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!
Ever since I began living by myself at college, with no parents to nag me, I have been watching some of my favorite TV shows and movie clips before going to sleep. This habit started as a rebellious- “I am mature and independent now” statement, but it developed into a daily hobby because of the easy access to this media online. Netflix, Hulu and iTunes are the largest “online theaters”, enabling everyone access to all kinds of movies and shows for a trivial fee. Not only is the process effortless, the products are incredibly satisfactory. People can watch any movie, at any time, in any place, as long as they are connected to the server. Consequently, there is a major decrease in people’s interest in network television and cable. More specifically, Comcast- the biggest cable company in the U.S., has been experiencing a major increase in the number of cable-service-cancelations. Interestingly enough, Comcast has been taking a friendly, competitive approach to this issue by advancing its own online applications and services. The company came up with a library of movies called Xfinitytv, offering all the popular TV and movie channels to signed members. In addition, Comcast developed couple of small advanced gadgets for its users such as a remote control to the TV through a laptop keyboard and a remote DVR programming Web browser. The pitch which is most likely to restore the peace within the company is the incorporation of the iPad or the Android tablet into its future technology. Comcast is currently working on its Xfinitytv iPad app which will allow users to transform their iPads into an on-demand, light, comfortable-to-use, touch-screen remote. Nevertheless, Comcast hints about developing its revolutionary technology of a live TV accessible to watch on the compatible iPad screen. While all these innovations will ultimately improve people’s media experience and will provide overall satisfaction, I wonder if this rivalry between monopoly companies to become exponentially more technologically advanced will ever cease. Whatever happens, I strongly believe we cannot ignore the social evolution we are all experiencing, at this very moment. We do require new ideas and tools to accommodate those social changes. Comcast’s approach shows us: “We need to work with the changing times instead of fighting them.”
"Unlike a mirror, which reminds us of who we really are and may have a negative effect on self-esteem if that image does match with our ideal, Facebook can show a positive version of ourselves,” said associate professor Jeffrey Hancock. “We’re not saying that it’s a deceptive version of self, but it’s a positive one” (CNN Tech).
There has been a growing concern that our generation’s dependence on Facebook and other similar social media networks to determine our self-worth has reached unacceptable levels. How can we define ourselves as unique, interesting, artistic, clever, cool, etc. while differentiating ourselves from everyone else who might hope to get the same image across?
Facebook is formatted such that you can learn almost everything and anything you want about your connections. Naturally, the idea of such openness is intimidating to many, and privacy groups, like the Electronic Privacy Information Center, have come together and garnered some influence within the government (All Things Digital). What these groups might want to consider, however, is that companies like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are ultimately around to maximize their net income despite the efforts these organizations go through to convince you otherwise.
Ultimately, Facebook is not an inherent right but a privilege.
I admit that all of this sounds ominous, but we must not forget that there’s a bright side to it all. With a few exceptions, you, and no one else, have almost complete control, as a Facebook user, to control the content of your profile. It is up to you to determine which celebrity/athlete/artist pages to like, whether or not you want to share your education and employment specifics, whether or not you will keep other peoples’ posts on your wall and comments on your pictures, and even whether or not others will be able to access your pictures from your page. Finally, it is up to you to decide what picture will summarize your online presence. I’m referring, of course, to your profile picture, often the first thing you notice when you click through to your friends’ pages.
I took the above quote from Jeffrey Hancock from an article on CNN Tech. The story covers Hancock’s report regarding the correlation between Facebook and self-esteem in a study of 63 students (click here to be linked to the report itself). It turns out that subjects who spent time on Facebook returned more positive feedback about themselves than those who were either staring at a mirror or a blank computer screen during the allotted time (CNN Tech).
“For many people, there’s an automatic assumption that the internet is bad,” Hancock said. “This is one of the first studies to show that there’s a psychological benefit of Facebook” (CNN Tech).
Does the research speak for itself?
Either way, perhaps some of us should consider lightening up.
In 2007, Apple launched the first iPhone.Since then, iPhone apps have flooded the market, and now occupy every tidbit of our free time. Apps come in all shapes and sizes: potentially for men, women, children, and even pets. There was even the short-lived and ridiculous $1000 "I am Rich" iPhone app that uselessly
displayed a glowing red jewel on the iPhone screen.
After the angry outcry of a gullible customer revealed the worthlessness of this application, Apple swiftly took action to end the public outrage (the money was returned to the customer, and the app was no longer available for sale). Oddly enough, this app received the patronage of only 8 "curious aristocrats" before being taken down. Although nothing can compare to the function-less-ness of the "I am Rich" app, an outlandishnew app is creating outrage among parents.
A Washington Post article published Tuesday, featured free iPhone apps geared toward children that are utilizing subversive tactics to charge users. After downloading these free apps and playing the games, the children are prompted whilst playing to buy in-game upgrades or special content. These purchases are then charged to the accounts of their parents, often unknowingly (purchases are password "protected"). This article raises an important question about the role of parental monitoring in technology consumption.
