The Effect of The Drug War on Social media

This is the final paper I wrote for one of my classes last semester. I think the title is self-explanatory.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwBpevuU735UMDQyYTEzZDItM2M3My00MDk2LTg0MmMtN2FlZWM1OWFhZDAz&hl=en_US

An Artist Statement

The Artisit Statment can be found in the following link:

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZJ5sJxi0GjdmEVGMUE4pkszARttbxsd1Zw9Ikwbiwm4

A Text Response to "What is Mine is Yours" (Final Version)

On September 2009 I access my different bank accounts to add up my credit card debt. It added to almost 5,000 dollars. I have gotten my first credit card back in 2006. By the end of 2007 all three credit cards under my name were maxed out. For two years they never had more than a couple hundred dollars available for use. For those two years I mostly made minimum monthly payments to avoid late fees. My debt was a combination of impulsive consumption and economic crisis. At the beginning when the crisis hit, it seem like credit cards were my savior: the perfect solution. For a while they were, but after a few months I kept drowning deeper and deeper in debt. I didn't know how to get out of it. In every single payment seemed I was just paying interests and fees, never the actual debt.

Once upon a time, our love affair with credit cards started. There is nothing wrong with credit cards; they are useful in emergencies, and to pay for items worth thousands of dollars that would take the same amount of time to pay them off via credit card as it would to save up cash to buy them. The problem starts with irresponsible spending. When buying something, the price has to be reasonable according to your income. People seem to tune out of reality when using their credit cards. Buying something with a credit card includes different costs than the price you pay at the store, such as interest. There is a good reason why banks won’t give you a loan unless you can prove you have the money to pay it back. Sometimes it may seem like a stupid and even cruel rule, but the truth is that it is the most logical one. Why would you want to get a loan if you know there are no chances of you paying it back? Why would you want to drag that weight over your shoulders? It just makes no logical sense, but then most of the world has no logical, common sense.

We all rely on plastic to afford what we want, even when we don’t need it. The advertising industry has succeeded it in converting an “I want,” to an “I need.” Credit cards are the solution to satisfy all those new things we want, and tell ourselves that we need them, in order to justify the debt that often is dragged out for years, and eventually takes over our lives.

The Super Bowl is a perfect example of these actions. During every television show, people usually use the restroom, get food or drinks, change channels, or basically anything that can be done in a two minute break. The Super Bowl is an exception; it is five hours of rare breaks from the television, or not even daring to change the channel. At the end of the night, the big winners are the commercials that made you laugh, made you feel inspired, made you say “that’s so cute,” or even say “I want that.” It is safe to say the advertising industry has successfully entered our minds and persuaded them to want the newest things no matter the cost. The sad part about it is that we think about these items and advertisements in our subconscious more than people care to analyze. It is so sad, that in fact, we lose sense of rationality sometimes, and focus on acquiring more and more crap that we don’t need.

Everyone wants the newest item in the market, no one likes a 20-year old car. Everyone wants the best possible lifestyle, no one wants a small house in a bad neighborhood. It is a good thing to be ambitious and want the best for ourselves, but often ambition turns into greed. There are many things that we need, want, desire, or deserve, but is it everything?  Is almost like we have allowed advertising consume our inner emotions making us value material things more than anything else in life.

In order to afford or think we can afford everything we purchase, our life’s have become our work. We need money for everything in life, but we always want more to buy crap we more than likely do not need or even worst won’t even use for its actual purpose. The question then is, does working all the time to satisfy what we often think we need and want will actually bring us happiness?

The book, “What’s mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption” by Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers talks about how the Kellogg Company decided to cut the working day from 8 hours to 6 hour shifts. That meant cutting paychecks, but it balanced out when the company increased the hourly wage. At the end of the day it turned out to be a win-win situation for both the company and employees. Kellogg’s production increased because the workers felt that their job hadn’t taken over their lives, so they actually enjoyed their job and it pushed them to work harder. Let’s say the workers hourly wage hadn’t been increased when their hours were cut, would that have really affected what they can afford to have a good life? Would it really been tragic, that perhaps instead of being able to get a new television every year, it was going to be every two years? Could having the newest television set every year have provided the worker with enough happiness that his production level would have increased as well? Although I do not have proof, I’m about 99.9% sure the answer would be no. As relaxing as watching television can be, it doesn’t compare to having time to yourself to pursue a hobby or spend time with your family and friends.

As tempted as we may be to get everything we want and think we need, we also need to learn to say no. The real tragedy does not rest in not being able to afford everything out there on the market; the real tragedy is having ourselves consumed by what has become out-of-control consumption. It would be hypocritical of me to say that I do not like buying new things, or that I haven’t used my credit card irresponsibly, or that I wish I could have certain items or the newest version of something I already have. However, the truth is that I have learned my lesson.  I keep a tab on myself of how much I can owe and actually pay it back in a reasonable amount of time, not for years. Of course every now and then I fall out of track, but hopefully it will never go back to when I felt every new bank statement seemed exactly as the previous one. The truth is that there is no keeping up with technology or any product for that matter, there is no point in stressing out in trying to afford the newest of everything. I have become a smarter consumer by actually knowing what is it that I am getting for my money. Most importantly, and perhaps what has become harder for our society to see, is this: yes, money brings a certain amount of comfort and can give us a better life, so it is important to work towards that, but owning everything just because we can is meaningless and can destroy us.

A Sound Response to "What is Mine is Yours" (Version One)

A Video Response to "What is Mine is Yours" (Version One)

A Sound response to "What is Mine is Yours" (Final Version)

A Video Response to "What is Mine is Yours" (Final Version)

An Image Response to "What is Mine is Yours" (Final Version)

A simple math formula can help consumers realize 

how much they can ACTUALLY spend when 

buying something under credit?

