iReport is CNN's public journalism initiative that allows people from around the globe to contribute pictures and video of breaking news stories from their own towns and neighborhood. A CNN iReport poster reported on the 3rd of October, 2008 that Steve Jobs had been rushed to the ER after a severe heart attack. The original report is like this:
Steve Jobs was rushed to the ER just a few hours ago after suffering a major heart attack. I have an insider who tells me that paramedics were called after Steve claimed to be suffering from severe chest pains and shortness of breath. My source has opted to remain anonymous, but he is quite reliable. I haven't seen anything about this anywhere else yet, and as of right now, I have no further information, so I thought this would be a good place to start. If anyone else has more information, please share it.
Although CNN deleted the news and proved that this story was false, the price of Apple's stock decreased sharply.
The slogan of iReport is United, Unfiltered, News; the motivation of building such a web based media is to motivating common people to spread the breaking news happened nearby such as the explosion in the London subway.
The reputation of CNN had decided the much more significant influence of iReport than personal blogs that is also why the investors lost their faith on Apple’s stock, if the same thing happened in a personal blog, this sequence will never be like this.
Some famous tech blog such as Tech Crunch hold the viewpoint that these kind of website should learn from Wikipedia to create a better reputation evaluation system on the reporter to guarantee the quality of the news coming out every day. To achieve this, real name of the reporter should also be revealed.
However, there are always incident for the reporter to catch the chance of breaking news such as the tsuami on Indian Ocean. That kind of reputation evaluation system will eventually destroy the possibility of the motion of these citizen reporters.
Thursday 11 December 2008
Tuesday 9 December 2008
Essay 4 by Rasmus
Internet does not only have a positive impact on society and individuals, internet and social media has also given us more negative effects.
I think many of these negative effects depend on how easy it is to sit in front of a computer in comparison to many of the other media channels. The reason it is easier to sit long at a computer is that it is very easy to vary the content, just for example, change the page in your browser or switch from looking at YouTube videos to play computer games. It is also social in a completely different way than the traditional media, and in certain contexts even peer pressure effects may be created through these social channels.
An example of peer pressure on the internet is something I heard from my friend who plays a lot of World of Warcraft. She told me that some evenings she had to play World of Warcraft because she otherwise could be excluded from the group she joined in the game. And it was not for a short time she had to play but it was basically the whole evening and sometimes the night. It harmed parts of her social life outside the computer world and that part was replaced by a social life in the game where she had many virtual friends.
Another problem, which I believe is because the internet is mainly to entertain, is that it is sometimes difficult to focus on the task when you're doing something boring or hard. I myself have often noticed that when I sit down to write an essay in a topic which I am not really interested, it is very easy to slide into home pages that do not have to with the work that has to be done, such as Facebook or YouTube or start talking with friends through MSN Messenger. It makes the work take much longer time and often becomes slightly worse because I am less focused at the work.
I have also replaced some of my thinking with internet because of its simplicity to search for information online. When I get a question I cannot answer directly I do not even try to come up with the answer myself, I write directly as a search word in Google or Wikipedia and trying to find the answer this way. Sometimes this method takes more time than if I sat and pondered and found the answer myself. In some cases I don’t even try to come up with the answer myself after a search without a hits because I think “If it doesn’t exist on Google it doesn’t exist at all”.
I think many of these negative effects depend on how easy it is to sit in front of a computer in comparison to many of the other media channels. The reason it is easier to sit long at a computer is that it is very easy to vary the content, just for example, change the page in your browser or switch from looking at YouTube videos to play computer games. It is also social in a completely different way than the traditional media, and in certain contexts even peer pressure effects may be created through these social channels.
An example of peer pressure on the internet is something I heard from my friend who plays a lot of World of Warcraft. She told me that some evenings she had to play World of Warcraft because she otherwise could be excluded from the group she joined in the game. And it was not for a short time she had to play but it was basically the whole evening and sometimes the night. It harmed parts of her social life outside the computer world and that part was replaced by a social life in the game where she had many virtual friends.
