LinkedIn Steps Up to the Plate

LinkedIn, the social networking site used predominantly by professionals, has apparently felt neglected as of late. It's been wondering why its 90 million users haven't been giving it as much attention as they've been directing towards Facebook, Google News, and Yahoo News. LinkedIn has been taking this sort of abuse for quite some time now, but it appears that the site has finally decided to act on its dissatisfaction.

A New York Times article has announced the company's new service which provides relevant links to and summaries of the daily news on its site in a move that places the site in direct competition with other new aggregators such as the aforementioned Google and Yahoo general news services.

“We want to give you what you need to know to be better at what you do,” said LinkedIn's chief executive, Jeff Weiner.

To gain access to one of their newest features, "Maps," click here!

Social Networking: A Sense of Security

As a woman, I can attest that there have been times of discomfort during travel, in the past. Depending on where you are and whether or not you know people around you, it is natural to question and sometimes even doubt your security. I have many stories of my voyages on the Amtrak that made me uneasy because there was a man that was looking at me in a way that made me feel like I just wanted to hide. Sometimes random strangers can get too close in your personal space and make you feel uncomfortable. Or, my greatest moment of fear, when I was taking a cab in London and the driver used an alternative route (that later turned out to be okay, but had me screaming internally for the ten minute drive that seemed to last an hour). Apparently, false identity for cab drivers is a major problem in London, so everywhere you looked there was a sign warning tourists (especially women) to not get into cabs unless they had booked them through their hotel. Even though I had booked mine, those feelings of insecurity crept in and didn't go away until I got out of the car.

While this post isn't meant to bash the male gender, it is meant to bring light to the fact that women must be on their guard during travel. Thanks to technology (and social networking), perhaps fear has the potential to subside.

According to a recent New York Times article, Ihollaback.org is a social networking site

that encourages women to share stories and provide data about harassment so they can map locations where it occurred. The most impressive thing about the fight-back phenomenon is the youthful determination to organize and take concerted action about a problem that female travelers have long faced on the road, often alone and without recourse.

Because of this website, and other websites that are being created for the same purpose, women have the opportunity to inform and help each other on a global level. This website is an example of how social networking sites can be used to ensure support for users and provide a sense of security that no matter where we go in the world (or how many moments of discomfort we may have when traveling), there are other women who are looking out for us because they've been there and done that.

An App to Help You Unplug

Usually, technology-related apps exist to hook users into spending as much time as possible absorbed in the digital world. Now, from an organization called Reboot, there is an app that does just the opposite. Called the Sabbath Manifesto, this app posts on Facebook and Twitter that the user is partaking in a technology-free day. Lest the user forget, Sabbath Manifesto sends multiple text messages throughout the day prior to the day of unplugging.

As one might guess based on the app’s name, the organization that created Sabbath Manifesto (Reboot) is a Jewish organization. Some followers of the Jewish faith routinely unplug themselves for a full 25 hours. A Reboot spokesperson said that “while the group isn’t anti-technology, it hopes people will consider logging off more often.”

One may note the irony inherent in using a smartphone app to facilitate a day of technological abstinence. However, for many, responding to a cell phone’s beep is as automatic as to a friend’s greeting. By using this platform to advocate unplugging, Reboot is approaching people within their comfort zone, which may make them more likely to follow through. In addition, by informing the user’s Facebook friends and Twitter followers, Sabbath Manifesto makes the user more accountable for his or her adherence.

It is more difficult to measure how many people are not using a particular service than to measure how many are. However, Reboot claims that last year millions partook in the National Day of Unplugging. This year, it is scheduled for March 4-5. Will you participate?

When the digital divide and the rural-urban divide align

We talked at one point during this quarter about who is "left out" when they are not constantly connected--either because they choose not to be--or because they have no opportunity to be. For the former category, I suggested the elderly as an example because they may not be willing to invest the time to learn new skills, to master new technology. Plus, we should remember that it is more difficult "for an old dog to learn new tricks."

