Facebook Is Me

In her book, Alone Together, Sherry Turkle discusses her research on the rise of online communication and its effect on identity formation. Turkle argues that online social media forums, such as Facebook, make identity formation quite easy. Not only is one allowed to create their ideal self, but they can also alter this created identity in any way they please. Turkle comments, “identity play is the work of adolescents” (192). Adolescents experiment with their online identity, and part of this identity formation comes from taking pictures and posting them to Facebook for the world to see. The issue, however, is that the pictures posted to Facebook display one’s “edited life” (192). Turkle argues that one can easily tinker with their identity on Facebook, but how one displays themselves is not necessarily an accurate portrayal of their actual life. One of Turkle’s participants commented, “You’re not going to post pictures of how you look every day. You’re going to get your makeup on, put on your cute little outfit” (191). The pictures placed on Facebook are a way for people to create memories, which is an aspect of identity construction. Facebook has become such an influential tool for identity formation that “If Facebook were deleted, I’d be deleted…All my memories would probably go along with it” (191). The dawn of online social networking sites, like Facebook, allows for identity to be increasingly more malleable now than ever before, especially since these sites have literally become part of us by being a form of memory creation and storage.

A short Youtube clip illuminates the impact that Facebook can have on information identity.

The clip begins with a gripping comment, “Without Facebook, you might not even know who you are”. Generally, people enjoy advertising and glorifying themselves through pictures that illustrate who they are, where they have been, and people they know because these aspects are important for the construction of one’s identity. Facebook has transformed the process of making memories into a simple task. Prior to the age of Facebook, people took photos, developed pictures, made scrapbooks and photo albums, and so on.  Now, the capabilities that Facebook has such as timelines, photo albums, friend groups, and any other means for sorting and creating memories, are all outlets for broadcasting one’s self to the world. Of course, these pictures can be edited and modified to any extent.

This clip is supportive of Sherry Turkle’s argument regarding the creation and alteration of identity online. This clip describes how Facebook has facilitated the creation and storage of memories, which in turn, allows for identity to be broadcasted into the online world. Facebook, and other online social media sites, have become such an integral part of our lives that our personal identity would literally not be the same without it. Both Turkle and the clip suggest that the memories and connections one makes on Facebook becomes a pillar for identity construction, and without this pillar one would no longer have the foundation for their desired identity.

Captured by Google Earth

                 In The Googlization of Us, Siva Vaidhyanathan explores the capability of Google services to enable a new level of surveillance.  Google Street View and Google Earth, for example, allow the user to take a visual tour of practically any location.  As this area of Google emerged, “many commentators declared the service to be too invasive for comfort”, as users are able to easily view other people’s streets and homes.  While the service may be useful in certain situations, such as examining architecture or finding local landmarks, Vaidhyanathan reminds us that it is practical to remain wary of this new method of surveillance.   Features such as Google Earth and Google Street View have raised a number of concerns about privacy and surveillance, including the issues of trespassing, lack of notification, and disclosure of private information.

                While examining this article and considering the debates that have resulted from the emergence of Google Earth and Google Street View, I immediately recalled an experience from my past summer of work.  Over the summer, I work as a farm technician and help carry out a variety of confidential agricultural field trials.  When I returned to work this past summer, my coworkers told me that they had looked for the facility on Google Earth and had actually managed to find the vehicle and field setup that we had been using to collect data at an earlier date.  My coworkers were astounded by this discovery and even found it somewhat funny that we had been captured by the Google camera, but I couldn’t help but feel a bit disturbed.  Despite the absolute quiet and apparent isolation of the area of the farm that I had been working in, Google had somehow managed to capture my vehicle and equipment on camera without being noticed in any way.

                Prior to my own experience being captured on Google’s cameras, I didn’t give a second thought to these potentially invasive Google features.   Vaidhyanathan mentions in that “Google users became accustomed to the new function”, and this was definitely true for me.  However, my views definitely shifted when my activity was captured without my knowledge or permission, and I would say that I now completely agree with Vaidhyanathan’s warning to be wary of such ‘Googlization’.  I also appreciated that his writing also explored several important debates initiated by Google’s invasive mapping technologies.  The concept of Google ‘trespassing’ with its lenses was intriguing to me, and I can empathize with the concerns of the couple who accused Google of this.  I was alarmed by the fact that a Google camera had made its way into my work facility completely undetected and taken information to broadcast publicly.  Personally, I don’t believe that Google has any more right than a trespassing individual does to photograph private property.  I also appreciated the concerns that Vaidhyanathan discussed regarding anxiety about disclosure of private information.  The work that my company does is often confidential, and it is troubling that Google is free to access imagery of what we do at any time they choose.  While Google Earth doesn’t currently come close enough to reveal specifics about our experimental trials, it could definitely become even more of a threat as their technology becomes more refined, and it will be up to our facility to step in and request removal of the imagery.

Copyright vs. Creative Commons - By Greta Dohl

In "Six Faces of Piracy", Lobato puts forward the idea that piracy is not a black or white issue - good versus bad - but a complex stack of reasoning and outcomes. Additionally, those varying approaches need to be taken into account when forming opinions as well as policy.