Another problem, which I believe is because the internet is mainly to entertain, is that it is sometimes difficult to focus on the task when you're doing something boring or hard. I myself have often noticed that when I sit down to write an essay in a topic which I am not really interested, it is very easy to slide into home pages that do not have to with the work that has to be done, such as Facebook or YouTube or start talking with friends through MSN Messenger. It makes the work take much longer time and often becomes slightly worse because I am less focused at the work.
I have also replaced some of my thinking with internet because of its simplicity to search for information online. When I get a question I cannot answer directly I do not even try to come up with the answer myself, I write directly as a search word in Google or Wikipedia and trying to find the answer this way. Sometimes this method takes more time than if I sat and pondered and found the answer myself. In some cases I don’t even try to come up with the answer myself after a search without a hits because I think “If it doesn’t exist on Google it doesn’t exist at all”.
Essay 4 - Death To LOL
During the last weeks we have been studying the effects of Social Media Technologies (SMT). While studying the effects, the focus has been on the positive effects of this new way of communicating. As mentioned in the instructions for this essay, new technologies are either good or bad but rather represent a change. In this essay I will give a pessimistic view on how SMT are eliminating the personal/physical response that has been an important factor in every “person to person” communication in the past. I will dig deeper in the way we use instant messaging services (IMS).
Nowadays almost everybody has at least one kind of IMS active while sitting in front of their computer. By switching my status to online I can tell my friends that I am now available for a chat. During the introduction of IMS, every time I saw somebody “online” I would instantly start a chat with that person. “To be online” was a statement that said “I am here and you may talk to me”. IMS could be compared to a virtual room where my online friends could suddenly “appear. This new virtual room changed the way I saw communication with people through computers. During the days of email, computer communication could be referred to as an environmental alternative for physical mail. When chatting was introduced, it became a cheap and easier way of telephoning to friends. With that said, I would like to point out that chatting has a lot of disadvantages compared to telephoning. The first and most obvious disadvantage is the speed of a response. It takes you some time to write your question and it takes your friend some time to write his answer back. This obviously started the innovation of chatting-abbreviations. It is these abbreviations that, in my opinion, are the negative effects of new SMT. Normally while talking to a person IRL, I directly get the “reward” of a joke by the other person. This is usually represented by a laugh, a positive comment or any other kind of social “reward”. (I just got interrupted from my essay writing because one of my friends logged in and asked me why my status was “busy” on MSN). While chatting the reward is represented by a LOL, ROFL, ALOL, BMGWL and so on (For you people who didn’t understand that, you can find a complete list of abbreviations on: http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm). I really DO NOT find that response satisfying. Making a joke and telling that to another person requires a lot of work and effort, and it is really annoying to get a simple LOL accompanied by a J as an answer. I think that, SMT are destroying our natural response-behavior. With that said, it is also important to mention the complements to chatting, like webcams, which still give you a visual response on your friends’ reaction.
I think that SMT has evolved from being that “visual room” to a part of your physical room. Nowadays it is totally normal for me to have my friends online and NOT talk to them (that was not the case 10 years ago). 10 years ago a friend online was a representation of that friend physically appearing in my room, while nowadays my online list is a representation of people I CAN/MAY talk to instantly.
The result, of abbreviation as a response, is that I no longer make joke while using IMS. It just isn’t worth it.
Nowadays almost everybody has at least one kind of IMS active while sitting in front of their computer. By switching my status to online I can tell my friends that I am now available for a chat. During the introduction of IMS, every time I saw somebody “online” I would instantly start a chat with that person. “To be online” was a statement that said “I am here and you may talk to me”. IMS could be compared to a virtual room where my online friends could suddenly “appear. This new virtual room changed the way I saw communication with people through computers. During the days of email, computer communication could be referred to as an environmental alternative for physical mail. When chatting was introduced, it became a cheap and easier way of telephoning to friends. With that said, I would like to point out that chatting has a lot of disadvantages compared to telephoning. The first and most obvious disadvantage is the speed of a response. It takes you some time to write your question and it takes your friend some time to write his answer back. This obviously started the innovation of chatting-abbreviations. It is these abbreviations that, in my opinion, are the negative effects of new SMT. Normally while talking to a person IRL, I directly get the “reward” of a joke by the other person. This is usually represented by a laugh, a positive comment or any other kind of social “reward”. (I just got interrupted from my essay writing because one of my friends logged in and asked me why my status was “busy” on MSN). While chatting the reward is represented by a LOL, ROFL, ALOL, BMGWL and so on (For you people who didn’t understand that, you can find a complete list of abbreviations on: http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm). I really DO NOT find that response satisfying. Making a joke and telling that to another person requires a lot of work and effort, and it is really annoying to get a simple LOL accompanied by a J as an answer. I think that, SMT are destroying our natural response-behavior. With that said, it is also important to mention the complements to chatting, like webcams, which still give you a visual response on your friends’ reaction.