Now, a front-page story in today's New York Times reminds us of a group who would like to be connected, but who don't have a choice. The headline is "Digital Age is Slow to Arrive in Rural America." In it, journalist Kim Severson reports from Coffeeville, Alabama, population 563, in non-metropolitan Clarke County, where only half of residents have access to the broadband that so many of us take for granted. The story focuses on Coffeeville, but it is essentially about the Obama Administration's plan to "wire" the nation for broadband and close the digital divide--with a special focus on unserved and underserved communities--many of them rural. More than $7 billion in stimulus funding was earmarked for this effort. Severson summarizes the situation:

In rural America, only 60 percent of households use broadband Internet service, according to a report released Thursday by the Department of Commerce. That is 10 percent less than urban households. Over all, 28 percent of Americans do not use the Internet at all.

In Clarke County, the situation is even worse. Half of the county's residents cannot easily engage in e-commerce, consult their physician online, participate in online banking, upload family photos to Facebook, or make an appointment with a public official. With cell phone service also lacking in many parts of the county, they also cannot receive emergency alerts. Severson tells us that the only computer many Coffeeville students ever touch is at school. For many residents, it is at the library.

Severson's story quotes Brian Depew of the Center for Rural Affairs, who likens broadband to electricity early last century, when the federal government made a huge investment in rural electrification to level the playing field for rural people and places and bring them a critical service.

“You often hear people talk about broadband from a business development perspective, but it’s much more significant than that ... . This is about whether rural communities are going to participate in our democratic society. If you don’t have effective broadband, you are cut out of things that are really core to who we are as a country.”

The story is a good reminder of the myriad ways we have come to rely on being constantly connected, ways not available to rural residents because the digital divide all too often does align along the rural-urban axis. Read a related post on Legal Ruralism here.

View a map of the places with broadband access here.

If it's not on Facebook, it's not official!

“Mom, I’ve been meaning to tell you this…but um, he asked me out…we are official now”
“Wow! That’s great!...but how come I haven’t seen it on Facebook yet?”

I’m sure this scenario is either familiar or sounds true enough to be real to most of us. Our generation seems to be not only physically or mentally dependent on online social networks, but also socially dependent. The most influential social network these days is Facebook, which has over 500 million active users worldwide. Facebook limits its users to one of six different “relationship statuses”, and also gives the option not to post a status at all. According to a Time Magazine article regarding Facebook relationships, 60% of Facebook users choose to post their relationship status. Interestingly enough, most of them are either “single” or “married”. It seems as if Facebook puts social pressure on its users to share as much as possible through the network with their friends or with the general public. Consequently, users post their pictures, locations, and common friends, and in addition-their personal relations with their “partners”.

By giving their users the decision whether to announce their new or current relationships or not, Facebook creates this social expectation, which most people want to meet. No one wants to date someone who refuses to be in a relationship on Facebook, while a person who is open to suggestions would want to keep his or her options open by making sure the word “single” is loud and clear on his/her page. Furthermore, Facebook makes it easier to follow your friends’ or acquaintances’ relationships, while also giving some insights for the gossipers in society. After all, who doesn’t enjoy seeing ten “Likes” or multiple congratulating, and sometimes dramatic comments about his or her own changed relationship status?

Other than students following their friends’ teenage on /off relationship statuses, adults also utilize Facebook as a reachable medium to publicize their current love life situation. I mean, it is much easier rejecting a romantic date by “friend requesting” your fellow worker, letting him see your page, rather than saying “Sorry, I’m engaged” face to face, right? In the same Time article, an engaged couple shared an interesting story about announcing their engagement to the world via a simple Facebook status change. After receiving an angry phone call, they realized they forgot to tell the news to their own parents who ended up finding out through the network. Evidently, society believes Facebook provides the best and fastest way to announce, share, track and comment about personal relationship statuses of the people around us. Without this wide updating network, people would feel “out of the loop” and would be less entertained by judging others’ decisions or following others’ achievements. Once again, we fall into the online trap- getting addicted to being constantly connected.