Consumers often do not think of FEES and INTERESTS, 

much less how LONG it takes to pay debt.

It is really easy to add up thousands of dollars in things consumers think they "NEED."

 But do consumers REALLY need it all?

Brand names can become very expensive for consumers. 

It is simple to use a credit card to BUY the UNFORDABLE,

 but is the burden of debt worth it?     

     

Credit cards do come in handy for consumers,

 it is very hard to pay for EVERYTHING in cash. At some point any 

consumer will be faced with an emergency or unseen expenses,

 but do consumers need  3 CREDIT CARDS or MORE?

In harsh economic times consumers need to learn to ADAPT,

 and do what possible to SAVE money.

RESPONSIBLE spending is part of consumers UNDERSTANDING a BALANCED lifestyle.

Consumers need to think about their PURCHASES.

 It is true that everyone deserves to satisfy their WANTS,

 but at what COST?

OVERSPENDING will bring consumers short-term happiness.

 Starting over with NOTHING is harder than

 RESPONSIBLE spending from the beginning.

It will probably take a longer period of time for consumers

 to have everything they WANT and NEED, 

but it will be safe road unlike the easy one 

that takes you directly to UNBEARABLE DEBT.

   

following unwritten rules

                In the book, “The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It” the author Jonathan Zittrain talks about an experiment done in the city of Drachten, Deutschland. The experiment called, “unsafe is safety” require the city to remove all traffic signs, parking meters, and parking spaces; the only rules left were: drivers should yield to the cars to the right, and no car should park where it blocked another car. Ironically, the test had successful results: drivers were indeed driving in a safety way. The author quotes traffic expert Hans Monderman, “The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We’re losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior. The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people’s sense of personal responsibility dwindles.”

                After reading about this experiment I thought about the rules, or more like the lack of rules, that apply to the internet; more specifically during the use in social media. Zittrain himself asks the question later on the book, “What are the technical tools and social structures that inspire people to act humanly online?”

                Most users of social media know how to say things in order to be understood in the way they want to be understood. Most users understand what can be said in a public matter against saying it through private messages. None of these rules were written on a handbook whatsoever, they are more a combination of common sense and mutual agreement between users. As users learn how to use different social networks, they learn how each of them work and how to use the, correctly, including following their “unwritten rules.” A clear example is the difference between Facebook and twitter. Facebook is to stay connected with your friends. Twitter is a micro-blogging site. Of course both sites offer you the opportunity to stay connected with people you knew and meet knew people. Both sites offer you the opportunity to tell the world what are you doing, why are you doing it, your current thoughts, what you wish to do, your opinions, and basically anything about your life you wish. Yet it is annoying to see people who post all their tweets on their Facebook status. First, probably because if there is a hash tag included is useless in Facebook. The purpose of the hash tag is for your tweet to be seen by other users who are interested on the same subject. Part of twitter is able to see tweets from users you do not follow or know, that relate to something you want to learn more or just want to read. On Facebook, you basically find other people through friends or name, not by interests. Second, is common to make several tweets along the day; several Facebook status updates a day seem to be somewhat intense. Another big difference is how to use each social network to communicate with your friends. Is more common to use Facebook to have some sort of conversation with a friend, on twitter is more like a few replies about each other’s opinion in some subject, but not a detail conversation. Definitely users that understand both social networking sites, know that there are certain things that can be either a tweet or Facebook status updates, but not both.

                No matter what are the differences between any social networking sites, so far it seems that not having written rules works. For some reason people are aware that they need to respect each other, (of course there are always exceptions), whether they know each other or not, in order for social media to work. Social networks provide users with an open forum to discuss anything: from a simple what to do for the day to the heaviest political debate going on. Whatever the discussion is about, users know that if it becomes a back-and-forth of insulting each other is not going to lead anywhere. So the question is why, it seems people can be more civilized online than in person? Perhaps because saying something in written word instead of spoken gives people a bit more time to calm themselves and rationalize what they say. Perhaps the space between each other makes us act humanly because it provides a space for respect. Perhaps as mentioned above in the blog, part of understanding in detail the purpose of each networking site, shows users that this sites provides them with the freedom to say what they want. Of course, there has always been freedom of speech, right? The difference is that users know that whatever is said online will be staying there indefinitely, very likely forever. Knowing that there will always be proof of what you said once upon a time, makes us more cautious and we try to be more educated about whatever we said. Or perhaps is the fact that everyone feels social media gives us the right to say what we want without being judge, therefore people think twice before judging twice. There is no concrete answer to what Zittrain asks, but just like the traffic signs experiment shows, “unwritten rules” makes us aware that at the end of the day we respect each other’s as humans and not as part of a justice system; I know it sounds a bit idealistic, but social media will continues to emerge as long as it gives people the comfort of being able to raise their voice without fear of judgment.

Privacy in Social Media

The use of social media has change a lot of the things on how people go on their daily lives. It certainly has changed the meaning of words, including: “Privacy.” People hesitate to tell people they just know information about themselves, yet they are not afraid to posting as much information as necessary online to show others who they are. I can think of three reasons why people do this. First people are lying about who they are online. Second they think they are not posting anything relevant about themselves or lives. Third, (the one that I think applies the most) is people think they are protected because of the privacy settings and terms social networks offer when signing up.

