Week 15 - April 19

How Numbers on Facebook Change Behavior

After reading this article I installed the extension onto my computer to see how I would feel while using it. Since the article was written, Facebook has changed their “Liking” system so the plug-in works slightly differently but basically the same. I find that I base my “liking” off what the numbers say. However, instead of liking a post because so many others did, I find that I will like a post if not many others have so I can boost the poster’s like count. I find that I will also compare my posts, specifically on Instagram. If one photo got more likes than another, I want to know why. Was it the hashtags I used? Was my caption too long? Was it because I made the image black and white? Was it because I made the image too saturated? Was it because the image was too dark? WHY DON’T PEOPLE LIKE ME?!? Dramatic, I know. But that’s how social media works. If don’t like your post, do they like you in real life. Facebook and Instagram can lead to an existential crisis.

How Social Bias Creeps Into Web Technology

“Computers aren’t magically less biased than people[…]” This is an interesting statement seeing how people (for now) have to program computers. Even in the future, a person will create the base program the computer will learn and probably teach itself from. As long as people have a hand in computer programming the computer will always have shadows of biases.

It’s also interesting that these computer systems seem to make things easier but at a closer look, they fall short in so many areas. It’s unfortunate that the computer messes up tagging people by labeling them horribly incorrect. I wouldn’t say that the tags mentioned in the article are “insensitive” but rather ill-informed and highly unfortunate (under the assumption the programmer was attempting to be as unbiased as possible). A computer (unlike people) doesn’t use context clues or situational data to help make the deacon when labeling people or things. It can only use past binary data. People can look at a photo of several people at a party and know not to label one an “ape” because they understand the image on a deeper level than the computer does.

Week 14 - April 12

Only 2% Of People Can Actually Multitask

Two things to begin with: first, the multitasking test was extremely confusing; second, the directions were poorly written. I gave up about halfway through the first round because I had no idea what I was supposed to be doing.

Actual multi-tasking is difficult. I find that when I’m listening to music and working on the computer, my brain is so focused on what I’m working on that I can’t recall the song that just played. What this means for digital culture is that we try to txt friends, surf Facebook, or check game scores while we’re with people but we end up tuning something out. Often, it’s our friends we tune out. This happens so often. You’re listening to a friend but you just got an email that you need to respond to. Of course you respond but you don’t want to seem rude to your friend so you throw a few well-placed “Uh-huh”s and “mm hmm”s in but really, you don’t remember what they just said to you.

It would be interesting to see brain scans of people when they think they’re multitasking and of people when they really are multitasking. What neural pathways are different for the “supertaskers” versus the incapable?

7 Things You Need to Stop Doing to be More Productive

“Stop being a perfectionist.” This one is extremely important. A coworker of mine is a perfectionist and it gets in the way of meeting deadlines and it lengthens the time it takes to complete a task drastically. Inefficiency and missed deadlines are not things that make worklife easier.  Unfortunately in the creative field, it’s easy to nitpick and become a perfectionist. The graphic has to be perfect; the photo has to be flawless. But not stepping back and saying “It’s good enough” hinders productivity. Those two extra house spent picking out the perfect typeface could have been used on a different project.

“Don’t say ‘yes’ too often” really resonates with me. I have a terrible habit of telling someone I will join a group, do a task, help with a thing simply because I don’t want to disappoint them. I usually also believe that I do have time to add X to my list of things to do. I’ve done a much better job in the past few months of saying “no” to adding things to my plate. It really has allowed my plate to be less full so other things can have more room.

Privacy - March 29

The Death of Privacy

As I began reading this article I thought about every person on Facebook and their content. Facebook is a give-and-take platform where people give their privacy away freely while the platform secretly takes what privacy is left over. With social media, people have to know that anyone can see what they post and it will always be out in cyberspace. People who freely post photos or statuses on social media have no place to complain about losing privacy.

The internet is a pot of water on the stove. When it first came to exist, people had no idea what it could or would become. By the time we understood that we lost our privacy, the water was boiling and we were cooked. For people who joined websites, posted pictures and statuses, joined chat rooms, bought things on sites or browsed websites, as the Internet was new, there was no threat of lost privacy. Now that the Internet is what it is, there is no excuse for new Internet users to claim they thought they had privacy.

It is hard to separate the Internet from the people who post on the Internet. The Internet didn’t sneak photos of Max Mosley, a person did. The Internet didn’t write articles about him, people did. Google is perpetuating content placed on the Internet by people.