I think that SMT has evolved from being that “visual room” to a part of your physical room. Nowadays it is totally normal for me to have my friends online and NOT talk to them (that was not the case 10 years ago). 10 years ago a friend online was a representation of that friend physically appearing in my room, while nowadays my online list is a representation of people I CAN/MAY talk to instantly.
The result, of abbreviation as a response, is that I no longer make joke while using IMS. It just isn’t worth it.
Monday 8 December 2008
Essay 4 - Another absurdity of life
I am going to put down a few words about the value of our time. In particular spare time, which is spent on social media, what is it worth for the society and for ourselves?
As for myself, I often wonder if the time spent through my life on social media was worth the "cost". And today, as for most of the cases I feel "It was not worth it, and I don't want to spend my time with it unless I feel it will be worthwhile", which feels not only regretful, but also troublesome. When I say "cost" I refer to not showing interest, and as a consequence neither joining nor supporting "real life activities". With "real life activities" I mean the organized activities that are formed within modern societies through tradition. Sports clubs, culture clubs and religious associations are supported in various extents by education, mass media and values of from our older generations.
Even from the perspective of my generation, these activities still carry a whole lot of value. They are regarded as to bring plenty of nice side effects to the society (morale, values etc) and for ourselves (networking, skill development, physical health etc). In this way, it feels pretty reassuring and worth supporting by maintaining traditions, putting one's spare time in supporting the organization of everything. Personally, I put special value in the clearity of social orders. Not that I like the order in itself (it's too unfair), but rather that the orderliness of forming social groups and adapting, is worth defending.
What really troubles me is that I can't argue with others to put less time into social media and join real life activities. For everyday, we discover new activities related to social media that challenge the old, in terms of good effects for both societies and ourselves. So, the value of activities are not absolute in today's society and I don't know how to defend it. Neither can I embrace it, not before I know I'm supporting an activity that others will also support. How could I tell? How do our values relate to each other? Yet there aren't so many clues.
It seems the only way to deal with it is to spend more time with social media. That will probably bring a high "cost" for the society. And this "cost" I have mentioned so far didn't even take into account the case that people in this society/generation are expected to use their time to study and get/create jobs and pay tax.
As for myself, I often wonder if the time spent through my life on social media was worth the "cost". And today, as for most of the cases I feel "It was not worth it, and I don't want to spend my time with it unless I feel it will be worthwhile", which feels not only regretful, but also troublesome. When I say "cost" I refer to not showing interest, and as a consequence neither joining nor supporting "real life activities". With "real life activities" I mean the organized activities that are formed within modern societies through tradition. Sports clubs, culture clubs and religious associations are supported in various extents by education, mass media and values of from our older generations.
Even from the perspective of my generation, these activities still carry a whole lot of value. They are regarded as to bring plenty of nice side effects to the society (morale, values etc) and for ourselves (networking, skill development, physical health etc). In this way, it feels pretty reassuring and worth supporting by maintaining traditions, putting one's spare time in supporting the organization of everything. Personally, I put special value in the clearity of social orders. Not that I like the order in itself (it's too unfair), but rather that the orderliness of forming social groups and adapting, is worth defending.
What really troubles me is that I can't argue with others to put less time into social media and join real life activities. For everyday, we discover new activities related to social media that challenge the old, in terms of good effects for both societies and ourselves. So, the value of activities are not absolute in today's society and I don't know how to defend it. Neither can I embrace it, not before I know I'm supporting an activity that others will also support. How could I tell? How do our values relate to each other? Yet there aren't so many clues.