In the book “Code 2.0” Lawrence Lessing talk about how Google stores all of our information. Searches, documents, emails and about anything you post or did while logon to a Google account.  Lawrence says is just how Google’s architecture works: they do what they to keep as much data as they can for an endless of purposes. He writes, “If you ever get involved in a lawsuit, the first question of the lawyer from the other side should be-do you have a Gmail account? Because, if you do, your life sits open for review.” This quote sort of applies to social media as well. Anyone that goes into court will more than likely to be subject of getting their accounts on social networks examine in every single detail and it may be even use in against you. As ironic as it sounds, the film “The Social Network” shows how something Mark Zuckerberg wrote on a blog of his, even before he launched Facebook, could have been used against of him, if he had decided to go to trial and not settle in one of lawsuits filed against him. When I was an intern at channel 7 back in El Paso, I remember there was a big story involving a teenager in an accident. Since she was underage it was becoming really hard for the reports to get details about this girl’s life. The first thing my supervisor said to me was to login into my Facebook, MySpace or whatever I had and search for the girl on the networking sites. For so many stories now, reporters rely on Social Media, whether other sources fail or not to provide information about their subjects.

Most users of Facebook, twitter, or anything similar to it, believe that by changing the account setting into private and only allowing users you approve to have access to what you post actually gives you “privacy.” The truth it doesn’t. Once you post something in any of these profiles, private or not, anyone that really wants to retrieve this information would do it with or without your permission. Not everyone has allowed the Library of Congress to follow them on twitter. Yet they are now archiving all of our tweets. Is irrelevant how private and secure you think you have your account, it does not matter if you delete your account. The Library of Congress would forever hold what you tweet it once upon a time. If this does not change what most people think of “privacy” I do not know what does.  

“Code 2.0” talks about the how there is no way for you to know if companies on the internet are cooperating with each other to collect data about users behavior/interests online. Lawrence explains not because you deny your information to a specific website does not mean that website cannot acquire it from the website you trusted. Companies do not necessarly share this information to hurt users, but is vital information that can help them regenerate profit. Lawrence explains that one of the reasons Google stores all of its users data has to do with advertising. Google can see what you do when you are logon onto your account, hence they can decide what advertisement to show on your page. At the end of the day, it almost seems that part of our privacy has been removed in exchange of money. Whatever the reason is, does it justifies it?

I understand that the internet only gives us so much privacy. We all have heard the sayings about “once its online is there forever” or the jokes about “you want to know what happen, go on Facebook.” Everyone is aware that even if social networking sites gave you all the privacy in the world, you never know the intentions of other people and they might just hack into accounts for the fun of it or to actually use that information against you. It was just a couple weeks back that I received emails from my banks that there had been a system breach at one of the companies that does marketing for them and that if they obtained information about me it was only going to be my name and email. No direct account numbers should have been released. There was no harm done, but some stranger can have my email and name and you never know what they can do with that much information. Especially in cyberspace you do not need much detail about anyone to find tons of information about them. Either societies understanding of “privacy” changes or the way the internet works get restructured or the government makes better laws instead of preserving all the twitter accounts. Meanwhile, like Lawrence wrote, just remember: “Everywhere you go on the Internet, the fact that IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx went there is recorded.”

Sharing Copyrights and Patents in the age of Social Networking

The internet gave people easy and cheap (even free) access to unlimited amounts of content that otherwise it will cost a fortune or it would be through piracy. Social media has brought a different view to its users related to copyright and patents. In the book “Information Feudalism” Peter Drahos writes, “Individual everywhere increasingly find that every time they use information in some way they trigger an obligation to pay a fee to an intellectual property owner.” Well with the internet we all have access to all this information without paying fees (most of the time at least), but the problem arises when it comes time users began to share such information.

Example one: YouTube. When you search any given song you get hundreds of results that are not the official video nor uploaded by the artist or anyone working for the artist/company record. Is just videos uploaded by users showing some video they edited with images, text, or montage of movies/shows. None of these people own the rights of the song, (and sometimes not even the image in the video) yet they are able to upload the videos and receive any quantity of views. Yet the other day when I uploaded a video on YouTube for class, the website removes the audio. The image was my own recording, but since I did not pay any royalties or anything to the song they opted to remove the audio, unless I prove them wrong. It is true I didn’t, I just used a song I had on my iTunes. Ironically, another video I uploaded about a month ago, which included more than one song, for which I had paid no royalties or had permission from their copyright owners to use, yet they didn’t remove the audio. So why did they opted to remove the audio from one and not the other? After much thinking I came up with two possible answers. One: is based on luck. Second: the songs I used for the video from which YouTube did not remove the audio, were downloaded from YouTube. Still, I don’t understand why is it that if I downloaded from YouTube I get permission to broadcasted? I did not pay anything to download, so the owner of the copyrights of the video did not receive any profit out of it or at least granted me permission to do it.  Given that YouTube did not allow me to upload my video with audio, I decided to upload it through Twitter and there was no trouble at all.

Basically social networks allow you to post whatever you want. Sure they all disclose on the fine print that they have the right to remove any post they feel is inappropriate/offensive/ or in violation of copyright. My doubt has always been the same, how would they know if you have permission to use the material?

Most users in social networks do not have the intention to take credit for someone else’s work. Usually the purpose of the posts that require use of someonelse’s work is just for leisure purposes, not with the intention of making a profit. Is simply users showing what they do for fun or as a hobby. Most amateur videos on YouTube, for example, in the description the user specifies they just did a video for fun or school or to show someone they care or just making their own home videos look better. Sharing in social networks is nothing close to piracy, although to the eyes of people in the copyright business might be lost of profit. I am sure some some users do have wrong intentions, but not everyone else can be blamed for the misused of a few. Copyright and patent rules need to change and work with the purpose of what social networks intend: sharing. They also need to change to help those users that depend on posting their works online to success in their professions. Many of these people cannot afford to have their work copyrighted or patented, but that does not mean they do not deserve protection just because they posted on the web.