Sharing Data, but Not Happily

Honesty is an effective method of persuasion. If a company states that they are collecting this data in exchange for a discount or better service, a consumer could be more compliant than if the company secretly took the data. When an app or site asks a visitor if the site can have access to your camera or photos, you have the option to say yes or no. Being upfront about the data collection allows the consumer to decide if the app, site, or service is worth giving up the data.

Most of these “better services” are unnecessary and not a fair trade for data mining. I don’t want better ads, more “relatable” content, or “better” search results in exchange for my data. It’s like a car sales person secretly upgrading you from a standard rear-view mirror to the one that tells you what the temperature in exchange for your web browsing history. Not necessary and not worth the trade.  

Wk 11

Teen Voices: Dating in the Digital Age

I have absolutely used Facebook as a way to find out a guys age, relationship status, and get a feel of what his character is like. Do his photos show a rowdy party guy stuck in his frat glory days? Does his past work experience stop at “Starbuck barista from 2007-2008”? Social media can act as a résumé for relationships or a background check on the guy. It is interesting that the teens in the research consider “liking” a status or photo as flirting. When I like a photo or a status I’m just trying to get my name in front of your face so you’ll be more inclined to remember I’m there. Simply exposing you to my name occasionally is a subtle form of persuasion that could increase the likeliness that you’ll remember me.

The article states that “a number of teens in these focus groups said they are more at ease when talking to the object of their affection face to face”. This makes sense since many verbal cue and non-verbal cues are lost online. It is also hard to joke via text since the tone of your voice isn’t translated online. Also, text messaging can be asynchronous which makes it difficult to maintain a “flirty” conversation or attitude over a long period of time.

This article is interesting. It discusses dating and online interactions with teens. Thinking back on the way I used to “flirt” or attempt to communicate online with a boy I was interested in, my intentions were very near-sighted. I didn’t have long-term goals in mind or a firm grasp on what a relationship is supposed to be. As I’ve gotten older, learned from my community, and experienced dating (or lack of) I’ve come to understand that effective communication and flirtation happens off-line.


Photographer documents the death of real-life conversation

I love being critical of photography and I love being equally critical of society. I appreciate that the article acknowledges “it is very possible that people could be receiving an urgent message or checking a map on their phone in that one snippet of time in which their photo was taken”. Since photos capture a fraction of a moment in time, we can’t know exactly what was going on before, during, or after the photo was taken. True, people do retreat into their phones when a situation becomes uncomfortable. However, people are able to use their phones and still interact and communication with those around them. Many times I’ve gotten my phone out to look something up for a friend or to find a photo or a song to show them.  I appreciate what this series is attempting to show but I disagree with it’s blanket assumption that these people are disconnected from those around them.

Week 8 Responses

Facebook to Tell Brands More About Who’s Near Their Stores, Tailor Ads to Them

Will there be a point in the future when advertising becomes too tailored? At what point will it become too cumbersome to track customers, locations, trends, and other data making it more tedious to target customers. Will this even become an issue or will this boost ROI to such a level that no other method of targeted advertising succeed. IF social media took a turn for the worse and ceased to be used by people, what would advertisers do to maintain such tailored advertising? I think it is somewhat dangerous to rely so much on social media for data.

I do appreciate that Facebook is keeping (at least for the time being) the data anonymous as to not breech our privacy too much. I would be even more inclined to cancel my Facebook if it was alerting companies that I, specifically, was walking near their store. That would be a complete breech of privacy.

Free? New Research Shows You’re Likely Paying With Your Privacy

“Because ad-blocking prevents publishers from gaining income they derive when ads are clicked, the CEO of the Interactive Advertising Bureau claimed that ‘ad blocking is robbery’ that could lead to an ‘internet apocalypse.’” I do not agree with this statement made by the CEO. Ad-block isn’t robbery at all. It is the same thing as throwing out a paper ad from the mail or changing the station when an ad comes on the radio or TV. Just because the ad could have been clicked on doesn’t mean it actually would have been. Thus, nothing gained, nothing lost. Also, the people who are blocking ads are probably the same people who won’t even click on the ad if they did see it.

Wk. 6 - "How Millennials Get News" & "Why Digital Natives Prefer Reading In Print"

How Millennials Get News

I feel that there is a growing trend of bashing millennials and their lifestyle. It seems like people view this generation as lazy, uninformed, and entitled. I appreciate that this article pointed out that just because they aren’t getting their news traditionally doesn’t mean they aren’t getting news or aren’t interested in staying informed. Social media sites (mainly Facebook and Twitter) have made connecting easier as well as collaboratively sharing and disseminating news. It is easier to log onto your social media and get a stream of news, friend updates, game scores, political debate updates, and funny articles all at the same time.