So bottom line, to share or not share?

Anonymity in Cyberspace: Faceless Cage-Fighting from the Safety of Your Home?

Last week, 17-year-old Kayla, a girl from my theatre community in my hometown, stood up on stage and “came out” to her high school at an all-school assembly. She did not do this just to inform the world that she was gay; in a powerful and touching speech, she cracked open the taboos and barricades surrounding the acceptance of gay teens and gay marriage. Kayla’s speech was heartfelt and brave as she spoke about a personal subject that is very controversial. Kayla’s words were not confined to the time and space of the assembly, however; a video of her speech was posted on Youtube.

I was one of the very first people to watch the video on Youtube. I immediately posted the video onto my Facebook to share it with all of my online friends. By the end of the day, thirty of my friends had reposted the video. After three days, all of our friends and many friends of friends had seen the video. After six days, almost everyone in my hometown had seen or at least heard of Kayla’s speech. It was the talk of the town. It did not stop there; after a week, the video went beyond the boundaries of people who know Kayla: the video went viral.

Before the video went viral, the comment section was full of friend and family’s support, love, and admiration. As the video began to spread, complete strangers praised her words, her bravery, and her message. The upheaval of positive support was enormous. Yesterday, however, as the video reached 16,000 views since it was posted last Monday, some anonymous person wrote a short and hateful comment violently opposing not just the girl’s argument, but also the girl and everyone who supported her. There was an instant outcry against this comment, and things immediately got messy: the comment forum exploded into a battleground against this negative comment. It was like Pandora’s box had been cracked open: everyone began hashing out their opinions against the offender in a brusque manner. A few more rude and negative comments against Kayla’s argument appeared. These negative comments sparked angry and sometimes equally hurtful responses. Even the people who were against the comment were violent in the way the dealt with and answered the original offender. 

The conversations soon escalated into branched-out cyberspace fights, and soon a large majority of the conversation threads on the comment page no longer had anything to do with the actual video. Instead, every few seconds new comments would appear to bash apart a previous commentator. The majority of the people shooting angry comments back and forth did not even make an effort to censor what they were saying by trying to be polite and reasonable. Those that tried to do this initially quickly became incensed by the “ignorance” or unwillingness for the offender to see their point of view.

I was left wondering: what on Earth made it all right for people to brawl in such an undignified way on a public forum? Part of the answer, without a doubt, is the veil of anonymity cloaking a person to the point where they find themselves at liberty to say whatever they please, no matter how insensitive, hurtful or extreme. The comment section for Kayla’s video has turned into a bitter brawl as angry comments are flung back and forth between completely anonymous people. These people stopped arguing about the video and started openly insulting each other with profanities and accusations, most of which have nothing to do with any of the issues presented in Kayla's argument. 

What does this say about the power of anonymity in such a public forum? It allows people to say violent things that they would never say in person. Yet from the safety of their perch behind their computer screen, a person can say anything that they please and distance themselves emotionally from the repercussions their words might cause.

As of this afternoon, the video has jumped from the 16,000 views it had yesterday to a whopping 70,000 hits. Since this morning, over 600 comments have accumulated in the comment forum. Watching a video spread so rapidly and generate such a large response is an eye-opening vision of the strange functions of this modern world of cyberspace. It leaves me with these questions: is it OK to argue in this uncivilized, potentially hurtful way on a public forum? Or has the internet reduced human disagreements into faceless cage-fighting from the safety of your home? 