I’ll finish the blog with these quote from the book which I feels simplify the main reason why the way the copyright/patent business should work. Social networks or not, this business need to change to open the doors to people trying to show the world their inventions/innovation/ creations:

 “Because intellectual property relates to information and knowledge, and because information and knowledge is built up over time by many people, it is hard to work out just what any given individual is truly responsible for. Ideas are triggered by related ones.” 

Social Media in a Time of War

In the book, “Here Come’s Everybody” Clay Shirky writes, “These tools allow citizens to report the news when they see it, without having to go through (or face delay and censorship by) official news channels.”

Social Media has opened the door to new ways for people to create groups making it easier and simple to accomplish their purposes. Social media has provided instant communication and the means to reach as many people as one wishes too.

For example twitter hash tags are the new way of identifying what people talk about. It is a way people identify topics, hence being able to find the information they might be looking for. Groups on Twitter are also using hash tags to identify their topic and lead them to accomplish their goals. An example of this is happening on Mexico. Since the drug war started it has caused increasing violence all around cities, at all times of the day. It had escalated from something between people involve in cartels to affecting the way citizens go on their daily life’s. Citizens want to be aware of shootings or any other events that can affect their area where they live and not find themselves on a threatening situation. Social media, such as twitter, Facebook, YouTube and blogs have become the tool citizens use to inform each other of violent breakouts, as they realize they couldn’t rely just on what the media said. As more and more people did this, citizens using twitter agreed on a standard hash tag to use. This way it will be easier for people to find out about any violent event by simply searching under the agreed hash tag. For example, cities like Monterrey and Reynosa have created their standard hash tags. Every twitter user living on those cities know that they can simply search “#mtyfollows” or  “#reynosafollows” to find out about any shootings or any risky situations they should avoid for their own safety. This works because of what Shirky says, ““When people care enough, they can come together and accomplish things of a scope and longevity that were previously impossible; they can do big things for love.” One of the consequences of the Drug War is the increase of crime as well as the lack of getting justice out of it. Citizens also use social media to get help if they become victims of crime, for example stolen car, or to talk about the lack of help they got from authorities.

In a situation like these social media has given citizens the opportunities to take a “journalistic” behavior in an attempt to do their part in helping people being affected by crime and to stand for justice in a country when no one is getting it. The Media has been extremely affected by the drug war as many news outlets cannot inform the actual facts for different reasons. Some either have been bought by wither the government or cartel, others have been threatened, and other have actually lost members of their news team for reporting against the cartels. Some newspapers have taken different measures to inform as much as they can. For example, “El Diario” from Ciudad Juarez and “El Siglo de Torreon,” from Torreon do not longer have a ‘by line’ on articles related to the Drug War in an effort to protect their journalists. Two young citizens created “El Blog del Narco” (The Cartel Blog) to inform every event related to the Drug War. They have created a safe outlet for citizens to inform anything they witness or they have victims off. They use Facebook and twitter to reach as many people as possible. They also use YouTube to post videos, although several times their videos have been censored. Just like Shirky said about the Lott story, “The weblog kept they story alive.” This blog keeps the information alive not letting citizens forget what the authorities try to hide on a daily basis. Other citizens have also created twitter accounts dedicated only to inform about drug war events on their region. For example some of them are: @BadNewsLaguna and @SinViolenciaMexico and many others. Any of this given accounts have thousands of followers because citizens have realized is the only medium they have to either get the news instantly or even getting them at all. It is something like Shirky wrote on the book, “information sharing produces shared awareness among the participants, and collaborative production relies on shared creation, but collective action creates shared responsibility, by tying the user’s identity to the identity group.”

As sad as it sounds, when it comes to news related to the Drug War traditional news outlets, like broadcasting and print, have lost the trust of citizens. Everyone believes more the information they obtain through social media outlets, even when it was created by citizens just trying to help and not actual journalists. Without Social media citizens would have still stand up for justice, but social media provides them the tool they needed it to both protect themselves and reach thousands of citizens, hence actually being able to make a difference.  Is not the journalists have stop doing their job, but their profession has found itself trapped in the chain of corruption created long ago in a country that now is fighting an internal war. Social Media is what citizens have left to inform each other and together try to do something about the Drug War that is slowly destroying the country. Shirky writes, “We are seeing these tools progress from coordination into governance, as groups gain enough power and support to be able to demand that they be deferred to.”

Ethical guidelines on Social Netwroks

Social networks have brought another way of interaction between humans. At this point I think is very clear for anyone that has engaged in social networking that different rules apply of interacting within the network in comparison to face-to-face interaction. The question is what are the rules? In the book “The Exploit” Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker write, “What sort of ethics is possible when the other has no “face” and yet is construed as other (as friend or foe)?”

It is true that many of the people with we whom we interact in social networks are people to whom we have a strong relationship based of face-to-face interaction. Still networks allows to have interaction that although we are able to put a face on there is not enough of a relationship to be able to classified them as friend or foe, but they are classified as an acquaintance. Finally, the network allows us to have relationships with people that we cannot put a face but we still might consider them our friends. Technically the same ethics should apply to any of the different interactions we might encounter in social networks, but it’s not like that. It does not has much to do with being able to put a “face” to the other person, but how much we actually know about who that person is. Of course the obvious assumption is that if we had had face-to-face interaction with a person, we know the person better than if we only know them through the network.