It seems the only way to deal with it is to spend more time with social media. That will probably bring a high "cost" for the society. And this "cost" I have mentioned so far didn't even take into account the case that people in this society/generation are expected to use their time to study and get/create jobs and pay tax.
Sunday 7 December 2008
Essay 4 – Blaming it on yourself
Almost any new technology is originally invented to bring the humankind convenience and drive the whole society progress. However, we do not always get what we have expected. Some unwanted by-products or unpleasant effects were also born with the advent of the new technology in concern. Social media won’t be an exception, nor will others be.
Regarding the negative effects of social media, some pointed out that internet and its typical representative Google replaced our own thinking, made us lazy, and lost competencies. Some other said that the virtual circle of friends on the internet had almost displaced our physical circle of friends. Some even stated that the usage of internet could potentially harm our relationship to our partners, spouses, children, parents, etc. If they would perceive these so-called negative effects as a natural consequence of any new technology, I would agree that they see the problems rather objectively. However, if anyone sees social media as the root of these unpleasant phenomena, it would be rather unfair to the technology itself.
Take the first negative effect as an example, Google and its related web-based applications are becoming smarter and smarter. Some bunch of people also became more and more dependent of Google. To this group of people, whenever they face an unsolved problem, they resort to Google. Whenever they need information beyond their own knowledge, they ask from Google. It is rather difficult to imagine what will happen to them if Google disappears on the earth one day. Moreover, calling them as the parasites of Google would not even be considered as “inappropriate”, since they have no characteristics, and they think no more than what Google has given to them. Nevertheless, does that mean we should take Google away from the internet? Does that mean it is completely the fault of Google? In my opinion, the answer to these two questions would be “No, we shouldn’t” and “No, it isn’t”. Actually, Google is such a fantastic and brilliant creation, if you can master the art of manipulating it. To any new technology, it is the same. People should learn how to effectively make use of them, rather than becoming the slaves of them. That is to say, the inner root of all these negative effects is actually from human-ourselves. When we are judging any new technology, we should examine them more objectively and positively.
To sum up, any new technology would potentially bring a society some positive and negative effects. However, correctly, scientifically and effectively using a technology to help us accomplish tasks and make the society progress would be the essence of what a technology is originally invented to bring us.
Regarding the negative effects of social media, some pointed out that internet and its typical representative Google replaced our own thinking, made us lazy, and lost competencies. Some other said that the virtual circle of friends on the internet had almost displaced our physical circle of friends. Some even stated that the usage of internet could potentially harm our relationship to our partners, spouses, children, parents, etc. If they would perceive these so-called negative effects as a natural consequence of any new technology, I would agree that they see the problems rather objectively. However, if anyone sees social media as the root of these unpleasant phenomena, it would be rather unfair to the technology itself.
Take the first negative effect as an example, Google and its related web-based applications are becoming smarter and smarter. Some bunch of people also became more and more dependent of Google. To this group of people, whenever they face an unsolved problem, they resort to Google. Whenever they need information beyond their own knowledge, they ask from Google. It is rather difficult to imagine what will happen to them if Google disappears on the earth one day. Moreover, calling them as the parasites of Google would not even be considered as “inappropriate”, since they have no characteristics, and they think no more than what Google has given to them. Nevertheless, does that mean we should take Google away from the internet? Does that mean it is completely the fault of Google? In my opinion, the answer to these two questions would be “No, we shouldn’t” and “No, it isn’t”. Actually, Google is such a fantastic and brilliant creation, if you can master the art of manipulating it. To any new technology, it is the same. People should learn how to effectively make use of them, rather than becoming the slaves of them. That is to say, the inner root of all these negative effects is actually from human-ourselves. When we are judging any new technology, we should examine them more objectively and positively.
To sum up, any new technology would potentially bring a society some positive and negative effects. However, correctly, scientifically and effectively using a technology to help us accomplish tasks and make the society progress would be the essence of what a technology is originally invented to bring us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)