Internet Success Stories

Today’s culture is very fickle towards internet use. Researchers often conduct studies on health problems, mental and psychological deficiencies, and other ailments caused by constant connection to the internet. Parents and adolescents alike debate the pros and cons of constant technology use. In the end, most seem to conclude that constant connectivity and the internet cause nothing but harm. No matter how much evidence can be stacked up against the internet, a few success stories can be found that reinforce internet-lovers’ convictions. This begs the question: “Do the positive attributes of the internet compensate for being constantly connected to it?” There really isn’t a solid answer; this is just a thought-provoking discussion on the matter.

Internet success stories are frequent and noteworthy, but few are as well-known as that of teen pop artist, Justin Bieber. He began as a normal kid in Canada, but when his mom posted videos of his music covers on YouTube for their friends and family to enjoy, he became a YouTube star. A man named Scooter Braun randomly found one of Bieber’s videos and was so enthralled he had to find him. Braun took Bieber to jump start his career with the popular pop artist Usher’s guidance, and now girls ranging from ages three to 73 are screaming his name. After various number one hits, platinum albums, awards, and more, it has been made apparent that Justin Bieber is quite the internet success story. You might say that Bieber wasn’t technically “constantly connected,” but having any sort of YouTube presence indicates that the internet plays a significant role in a person’s life. Certainly no one can argue that Bieber was harmed by an internet presence. Although not everyone becomes rich and famous from being constantly connected, and almost none to this degree, many find musical careers, entrepreneurial endeavors, and other avenues towards success in this manner.

Now we know that constant connectivity can make you rich and famous, but can it save a life? This success story certainly suggests so. Nancy Makin weighed in at a whopping 700 pounds for over 12 years, and her weight gain only promoted hopelessness. When her sister gave her a computer, Makin’s life began to improve. She stated, “The anonymity of the computer gave me access to a world that would have just as well have left me alone, alone to die but I did not.” Online, Makin made and maintained many friendships. In these online friendships, she wasn’t judged by her looks but by her personality. She found love and acceptance through her constant connectivity, and as a result, Makin lost weight. She didn’t use any sort of weight-loss techniques; she just stopped overeating. The depression was no longer an issue, and her psychological state vastly improved. Makin now weighs around 170 pounds, and she hopes that her story will inspire others to do the same. Did her constant connectivity directly save her life? Well, no, but as a result of spending her time immersed in the internet, her health and mental state improved tremendously, thus increasing her standard of living and presumably prolonging her life. A lot can be said about the possibility of constant connectivity helping to improve peoples’ lives in this manner.

You will probably maintain your beliefs as to the effects of constant connectivity, but hopefully after reading this and examining the success stories, you at least did a double-take. Constant connectivity and the internet may be plagued with negativity, and some of it may be true, but some good can also come of this constant connectivity. Many people base their livelihoods on the internet and their ability to remain constantly connected. It is arguable that constant connectivity in this manner benefits these people more than it harms them. If standard of living can increase for these internet users, who are we to tell them that what they do is a detriment to their health and well-being?

Photo Credit

Communication as Entertainment, and Differences in Opinion

One of the central concepts behind most of the technologies powering the "constant connectivity" boom seems to be communication as entertainment. People have always interacted with others as a means of enjoying themselves, but all people inevitably find themselves alone for some periods of time, and historically, they found other ways to occupy themselves. They probably used to read books or hunt woolly mammoths or something.

Now, however, as soon as people get home from a night out with friends, they can log onto Facebook and talk to the same friends some more, except in a form that is more akin to small talk than deep conversation (which they presumably got out of the way while they were speaking in person). Small talk is not necessarily bad, but we might be better off reading books for fun instead.

A related example is text messaging. Many people around campus seem to be able to pass their free moments (and occupied ones besides) in text conversations, even in situations when looking at the scenery might have easily passed the lonesome thirty seconds before the next exciting thing happened.

I notice things like this mostly because I am not the type of person who turns to long-distance communication solely for entertainment. As a slight introvert, I feel much more comfortable talking to people if I have something to say to them. I find it difficult to imagine the effort it would take to have something worthwhile to say whenever I get bored.