Social networks give us a lot of information about any particular person. Most of them have detail formats for people to include as much detail as possible about who you are, and they even give you free space to write your own biography. Still, I think there is so much we can know about who someone really is based on a couple fill in the blanks about our ‘favorites.’ A lot can be infer about the person, assuming they did not lie, but I still believe you only get to know a person until you actually interact with them. I think the ethical problem presented in social networking is the access we give to people to our lives, even being aware on how little we know of them and how little they know about us. When we see posts about people that we barely know or know nothing at all, our reaction is completely different than from someone we know even if they have the same exact post. It is just easier to assume or judge people when we do not know them because of the different meanings we can give to any text. It is not an excuse, justification nor makes it right, but is usually how it works. Technically one is not being unethical for thinking wrong of a person for what they post online, but some people take it farther than that. Good example is YouTube. People post videos of themselves all the time doing ransom stuff, singing, dancing or showing basically any skill that can be show off in video. Now a vast of these videos, not to be mean or anything, but truth be told they are horrible, people do not know how to sing or dance or whatever is that they think they can do. And yes if you decide to broadcast yourself to the world, you’ll have to be ready to take on some harsh criticism. But there is a line in between telling someone they are bad at something from insulting them. Most people probably fell comfortably posting on people YouTube videos insulting and diminishing things because they do not know them, so they do not feel remorse or they know that they will never have to go the awkwardness of seeing them face-to-face ever. Obviously the website expects certain behavior from users since they remove comments due to inappropriate content. So users if users are aware of it, why do they still decide to break the code? Does the fact that we sent the message through a computer miles away from the person directed to, (and often don’t even know the person) makes us forget the fact that the other person is still a human? Have social networks make us unaware of the power of words?

Ethics should be expected from any person when interacting with another person, even if is in a social network. I think people forget about ethics when they do not know the person at all. But, once someone classifies the other as friend or a foe, whether they know them in person or not, ethics would be a factor when interacting. True different rules sort of apply depending on the kind of relationship you have with people outside and inside the network. Between close friends there is always an understanding of what can be post online, between acquaintances you don’t really have an interaction although you might want to know more details about stuff they post. Between strangers there is still a question mark, especially on social networks where people expose big part of their lives. 

Staying Connected

Basically the moment I started reading the book “Connected” by Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler the same quote kept popping into my mind: “Is not what you know, but who you know.” The quote completely relates to the Stanley’s Milgram “six degree of separation” experiment as well as the authors (Christakis and Fowlers) “Three Degrees of Influence Rule.” Nowadays with social networks is even easier to stay in touch with the people we meet throughout our life’s, and at the same time is easier to find new people that may help us in a way or another.

                “In online networks, moreover, we not only manage our direct relationship to all these people; we also monitor all of their relationships with one another to a much greater degree than we would in the offline world.”

                Of course who we are and what we know also influences where we get into places in our life’s, but the people we know have a bigger influence than we think in what we end up doing in our life. The book doesn’t talk about one social network: LinkedIn. The business oriented social network site says it serves 3 main purposes. First re-connect with old and/or current colleagues and classmates. Second, it will power your career by discovering inside connections when looking for a job or new business opportunities. And third, it helps you get answers from experts of the industry that are part of the network. In LinkedIn profiles people post their previous and/or current professional experience. Also, the add information regarding about what they know to do in their areas of expertise. In relation to the six degree of separation rule I think it can be completely applied to this particular social network. You can see all the connections from your connections and so on. Then the website also informs of you how many of the same connections you have with a person you are not connected. The third degree of influence rule also will make sense to this website. I mean whoever affects you in your career probably would not be more than three degrees of separation of you. Anyone from a larger distance from you would probably not be able to affect your professional career for the simple reason that they would not know enough of your professional skills and/or ethics to vouch in your favor for you to move forward on your career.

                LinkedIn is also the perfect example to show the truth behind the quote: “It’s not what you know, but who you know.” Obviously whatever posts in your profile influences people wanting to connect with you and be willing to help you in any way in your professional career. At the same time the basic purpose of the website is to get that help from the people you know. Without the social network it would be so difficult to stay up-to-date to every single person that has or has the power to influence your career. It also opens a new form of connecting with people interested in the same professional areas as you. LinkedIn maintains and increases your network, therefore what you know forms your network but who you know opens the actual doors. Obviously no matter whom you know if you just don’t know anything you can only keep the lie for so long, but that’s a whole different question/blog.

                Even with social networks the same basic rules apply into how we are connected. The six degree of separation rule and the third degree influence rule still work about the same in every person. But the social networks revolutionize the way we are connected to each other in the sense that it makes that connection prevail. There are always people in our life’s that after we meet we never see each other again, before Facebook and/or email that more than likely meant you’ll never know about that person again. And if one day you wonder if that person would be able to help you, your options will be limited on getting in touch with that person ever. Today thanks to social networks and all the ways of communication the internet has introduced to society is easier to humans to maintain all those connections and just pull them out of their ‘friends’ if they ever have the need. I guess the authors said it best, “Our interactions, fostered and supported by new technologies, but existing even without them, create new social phenomena that transcend individual experience by enriching and enlarging it, and that has significant implications for the collective good.”

News in the Social Media Era

In the article “The Public Sphere,” the authors quote Karl Bucher: “But for the newspaper publisher it meant that he changed from a vendor of recent news to a dealer in public opinion.” This made my mind wonder about how newspapers and/or journalism in general has evolved in the social media era. There is no sole dealer anymore, now days the dealer can be about anyone with access to a computer.