Reading a newspaper is fine but it doesn’t offer the same updates and discussion that social media offers. A friend can post a news story on their page, which allows discussion to take place as well as sharing to other friends. This not only helps people who might not have seen the story stay updated but it allows people to see other opinions and thoughts on issues. Traditional media outlets don’t have this capability. It seems that millennials are interested in a continual conversation rather than just reading a story.

Why Digital Natives Prefer Reading In Print

I took an online political science class my sophomore year of college. I bought the online textbook because it was much cheaper as well as the neat “Find” feature of the digital version. This has probably been the only time I preferred a digital version of a book. The issue I struggle with concerning digital books is that the book is not physically real. If the Internet stopped existing, the digital device died, and my computer crashed the digital book wouldn’t exist. Print books would still exist (unless there’s a fire which would be terrible). I agree that other reasons why print books are superior is the feel, smell, and the ability to mark in the book.

Michio Kaku (author of The Future of the Mind) talks in his book about the caveman principle. This is the idea that after so many years since the caveman, humans still value face-to-face interactions and tangible values. I definitely think that this principle explains why we prefer print books over digital books.

Wk. 5 - The Evolving Role of News on Twitter and Facebook & The Social Network Illusion that Tricks Your Mind

The Evolving Role of News on Twitter and Facebook

I’m not surprised that more and more people are getting their news from these sites. Why check different sites each day when the news can come to you on a streamlined site? Turning to Facebook for news allows users to get different news perspectives and topics all while keeping up with friends and family all on the same site. This eliminates the need to remember to go to different news sites to get information. For Twitter news usage, the novelty is in the real-time updates. On Twitter, a user can follow any number of news outlets, political candidates, or even specific journalists and receive real-time updates to debates, national events, local happenings, and anything else that might be going on at that time. Getting news from Facebook also allows you to share that post or comment and begin a discussion with other people on Facebook.

I don’t think getting news from social media dilutes or diminishes news or journalism sites. Those sites are still used and the users still visits the site even if they don’t search for the news site directly. Social media sites just helps users to find the news in one place from all different sites easily.

The Social Network Illusion that Tricks Your Mind

The majority illusion can be powerful. Social media sites are where people can see what their friends think and do. It can be quite persuasive coupled with the mere exposure effect as well as pressure to conform to social norms. Social media definitely gives people a skewed view of what their friends are really like or what the world is like.

With the elections coming up, a voter might be swayed to vote for a certain candidate because of the majority illusion. They might be convinced that a certain candidate is the best candidate because it seems that most of their friends support them. This effect can also negatively affect teens with pressure to participate in more harmful activities if they perceive that the majority of their friends are doing it.

Wk. 4 - This is not an interview with Banksy & The Tricky Terrain of VR

This is Not an Interview With Banksy

This article was fascinating. On multiple occasions I have seen friends on Facebook share wild stories that seem fabricated and I’ve even seen some friends share articles from obviously fake site. What is interesting is how easily fake news can be disguised and presented to seem real. I think that Horner’s work shows how easily people can be fooled and how fast news can spread on the Internet these days with the explosion of social media sites. Before social media, people got their news from newspapers, magazines, neighbors, TV broadcasts, etc. but now people can check Facebook or Twitter and get all kinds of news updates and stories from not only their city but all over the world.

Horner’s fake news brings to light how easily people will believe things they read or see on the Internet. We tend to just look at one source and take it as is rather than checking other sites or finding other sources to confirm or deny the news story. His fake news also brought out prejudices and showed how they can spread fast depending on the reader’s views of certain people groups or political standing. Dr. Guadagno did a study on why videos go viral. Her research showed that videos that bring out anger are more likely to be shared. Horner definitely plays on people’s emotional responses to his articles, which results in sharing the article on Facebook or other social media sites.

The Tricky Terrain of Virtual Reality

Just like with writing, videos and photographs are never void of the perspective and bias of the photographer or cameraman. Getting true to reality imagery or videos is a challenge that journalism will always face. The issue of honest imagery has become even more concerning with the invention of photo editing software. It is quite easy to adjust an image in Photoshop so that the image omits a few details that then make the image not so honest. This is what I love most about photography- a photo’s ability to show the reality we choose.

It is good to see that the New York Times is taking these issues seriously and that they are working through the ethical questions. As VR and AR technology continue to grow and expand into our lives, it will be detrimental to ensure that the imagery being shown is as unbiased as possible.

Wk. 3 - Can Moral Disputes be Resolved? & Men and WomenUse Diff. Scales to Weigh Moral Decisions

Can Moral Disputes Be Resolved?

