Big Brother is Watching You!!!!

Facebook and other social networking sites are social tools that provide: entertainment, a sense of personal identity, intimate relationships, social conversations and they can even build online communities. Generally, in order to get the most out of these sites, one needs to distribute and share information about themselves, some personal, and some general! But what about the issues of sharing too much personal information? I know when I signed on to facebook I didn't really care to think about the privacy policy statement. I had assumed that Facebook would not allow stalkers, strangers, or companies access into my PERSONAL SPACE which includes, my name, work, likes, dislikes, friends, family members, and so forth. However, as I examined some of the potential issues and risks regarding social networking sites I found SNS, like Facebook are prime agents of having third parties invade my privacy. From a report by Nicole S. Cohen called " The Valorization of Surveillance: Towards a political economy of Facebook", (it's really interesting by the way) it describes how the government and state can have access to your account, if legally required. Fair enough, I guess if their is reasonable grounds. However, I also found out from Cohen's article that the application "Newsfeed" on Facebook is really just another form of Survelliance for advertisors that create their own identities and scope the site, and it is also another form of surveillance for us. First I was annoyed that Facebook is being used to gain profit off of information. Second, I was a little disturbed when she suggested that WE, as users, were controlling and watching people. Unfortuantely, I agree that this particular application is a form of surveillance for people to monitor and possibly control or stalk people. For example, NewsFeed shares with all that " so and so are in a relationship", that "Joe" is attending " Jills" Party on Friday night at a particular club, or that "Bob" is attending a fundraiser. These are examples of events that normally give contact numbers, dates, times, places, people and so forth. When she argued that this application actually enhances surveillance on one another, I started thinking about the potential risks of stalkers, hackers, and strangers learning about WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU GO! Not only that but they can eventually learn about your family or friends. Recently, I was contacted by some weirdo who did not even know me but wanted to add me on Facebook. I was completely confused. Why would you want to add me if we do not even have mutal friends???? It is a creepy feeling knowing that people can watch your everymove, and I never really estimated the amount of control each and everyone of us can have over other member of facebook. Is this appliction just another way for the government to manipulate our way of thinking about the acceptance of privacy policies? Is Newsfeed truly a surveillance mechanism that could actually do us wrong in the end? I feel that the use of Facebook of commodifying information and the limitless access of our personal space is a danger for the user and the user's privacy. Because of how Facebook is availble to all societies and to all communities is Facebook an agent that could possibly become a social control resource, is this a replica of " Big Brother"? I do not think people realize how much their privacy can be breached because people neglect to focus on these issues and become so wrapped up in their own little community. I really have begun to wonder if Facebook is just another tool that the Money hungry giants and authority figures have paid some guy off, to maintain their hierarchial structure over society? Mark Zuberg, the founder of Facebook has described it as "Revolutionary". Really, is Facebook revolutionary, to who? To Us, in regards to social networking and the advancement of communication and democracy? Or is it revolutionary for powerful agents of control that can watch and access your every move? Do not get me wrong, I still intend on using Facebook however, I think I am going to be a little more cautious with what I post. You never know if BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING!!

LOG ON!

As I sat on my couch yesterday, watching an old Friends re-run I could not help but remember the endless hours that I studied for Ted’s midterm and the fact that all that information was still lodged in my brain. I had this eerie view of Monica reciting Haberma’s critique of Democracy. With that being said, while watching TV last night I realized that I was watching a unilateral medium, all thanks to Rowland. In his book he has distinguished two different types of communication mediums that distribute information and messages. Unilateral mediums and Bilateral mediums. When I actually put my brain in gear I realized that this could be a potential topic for social networking. What I began pondering about was the differences of television and the internet (focusing on social networking of course) and wondered in the end which medium should take the gold!

Bilateral mediums are a source in which information is distributed in various directions, it does not have limitations or any control for example: the internet. Instead of constructing control, and a hierarchical structure among it’s users as Unilateral mediums do. It actually encourages conversation and interactivity (earlier example of such would be the telephone or telegraph.). Personally, I do not have a lot of time to watch TV. Instead I find myself shoved in the back of the library or slaving away at work. The only source of medium I have to use at these locations are computers, and the good old world wide web. Thanks to browsers and search engines I have had numerous amounts of time to figure out how to get oil stains out of my sweater and keep in track with the weather. But really what advantage is there to using a Bilateral medium compared to a unilateral medium. Well for instance, lets use MSN and Facebook as my prime examples. MSN allows one to instantly message someone and continue an entire conversation on a screen, the basis of time and space are completely eliminated. It also promotes conversations with one another. No one is controlling what you are saying and what you are sending, it is like having a conversation on the phone, It can be used for personal use. Just the same, though Facebook offers more, it does the same thing. The lack of government, regulation, and profit that is incorporated works well into making this system a public sphere. It does not limit its user’s to having multiple conversations, you can talk to five people at a time if you wish, it is not just a one way street. Wheras, Unilateral systems have a source of power behind them disseminating the message. Someone is at one end providing you with the information but there is no conversation in return. You cannot talk back to the news. What the broadcaster says is what he says and that is the end of conversation. Larger corporations and government structures have full control, and society is just the audience. So in that case, Why do we still want to watch TV if we know this is true? We can get all we need from the web! We can actually achieve more from social networks because we can gain insight of different perspective of the news, for example. I for one feel that unilateral systems are not productive anymore. We live in a society where
metamediums are taking over and that requires mediums to promote interactivity. I say skip TV and log onto Facebook!

Facebook: Cuz you got to have friends!

The other day, as I was moping around at work, I noticed a magazine with a picture of Hugh Grant and began reading it. I really had no other choice as my employer chose to take away our internet at the front counter, forcing me to be disconnected with the rest of the globe. However, as I was reading this magazine called: The American Way , I came across an article called “ Zero Degrees of Seperation” by Jim Shahin. His article was very intriguing. He discussed the impact of new technology VS. Old technology and how Facebook has created new ways of interacting, sharing, and making information available to people.

Shahin’s article had me contemplating about the notion of Facebook and how it has advanced from such ancient ways. Before social networking, people used to communicate through morse code, telegrams, horse & carriage, by foot, boat and so forth. In all aspects, social networking, and now specifically; Facebook has made everything available from information, to pictures, to groups, and even friends. Shahin brings something up in his article that I had never really thought of before which is the action, of adding friends onto your account. We add friends that we do not know, that we do not talk to, or even like. Why, to acquire a greater number of friends for social purposes? Or is it because it is available and we like the idea of having available contacts? I myself, have added people that I did not know, maybe because it was interesting, and exciting to discover someone new? I have also added people that I do not even like, maybe it is just to keep track of them? Or are both examples situations in which technology has made them available, therefore, we do it because we can? In this case, how do you feel about allowing strangers, or acquaintances becoming a part of your personal life? What does this say about the availability of information and contacts? Personally I feel that too many things are available to too many people. I feel that this notion of having everything available is taking away the personal aspect of social networking and turning it into a popularity contest.