Two of the types of piracy outlined are "Piracy as Access" and "Piracy as Free Enterprise". Piracy as free enterprise is based around the idea that there are holes in the current economic structure. Savy users as well as everyday consumers find ways to fill those holes and jump through those hoops; "In the laissez-faire imaginary, piracy fills gaps in the market with maximum efficiency, catering to demand when and where legitimate industries are unwilling or unable to do so." (75) Piracy as access is the idea that piracy, or borrowed content, exposes people to the music, movies, industry, culture that they wouldn't otherwise have been able to interact with; "This approach is interested in the transformative aspects of piracy, in piracy’s capacity to disseminate culture, knowledge and capital." (82) This expands the influence of said industry while also giving the general populous the content they want.

In this article, Alyssa Rosenberg looks at former president Bill Clinton's views on piracy. Clinton outlines the advantages of 'Creative Commons' and creating new ways to connect the artist to compensation as well as connecting the audience to content. He cites Saint Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital as an example of a more connect market. Saint Jude's does not charge patients for their services but rather asks that those who can pay do. He points to a system that doesn't have to be driven by profit but can rather be driven by a desire to share ideas. He used Bridegroom, a short film about a gay couple. “It’s a gripping portrait of how people are grappling with all of these identity questions. It was 100 percent crowd-funded,...I think there are a lot of these kinds of films about gender discrimination, girls sold into sexual slavery, boys sold into bondage. There would be a plethora of things where you don’t want intellectual property to get in the way of immediate and powerful exposition of problems the world all over that can be dealt with by people on the ground, NGOs, who also will be crowd-funded because of this.” He doesn't give concrete or practical ways of accomplishing this but says “We need to have a more explicit framework to nurture and support creativity”.

Clinton's approach to the copyright debate combines the Access and Free Enterprise portions of Lobato's article. The example of Saint Jude's helps to fill a flaw in the system that interferes with certain people's access to content (in this case, medical care). The Bridegroom is about access - being able to spread ideas without being restricted by cooperation or copyright control. Clinton's ideas enhance Lobato's idea that there are many ways to approach the copyright discussion. Clinton seems to agree that it will never go away but instead needs to be directed and understood. Clinton's ideas also show that Lobato's 'Six Faces' aren't enough - or at least they aren't distinct. This discussion needs to continue, the layers need to grow and our understanding needs to change in order for us to move forward in this issue.

Free Enterprise & Piracy in the Music Industry

In Six Faces of Piracy, Ramon Lobato addresses the issue of piracy by breaking it down into a variety of forms. One of these six types of piracy is ‘piracy as free enterprise’. In contrast to the common ‘piracy as theft’ perspective, this free enterprise point of view suggests that piracy caters to market needs and may actually be economically beneficial in some ways. Although pirated content itself does not generate a direct profit, Lobato suggests that piracy might still be monetized in some form. As an example, Lobato discusses product placement in movies. In this case, piracy may be beneficial to a showcased product, as increased circulation of a movie may lead to an increase in the highlighted brand’s value. While users may not be paying for their pirated content, this pirated content may lead them to purchase other goods at a later time.

This 2012 BBC News article, A Glimpse at Piracy in the UK and Beyond, seems to be somewhat inclusive of this view on piracy. While the story includes the harshly negative perspective of a BPI chief executive (“We are losing hundreds of millions of pounds a year that should be getting invested into new music”), it also presents the opinions of the artist. Ed Sheeran, the most illegally downloaded artist in the UK last year, appears to have a view on piracy that agrees much more with the ‘piracy as free enterprise’ concept. While 8 million copies of the album have been pirated and only 1.2 million have been legally purchased, Sheeran states that he feels good that 9 million people in the UK have his album, despite the majority being pirated. He believes that this gives people that wouldn’t necessarily buy the album a chance to listen to his songs, which can create new fans that might come to his performances. While he may not be profiting from the actual pirated albums, the illegal downloads help build Sheeran’s fan base, eventually leading to an increase in profits from tickets to his performances.

I can definitely see the logic behind Lobato’s ‘piracy as free enterprise’discussion. It does seem as though piracy can lead to economic success in some ways, and I find it encouraging seeing that today’s artists are open to the idea of a changing music industry. The BBC article states that an emerging business model for the industry “sees the album in a similar way to how it sees the music video: as a promotional tool for the artist, a mechanism to sell live performance tickets.” This new perspective seems to be aligned with Lobato’s free enterprise concept, as unauthorized circulation of music albums can be used as advertising for concerts in the same way that pirated movies may increase the effects of product placement.

Why do people pirate?

   In his article, Six Faces of Piracy, Shadow Economies of Cinema, Lobato states that “six different philosophical positions on copyright infringement: piracy as theft, free enterprise free speech, authorship, resistance and access” in the present digital era. Today, I would like to talk about piracy as access. In the article, he mentions that piracy can be the only way to access information and know other cultures. Moreover, as a result, pirate networks “provide the material routes for an alternative technological modernity, generating new forms of media access, emergent social practice and possibilities of change.” In short, through piracy networks, a way is born for people to get information and for society to change.