I was struck by Alex Rosenberg’s question regarding religious influence on what is “right”. Rosenberg asks “which is it: right because God choose it, or chosen by God because [it’s] right?” Being a Christian, this made me think back to the Bible and different passages about the Earth’s creation or the Ten Commandments. It’s an interesting question but even more interesting when I changed “God” to “society”. I then asked “is it right because SOCIETY chose it, or chosen by SOCIETY because it’s right?” I think that it is simultaneously both and that “because society” and “by society” are two sides to the coin and cannot exist or happen independently. This thought is a never-ending cycle and to choose one way over the other would be impossible.

Rosenberg then goes on to discuss the theories of Mill, Kant, and Aristotle. Each philosopher had a very different point of view. Aristotle states “what is morally right is what virtuous people do. We can see what is morally right by observing how virtuous people behave.” I think that Aristotle is correct but only to a certain point. Virtuosity is relative. Right and wrong is based on points of view and experience. Even Morticia Addams said, “what is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.” If you compared virtuous behavior from an American and the virtuous behavior of an Asian, they would probably look different. Perhaps there would be similarities (lying is bad, stealing is wrong) but because of cultural, spiritual, and personal influences, they would be different. Thus, Aristotle would be wrong if his theory was applied universally. Locally and geographically, Aristotle is more right. Rosenberg argues that “there is no culture-free point of view from which to adjudicate such disagreements about what counts as virtue”. It is impossible to have a completely bias-free opinion on virtue, right, wrong, good, or bad.

Men and Women Use Different Scales to Weigh Moral Decisions

Because women “seem to be feeling more equal levels of both emotion and cognition” when facing these moral dilemmas in the article, does that mean that their decisions are more right than the men’s? The scenarios of killing in this article are perplexing. Killing is an absolute; one is either dead or alive. You cannot be partially dead or partially alive. So to decide on such an absolute is difficult. It is even more difficult when either outcome is harmful to either party involved.

It is interesting that the answers might be easier to come to when the issue is just on paper or just a hypothetical scenario told to us but when the situation is real, that is when the true test happens. The article gives the scenario of employee your daughter in the pornography industry or letting your family starve. Since I have no family, it is easier for me to say it’d let my family starve and save my daughter. But if this were a real situation (which I’m sure it is very real for an alarming number of families), I wouldn’t know what to do. I would love to say that I would save my daughter and sacrifice the hunger of my family but then I’d be hurting my entire family for an undetermined amount of time with the hope that the crops would begin to grow. For a few days this might work but after a week it would be easier to give my daughter over for the good of the family. Sacrifice one for the good of several.

"Meaning of Culture" & "What's Morally Acceptable"

The Meaning of "Culture"

Joshua Rothman's blog entry discussing the definition of the word "culture" struck me as cynical and critical with hints of optimism. He states that "culture" is more than the "sum of its definitions" but that it has begun to have a negative connotation in our society. Overall, I disagree with Rothman's view that the word "culture" has grown to be "darker, sharper, more skeptical". With the exception of the term "rape culture" (as he discusses in the entry), "culture" as a word has not become a more negative word.

The word choices Rothman made gave "culture" a negative tone and feel. His writing  used words such as "furtive", "shady", and "ridiculous" to describe the use of the word "culture". Using strong negative words influences how the reader understand the entry and persuades them to think the same way as the author. Rothman's understanding of the word "culture" needs to be more fluid and giving. Over time words can change and their meaning evolve to fit situations or a changing society.

What's Morally Acceptable?

The Pew Center Research conducted a survey and asked 40 different countries around the world what is morally unacceptable, morally acceptable, or not a moral issue at all. They asked people about extramarital affairs, gambling, homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex, alcohol use, divorce, and use of contraceptives. As I read over the results I was surprised by how many people said that abortion was not a moral issue. My surprise at this is a result of my beliefs and political stance. Regardless of "right" or "wrong" I feel that this is a moral issue. I then looked at the results for divorce. Ghana and Uganda topped the list with 80% and 76% morally unacceptable (respectively).

Of the top five countries that found divorce morally unacceptable, three are in the Sub-Saharan Africa region. The U.S.'s results were fairly evenly split and Canada showed that 37% of its people felt it was morally acceptable while 47% felt it wasn't a moral issue. The views of the North American countries different vastly from that of the Sub-Saharan Africa regions. The cultures, laws, and religions of the regions possibly play a large role in influencing how the people of those areas feel about the different issues. These results give an insight into the culture of those areas and the people living there.