Once upon a time you got your news by having to pick up the newspaper front the front porch, on the newsstand, the coffee shop or the office. Back in the day unless you physically hold the newspaper it was rare that you will find out about all the articles written on it. With social media readers now have access to as many article titles of as many newspapers as they wish too; and there is not even need to go into the official website of the newspaper itself. It is as simple as having a twitter or Facebook account. Personally, that is how I found out what is going around the world, and whenever a title interests me I read them. Since I started to follow newspapers in my twitter account I feel like I have read articles that otherwise I would have never read by going into the official website. Only so many articles are shown on the home page, and honestly I’m not going to browse to every section of the website, I don’t even do it when I have the actual paper in my hands. Sometimes even if you do not follow any news sources on your twitter or Facebook you can find out almost instantly by someone’s status. Social media is not just about sharing your personal life, is about sharing all kinds of information. It has become the latest medium for society to be informed. The day of the tsunami on Japan I had not watch T.V. or browse around the internet. I saw my friend’s status before I saw the New York Times tweet about the Tsunami. Even without my friends status I would have found about it, but the fact that so many people had posts about it just emphasized the gravity of the event. There is no doubt that although the internet is ‘killing’ the newspaper business, at the same time is giving them a new way to reach a broader readership. Most importantly the internet gives the newspaper business the one thing that left the out of the competition with Television and Radio: instant news.  And not only by posting it on their official website, but they are actual able to break the news to millions of readers around the world through Facebook and Twitter.

            Blogs have also changed the news world. Anyone can start a blog. Although many people use blogs with no other purpose but personal, others use it as a way to open doors for themselves. For whoever wants to be a writer or a journalist, blogs are the perfect way to show the world your talent. Of course is hard given the amount of blogs on the web.

According to Wikipedia.com as of February 16 of this year, there were over 156 million public blogs on existence. Blogs have become part of people’s portfolio. The term I have a ‘personal blog’ is not quite the same as a diary. Once posted online is there for the world to see even if set to private. People not only read blogs to know about someone’s inner feelings, but to read about different views about everything from politics to the coolest show on T.V. The way I see it, blogs serve as a sort of each individual memo statement about life. Blogs are not precisely competing against newspapers, but I do think it posts them with a new challenge.  Readers now have access to so many opinions that will make them question even more the editorials written in each edition. In a way public opinion has finally gone totally public as there is no need to rely in a third party to get your opinion out into the world.

            Newspapers and every single news source of any type has adapted to the benefits that social media has brought them. Now more than ever in history news travel to every corner in the world in an instant.

           

In the risk of sounding like a movie line, this is how I will end my blog tonight: “Rule #1 of Social Media: once is posted you can’t take it back.”

This is my final project I work on last semester for my video class. I don't think I ever had so much fun during shoot day. All the dogs were so cute. I still cant believe I didnt walk out of the shelter with my own hahaha. Cant wait to get a job so that I can adopt a cute puppy on the summer :) Enjoy!

Back in the Game

Nothing like a real honest conversation to make you open your eyes. Knowing that you have a person in the world that you can tell them anything and they wont ever judge is as lucky as you get. In moments when I feel like nothing is going as it should I lose my perspective in life. Dont worry, it sounds worst than it really is. It just becomes easier for the negative to overshadow the positive. Its ironic how in a day of thinking and at the same time trying to strop rationalizing certain feeling everything seems clearlier now. I know that probably the previous sentence didn't make much sense, but maybe if you have ever felt the way I do, I am sure you get the idea of what I am talking about. Luckily things make sense now, sort of. I really dont know what was about those couple of conversations that trigger something to make me stop complaining about things that didn't even matter. I realize I had to much crap in my mind and I had to let go of it. Sometimes over analyzing every single detail of our lifes just makes things more complicated, and I think I got carried away. The funny thing is I've never done that before, I had always been more of the carefree kind of person. And I'm still that person, but I guess that for a moment I forgot about it. Now Im back to my old self, not that I ever stop being me but you get the point. Now I understand somethings in life can't be rationalize and you just have to go with it. And the things that can be rationalize, well they all have a solution. May not be the solution you want or the fastest or the simplest, but it exists which at the end of the day is what matters. The truth is that I let insanity take over me for a while and lost I bit of control of what I wanted of my life. Today more than ever I know what I want in my life, for the most part. And I know I am in the right track although is not exactly how I picture it. But it has turn it out for the best. TIme has come to put those goal on motion again, not that they ever went away, but for a little while I let crazy thoughts and emotions push them to the back of my head. Literally I felt like I had to bare my soul to the most important people in my life, to myself and now to these blog to see the big picture again. It was worth it, and just in time for baseball season ha.

An Image Response to "What's Mine is Yours" (Version One)

On my text response I talked about societies love affair with Credit Cards. The following set of pictures intend to show how people buy stuff they can't afford. 

                                     

Is somehow ironic how people decide to live sometimes. Choose one luxury over another, instead of balancing it all.

Part of the reason problem sink in debt is because they are not aware of how paying off credit cards actually works.

What will it take for society to learn how to spend responsible? 

Communication+Internet =Materialism?

Karl Marx writes, “The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself.”

Naturally humans have the need to communicate and socialize, hence the reason we live in society. Communication has evolved from only being face-to-face to everything the web has to offer now. Once upon a time for two people living miles away from each other they communicated through letters, which could take up months before it got to its destination and an answer back. Then came the telegram which was much faster but still limited in the speed of feedback. Later came the telephone which was basically the same as being in the same room except for the fact that you couldn’t see each other. And still was the factor of being able to reach the person by the phone, the solution: cellphones. Finally came the World Wide Web. In a nut shell it brought together every old way of communication but made it faster, better, and with hundreds of different options. Think about it how many means of communication do you check when in your computer?

·         Email (multiple accounts: personal, work, school, etc.)

·         Instant Messaging (msn, aim, yahoo, Gmail, Skype etc.)