This is why I was interested to read the bit in the assigned reading entitled "Antisocial Networking?" about how computer-mediated communication can help shy people make friends. I have a Facebook account, but I don't feel any more inclined to communicate with people through the site than in real life because it doesn't change the fact that I don't have anything to say.

I looked into some papers on introverted people and Facebook, and found that the literature consistently disagrees with me. For instance, a survey conducted by Baker and Oswald revealed that "among relatively shy individuals, Facebook use was positively associated with satisfaction, importance, and closeness with Facebook friends, but not with non-Facebook friends" (883). A very similar study by Orr et al. concluded likewise that "shyness was significantly positively correlated with attitudes toward Facebook" (339).

Oh.

More than proving me wrong, though, I think this indicates how complex and open-ended this field of study is. The fact that much of it deals with human behavior and psychology means that many variations in motive will be unaccounted for in systematic studies. Maybe there was a troublemaker like me in Baker and Oswald's study who was skewing the data, and who consequently had to be discarded as an outlier.

It seems like any quantitative data must ignore many unique and valuable perspectives, whether they follow the statistical correlation or not. While this type of research is undeniably valuable, I think that for this topic, free-response surveys will also be good resources. Individuals' opinions, regardless of whether they are broad enough to be representative of a statistically significant percentage of the population, will also provide insights into how people (who are individuals, after all) use and react to constant connectivity.

Facebook, Twitter, and the End of Privacy

A sample of my facebook minifeed:

• Ian Isles just checked in at La Casa de My-Linh.
• Corey Wonderkidd: just had sex! LOL
• Phun Keedoc: Enjoyed the 1st day of the new year. Spent time with my momma, then battled alongside my dear lil Nik, hung with my SPC dance beasts (Switchstep & invent), watched so many amazing acts @ the Newstyle Motherlode fundraiser event incldg the beautiful & talented women of Mixd Ingrdnts. Naw, we didn't win but were in the finals against a crew of 5 very skilled young kids. No shame there. :) Yes, I'm smiling.
• Ian Isles: my dad, nonchalantly, recorded and showed me a video he took just now of my dog humping her bed.
• Jobu Cordoba has been tagged in 5 photos
  
• Taylor Shiells: So, Twilight has made me consider something: Does anyone else find the idea of love at first sight shallow and unromantic? What exactly is supposed to be endearing about loving someone without any intellectual connection at all.
• Lawrence Wong: I hate stepmoms

I remember when I first started a Facebook account 6 or 7 years ago, back when it was a rather small networking tool among college students. What I cannot remember is when exactly it became a social crutch or such a large part of my life. I sort of feel jealous of the small handful of people I know who have never even bothered with setting up an account, but apparently not jealous enough to get rid of my own.

In the last several years I saw Facebook grow. When it began, I only saw friends from school with profiles. Once it opened up to anyone over 13 years old, I started to see my aunts and uncles, professors, businesses, and even babies and pets with Facebook profiles. Moreover, although Facebook alone became a monstrous networking tool, it began to join hands with other extensively used sites like Yelp, Twitter, iTunes, and tumblr. Once the numbers of new applications grew rapidly, I was able to know where everyone was, what songs they were listening to and videos they were watching, what they were eating for lunch, what they just purchased with their credit cards, and who they were hanging out with.

Even the way in which people portray themselves and their lifestyles through Facebook status updates and Twitter seems to have evolved. In its early stages, "the minifeed" had raised some concerns. Facebook's way of notifying all of your friends of the moment you change your relationship status or publishing on their minifeed what you write on your friend's wall created a buzz of discontentment; it seemed a bit invasive. But perhaps we became accustomed to the invasion. Not only that, perhaps we even began to enjoy it by manipulating it. As my friend Jardy recently wrote in his own facebook status, "you can tell when someone has a new crush by how often they update their profile picture, facebook info, and status"

CNN featured an interesting article about the ways in which people have grown comfortable with airing their private business, which can be viewed here