   For example, anime is becoming one of the worldwide cultures. Japanese anime is translated in foreign languages and loved by foreign countries. In addition, lately, even a lot of amine events are held in the world. For example, Anime Expo (United States) and AnimasiC (Germany). However, an article, why anime fanspirate the shows they love, mentions that being able to watch anime is not enough for anime foreign fans and piracy as access is a problem not only in the third world. According to the article, anime fans who live in America watch their favorite anime by doing piracy not because they don’t want to spend money, but they don’t have good ways to access it except illegal sites doing piracy. Because the companies' translations are not good. 

   In short, piracy is the only way people can understand what the anime creator intended and Japanese culture. In other words, companies that run anime sites don’t understand real fans’ needs. That is why they need to find a way to suit users’ needs, not just try to regulate piracy. By doing so, piracy would decrease and anime fans could enjoy more. In addition, as a result, anime culture will spread more. It is important to find ways in which both people who have copyrights and users would benefit.

Rome Wasn't Built in a Day but a Reputation Can Be

In Worship at the Alter of Convergence Henry Jenkins focus on the changing manner of media circulation.  In the new world, media goes through several different outlets; big media must now interact with the noble amateur to maximize exposure and profits.  He also comments on participatory culture.  Participatory culture is only possible if users make creative changes to already established big media products.  The example Jenkins uses is that of Bert is Evil, which involves a photo-shopped version of Bert from Sesame Street with Osama Bin Laden.  This image was eventually used in a protest and from there the Bert is Evil concept went viral.  Convergence is everywhere but the most prominent example is large broadcasting companies having YouTube channels (NBA & CNN).  This allows persons without televisions to access their content.

A fantastic example of this is the Rome Wasn’t Built in One Day (The Decision Remix) by dj steve porter.  This video chronicles a tumultuous 2010-2011 season for Lebron James.  It features several different press conferences, highlights, and events that encapsulate the narcissism he displayed throughout the season.  It gives the viewer a musical summary of that year for Lebron personally along with the Miami Heat’s “Big Three”.  This video quickly went viral and ESPN actually aired it on SportsCenter.  After airing the video ESPN hired dj steve porter; he now does a “month in review” video every month along with doing special videos for athletes, sporting events and sports commentators like Randy Moss, Skip Bayless and the NFL Draft to name a few.

This is a prime example of convergence.  All of these Lebron James moments were scattered through the year.  Dj steve porter brought them all together to paint a narcissist picture of LBJ.  This video has changed the way people look at Lebron all together.  While Lebron supports upwards of 10 charities and donates the most money in the NBA to charity, dj steve porter’s video demonized him to the point that charitable acts cannot change his image.  Lebron did not make the best public relation decisions in 2010, however it would not have been as condemning without Rome Wasn’t Built in One Day (The Decision Remix).  Also, this is a great example of participatory culture.  Dj steve porter went from a consumer to a producer with this hit.  Also, ESPN now hosts video remix contests among their viewers regularly.

Anonymity: Where Civility Goes to Die

              Sherry Turkle worries about how the technological world we live in is redefining how we experience life and she discusses these issues in her book, Alone Together. One of the most concerning aspects of being tethered to the internet, as she says, is that we experience less face to face communication with other people. Texting, for example, has replaced phone calls for many people – especially teenagers. For the uncomfortable, awkward teenage years, texting is ideal because it can be used as “a place to hide” from social humiliation, a place to think about and revise a thought before it is sent (187). Facebook also creates a place to hide, in a sense, because as Turkle mentions it is all about creating an identity. It is an environment where people can express other versions of themselves that they don’t feel like they can be in the real world. Turkle describes the effects of the network on today’s young people as paradoxical. While it is easier to play with identity, it is harder to leave the past behind. While the network facilitates separation, it also inhibits it because anyone can be reached at any time (169). Children and adults are falling victim to technology’s grasp on sociability. Parents claim not being able to escape work; younger people spend more time texting than talking. Turkle warns that in order to grow, we need to learn how to be disconnected or “untethered”, how to socialize in a way that demands face to face communication.

      A short blog on Word Press by Matt Hames delves into the problem of anonymity vs. identity on the internet. In simple terms, he argues that people are more likely to be socially unacceptable or uncivil when they are posting on sites such as 4chan or YouTube, where anonymity is an option. He claims that “when there is no cost to someone’s profile, there is no requirement to be civil.” On the other hand, places that require an identity, such as Facebook, forces users to be more socially responsible. Hames states that “sharing with people [he knows] creates social currency.” There is a direct purpose or goal: being liked, increasing sociability.

                Turkle mentions that “the internet is forever” (169). Hames also reminds his readers that any lack of civility that is next to a person’s name is just a Google search away. This being true, having a true identity on the internet will inhibit people from displaying or saying anything that will make them less popular or socially acceptable. Being anonymous on the internet gives people a sense of power. It makes them feel like they have no rules or limits to what they can say or do because there will be no social repercussions. If anonymity were an option on every site, civility would be dead. It only brings us further and further away from the face to face connections we need in order to untether ourselves from technology.