·         Social Networking (Facebook, twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc.)

·         Blogs

Personally I have 4 active email accounts. In terms of social network I use: Facebook, twitter, LinkedIn. Still I have accounts on MySpace, even Hi5 unless it deleted for no use in the past four years. I have one blog, so far.  Every once in a while I still get online on msn, I have aim but never really used it, there is Facebook chat now, and I have meebo and Skype. I have accounts in Kodak, YouTube, Flickr. Throughout the years I have probably gotten rid of a couple email accounts as well as accounts in other social networking sites.

Our need of faster and better communication has given rise to all these new media/mediums available to us. It has cause the creation and production of more materialistic stuff. Desktops, laptops, smartphones, ipads, ipods, tablets, netbooks and more. Not so many years ago people survive with only a computer, right now in 2011 is not impossible is just hard to believe. There is these constant need of being able to communicate through any possible method the internet has made available to society. It used to be a dial connection that took several minutes and even made your phone line busy unless you had two phone lines. It almost seemed like you were switching from one method of communication to another, you couldn’t have both. Then it became wireless you could access internet anywhere in your house without having to be chain down to a cord. Wireless internet evolved to being able in public places as long as you had the mediums to use it: laptops or ipods. Finally now thousands of people pay extra money each month to have internet available to them 24/7 in their phones. At least I now I do. Truth be told it has come very handy to have internet in my phone. In perspective it has probably save me several gallons of gas on giving me directions instead of me going in circles endlessly. At the same time I am aware of the material dependence it has become. Sure it’s fun to have my email or Facebook available to me at any time, but I am positive I can live without checking them just when I am in the computer. But the reality is that I could do it for a couple of days but soon I will start missing my phone. During the Christmas holidays when I was visiting back home for a couple weeks I couldn’t use my cell over there (I could but didn’t want to pay for roaming charges). So I had to settle with my old cell from which I could only text and talk. The first couple of days I really didn’t care, but as the days passed I did care. Literally felt like my phone was useless because I couldn’t access the internet. There was no life and death situation requiring my email, or school or work. The only reason I had to wanting to have access to the internet is to fool around on it basically.

It can’t be denied that the internet is a great invention and has satisfied our need of communication. I mean is just sounds foolish to say I couldn’t get a hold of you nowadays. Certainly helps in staying connected with important people in your life as the years pass by and life takes us on different paths. But sadly it has also increased our need for more and more materialistic stuff. Because even if you only own any of the mediums that give you access to the internet, is a constant want of upgrading them.

Natural needs have made us dependent to a materialistic life. Like everything it has its pros and cons, but the question will remain, when is it too much?

What would you do when technology fails?

David Parry was correct. Indeed this week’s reading, Heidegger’s “The question concerning Technology,” was probably the hardest and confusing 30 pages I ever read, not only during grad school but on my life. While reading this text, twice, I felt like I kept jumping back and forth on thinking that I understood what Heiddegger was trying to say to not having a clue of what he was saying. From the first couple paragraphs I understood that the purpose of this text was to question of what technology means. Heiddegger says that not because the definition of technology is correct it means it is true. So according to my understanding in this text Heiddeger explains his questioning process to be able to find the true essence of technology. To be honest I’m not sure how Heiddegger concludes that in his text. The one thing I did got out of it, is that technology is ever-changing.

Heidegger states, “Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it.” Society becomes more dependable of technology by the minute as technology evolves. I mean think about it for a second, how would you go on your daily life without the use of technology? Society relies in technology for the simplest tasks that allows us to survive. Technically is possible to cook without technology (no stove) but the truth is it would take so much time to do it 3 times a day that the entire way of living would take a 360 degree turn.  

I don’t think depending in technology is a bad thing. In the contrary, thanks to technology societies quality of life became much better. The problem in this dependency is that we have forgot how to do things without technology. I just think is important to understand that will technology fail, and when it does is not the end of the world. Probably it would be very hard to do most stuff without technology, but at least you can reduce the use of it. I’m not saying that we have to go back to the Stone Age, but at least know our options when something fails.

In the storage room in my closet my parents still keep their typewriter. When I was a kid they didn’t teach you how to use typewriters in school anymore, at least the school I went to didn’t. I had my first computer class at the age of six. It was one of those old computers where everything you type on the screen was on green. My parents didn’t buy a computer for the house until I was in the fifth grade. So through my elementary years I learned to use the typewriter. My parents made me use it a couple of times for school projects. Right now I really don’t know why I would have needed it; probably they just wanted me to turn in something more presentable. Honestly it was kind of annoying using the typewriter especially when I knew how to use a computer. Still it turned out to be a good thing. When I was in middle school the printer ran out of ink, and of course I was doing my homework last minute so my mother made me typed it on the typewriter. Good thing my teacher didn’t mind (probably because she was old) and it just was a minor project. Actually the last time I use a typewriter was about 4 years ago. I was over at my grandpa’s house and he wanted my help in typing some labels for his folders. Truth be told I did messed up a couple of times but at the end I got it right. My grandfather actually laughed at me because I didn’t know how to use them correctly, but at the same time he was surprised that at least I knew the basic idea of how to use it. If my computer were to fail right now, a typewriter would probably not be the best solution since it would be hard to post it online. Then again I can always type it up, go to Kinkos scan it and post it. It would cost money and take longer but is a solution. Still a solution that not many people could figure out. Certainly when technology fails on me I do freak out and even get upset, but I know that even for a while something may seem harder is not impossible to get it done.

