really told a lie to these people and you should rectify that”. No one from these news networks have taken a step back and (I guess this is the word I’m looking for?) apologized for spreading a terribly false rumor about the Clinton’s having a child sex ring in a Pizza parlor. That rumor caused a lone vigilante to take guns and shoot up the alleged restaurant where of course there were only employees and patrons in the building. It is a dangerous tight rope to walk I think, that we allow these hoaxes and fake stories to slip into the real news content because examples like Pizzagate are the endgame for some people. Luckily no one died, but ultimately I think that there needs to be some level of accountability IF these networks and news sources that we so much depend on lead their viewers astray.

I view the idea of “culture jamming” as simply satire. I think that there is clear difference between satire and something that is completely fabricated. Political satire has been around as long as Politics have been so I dont really see to much of a difference there.

I want you to reflect on some of the examples we have of hashtag activism–from the readings for today, plus whatever case studies your classmates might have found. How effective a tool do you think social media is for political activism? Are there certain features that make hashtag activism more or less effective?

Political activism. It has taken many different forms over the years, with the most recent incarnation being that of the utilization of the internet and even more so specifically the use of hashtags on social media. With a hashtag users are able to rally behind a short and succinct message that can really gain momentum when enough people begin to use the same hashtag. There are both good and bad aspects of this model of activism though, its not just a simple positive rallying cry. With the hashtag generation we find that a lot of times there is some level on context that gets lost in translation when trying to rally behind a cause using a hashtag. Using the example from the NYTimes video it discussed how #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen became a very divisive hashtag because although the intent behind the hashtag was to direct a powerful feminist movement, it made it seem like those that were using the hashtag completely ignored there are plenty of other women of different races that face the same exact issues that white women were taking issue with (in some cases even more so). Now I am not going to sit here and try and judge whether something like that was done intentionally or not, but what I can say it that it shows how even when the intentions are good, a hashtag presents its own sets of obstacles that if you are not familiar with the platform, can get a user into trouble.

On the other hand there are some ways that using hashtags as a way of political activism can have a profound effect on society. The #MeToo movement is a prime example of that. Its a clear and concise hashtag that doesn’t have hardly any ambiguity to it. It creates a place where women (and more recently men as well) can share their bad experiences in a cathartic way to shed a light on a really horrible aspect of our society that needs to change. Even 10 years ago when the internet was in full swing something like #MeToo was nowhere to be found in the mainstream areas of the internet. You had to seek out forums or obscure websites to find a safe place to shed the burden of something like that. Having the ability to connect with so many people and trend a topic like sexual assault on a medium that pretty much at this point most internet users have really brings that taboo topic to the forefront to be able to address it head on.

Ultimately I believe that #activism is a great tool to have in our arsenal. It helps to galvanize a population on a given topic and that is as good a use of the internet as one can use.

Compare how you use the Web & social media today with how Taylor & Roberts imagined we would use the Internet. What is the same? What is different?

I dont think that Taylor and Roberts would have quite envisioned what the internet has become in relation to social media/silly things that us as the broad based consumer uses the internet for in 2019. I think that the network that provides us the ability to do so what EXACTLY what they had in mind while conducting their research and building the ground floor. That does not mean that they would not be absolutely satisfied with what it has become though. We now have a network that with lightning fast speeds that transfers data and information from one end of the globe to another, which regardless of whether its sharing a cute cat pic, or military operations, was their ultimate goal from the beginning whether they realized it or not. Based on their contributions we were able to create a place where content, ideas, and information allows us to create anything that we can imagine…and then share it to anyone who is interested in it! The idea of information sharing from one source to another is still on a base level the exact same as what Taylor and Roberts had in mind. As time went on and people realized the full capabilities of the internet to make it what it is today. Taylor and Roberts maybe couldnt quite predict the advent of social media and all the other things it came to be. But they would be proud with knowing that regardless of WHAT information that is being shared it fulfills their vision of a connected network.