At the end of the day technology has make our lives easier by getting things done faster and better. Without it the world would not be the way it is right now. The way society works evolves as technology evolves. In a way they go hand in hand. Stopping dependence on technology is basically impossible. And there is no harm in it. The harm is done by society not realizing that there is a way around when technology fails. After all technology did not invent technology, it was humans who created it.

www.art.com

In “The Work of Culture in The Age of Cybernetic Systems,” Bill Nichols writes: “During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity’s entire mode of existence” (pg.222). Throughout the reading Nichols talks about different types of Art what they represent and how being able to reproduce them changes the significance they can have. Thinking about these I could not help but think how art is being transformed as the world shifts towards a digital age. Analog photography and digital photography, although in essence is the same practice, the transition to digital photography has changed the way society perceive the art of photography. The same has happen with film, society perceives film different as it has evolve from black and white to color, from silent to sound, and now as it changes in the digital age. Society depends much more in digital technology therefore our perception on how digital media is changing art has change as our mode of existence is changing too.

I think is safe to say the Internet has cause a 180 degree turn on the way society lives. Our way of communicating, of researching, of learning, of shopping, of entertainment, of leisure, etc. has been affected due to the internet. Society depends on Internet almost to a full 100%. Hence society perception of life has changed too. Given these it affects the way people see art or think of art. In a way, the internet has allowed numerous amount of people, who otherwise would have not, be exposed to art. True that appreciating a piece of Art through a screen is not the same than seeing the original (or even replica) of the piece at a gallery or whichever it location may be. Perhaps the only art that is not affected by this is film. Still learning about art through the internet gives you the tool of research at that precise moment. People not only have the chance to see how the art piece looks but they can simultaneous research the history of its piece. The way you feel by an art piece without knowing anything about it can completely differ from your opinion if you know how it came to be, or who made it, or other’s interpretation.

Art itself has given a different perception about the world. Art has given the world an insight to the past and to other cultures.  Without it many aspects of society throughout time will have been left blank. Nichols writes, “This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence.” Art has provided us information to our past that has shape our futures. It has given insight to each other’s culture around the globe, perhaps making us more respectful to each other. This is where in my view the Internet has help art. The internet has given societies the doors to ‘visit’ other societies virtually without traveling thousands of miles and spending hundreds of dollars. It is true, like Nichols mentions, that no replica of a piece of Art, no matter how perfect, it would always lack its uniqueness og having been in its time and place. That doesn’t change the fact that without replicas Art could probably not have had the impact it has in the world.

The World Wide Web has become one of the three most defining words of this period in history. It changed how society lives. It gave society a new perception in life. The internet is causing a change on how art can be exposed which may also be changing the way is perceived/appreciated it. At times it might make it harder to be able distinguish what can really be consider art, but I think that it simultaneously cause the artist to try harder to capture the essence of their work in order to be able to portray their piece as real art. The most important thing is to be aware that the world is still shifting into the digital era, analog has not vanish entirely, so as this process occurs, art will be changing too. And somewhere down the road when the shift is complete all the art created throughout it will be part of the puzzle that explains what is that occur in this moment.

Roller Coaster Life

Here I am again. Last couple of weeks could be described as being a freaking roller coaster. For starters getting a week off from school after just 2 weeks of starting the semester was fun but feeling that I had so much time did not turn out to be a very productive few days. Extreme weather, cold or hot, is just not ideal for the mind.

Then Super Bowl weekend was awesome. Free Faith Hill and The Pretenders concert, and when I say free I mean it. Didn't have to pay for parking, food or drinks. Standing for 6 hours was a low price to pay for that night. Since the concert was part of CMT Crossroads series, we (Caleigh and I) were on national television. Not to mention that I got to see Jason Witten. He is in my top 3 of favorite Cowboys of all time. I took a picture and even got his autograph. Given that I didn't have paper I gave him my texas i.d. to sign. Caleigh was confused asking me why are you giving me your i.d. give something else. I had nothing except a 20dlrs bill and my credit card. I can live without my i.d. for a couple of weeks while I get a new one. Needed to update my adress anyways ha. Finally on Sunday we went to the NFL Experience. Its like a football museum with games. I just felt like a kid, thats always a good feeling. And it ended good with the Packers taking the Lombardi trophy. Not a real Green Bay Packers fan but close friends are big fans so I know that made them happy. I couldnt stand the Steelers beings champs again, sorry Dad. I know someone else who is a Steelers 'fan' but, well lets just say they might have to change teams soon, just saying it will help. Honestly, the only thing that could made this weekend better is if the Cowboys had been playing on Sunday and of course bringing a 6 championship! Guess have to wait another year for that!

Then there is the job situation. There is no situation really is more like the lack of one. At this point I got a call back from only one of the internships I applied for only to be told that they are going to keep my resume in file, since the internship had to be put on hold. For a moment there I thought finally! but no! So Caleigh and I decided to make money on our own. She has done a couple of websites in the past and I had done sales, the perfect combo! Also she has the new Canon T2i rebel, hence we can do photography and video work. Finally we are adding Social Media to the combo. Is still in the process of getting everything ready like logo, business cards, media kit but before we know it we hope to be making money and make the business grow.

Theres just so much I can write here. I mean theres so much I can share with the world, right? The truth is just I've been thinking a lot, making sure that the decisions I've made in the past and continue making are actually taking me down the right path to accomplish the goals I have set for myself. All this free time just makes me mind wonder of, somehow right now as I write these the only thing in my mind is menudo and I have not even been drinking. Sometimes I wish I could just know what I am supposed to do or how things are going to turn out, but then it will take the fun out of life. Is the same reason I like gambling: I never know what card I'm getting or where the ball is going to land in the roulette; is just an emotion I cant describe, I just love it. At the end what you loose doesn't compare to what you win.