These iPhone apps, downloaded onto the parents' phone,are often given to the child to play with as a type of "babysitter." Although the concept of preoccupying a child with another task is not new, the recent phenomenon of creating applications specifically tailored to a younger audience is. This trend has gained momentum, as seen in blogs such as the "Touchscreen Preschool Games" blog which reviews the latest iPhone apps released for young children.However, unlike physical babysitters which receive thorough background checks or undergo intensive interviews, parents conduct a cursory examination at best, when downloading these iPhone apps.
So, should parents be more vigilant or should companies clearly publish their hidden charges?
Although I feel parents ought to monitor the iPhone apps to which they expose their children, I do agree these subversive business practices are exploiting parents. Children are not able to comprehend fully the consequences of in-game purchases and the $99 charges "for items such as barrels of Smurfberries." These companies capitalize on a child's inability to discern the real-world consequences of their actions as they play these games, scamming parents.Nonetheless, this story ought to serve as a wake-up call to parents who allow their children unmonitored and often unrestricted use of these types of technologies.
However, I have noticed a growing trend among social technology users who attempt to shirk responsibility. The realm of social technology has become a fast-paced world in which the users' sense of self dominates. iPhone apps I have downloaded are exploitative, charging me through my children; Facebook is phishing for my publicly posted "personal" information; Google is tracking my search history. While these feelings of persecution are, to some extent, cause for worry, how much do our feelings of being 'ripped-off' or invaded result from our own decision to download these applications and visit these websites?
Before jumping to conclusions, caving into public pressure and buying into the delusions of persecution, we must recall that we may have started it by exposing ourselves to this technology in the first place.
I woke up that morning not expecting to learn that a classmate had died after fighting cancer for almost 3 months. I also did not except to hear this tragic news through Facebook. My classmate’s name was Brittney, and even though we were not best friends, I was close to her. She was diagnosed with cancer months before her death, but I was still shocked to discover she was no longer with us. In the days that followed her death, I noticed on my Facebook’s newsfeed that many of her close friends wrote on her wall, offering passages and stories about how Brittney will be missed. It was nice to read all the comments that people posted and I felt a sense of comfort visiting her Facebook page as if she had never passed away. Even though Brittney was no longer with us, her Facebook page lives on.
A New York Times Article, Things to do in Cyberspace when you’re Dead mentioned, “Finding Solace in a Twitter feed may sound odd, but the idea that Tonnies’s friends would revisit and preserve such digital artifacts isn’t so different from keeping postcards or other physical ephemera of a deceased friend or loved one.”
A lot of Brittney’s friends, including myself, used Facebook as a mechanism to help with the grieving process. Brittney’s Facebook page made people feel as if she was still alive because everything on her page was just how she left it. Her profile picture was the same, her statuses remained, and nowhere on the page did it announce she was dead. Just as people found peace in looking through Tonnies’s Tweets after he died, people did the same with Brittney’s Facebook page.
The question is how immortal are our digital lives? Is it someone’s responsibility to delete a Facebook account after that person dies? Who is responsible for doing that? If Brittney did not leave the password to her Facebook account, will Facebook provide her parents with that information? These questions are being asked more and more often with so many people now having a digital life. According to "Things to do in Cyberspace when you’re Dead", there are many “digital-estate-management services” that will manage a will, which includes passwords of different online accounts and who has access to them after one dies.
For Brittney’s case, I believe her Facebook page should remain accessible for her friends to visit and write on her wall when they miss her. Even though this enduring digital identity is not completely real, it is the closest humans have come to becoming immortal.
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?
Flash back a little more than one month ago to December 17th of 2010—Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old Tunisian citizen and recent college graduate with a computer science degree, had started a fruit and vegetable stand to make ends meet. There was already a sense of unrest n the air as Tunisia was supposedly undergoing some of the worst unemployment rates in recent history as well as a spike in food prices across the country.
Due to Mohamed’s lack of a vending license, authorities shut down his cart, confiscated his wares, and were even said to have slapped him around a bit. In protest over a lack of jobs, Mohamed set himself on fire in Sidi Bouzid, in front of a government building in an act of self-immolation. I seriously doubt that he had any idea of how great the scope of events his actions sparked would turn out to be: Mohamed became a symbol of resistance in the Arab world as several others copied his self-immolation protest in Algeria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. While he survived the initial suicide attempt, he died later in the hospital after a visit from the President Ben Ali.
Mohamed’s death turned out to be the United States’ equivalent of “the shot heard ‘round the world” in 1775. Thousands took to the streets in protest of the government and of how the country’s leader received 90% of the vote over multiple elections and had been in power for over twenty years along with the issues mentioned in the first lines of this post.
This might have all fizzled out with the government either making a few concessions to smoothen out relations thereby calming down some of the more moderate protestors, or simply with the passing of time. The government’s reaction, however, would be their undoing. According to a BBC article published earlier today, between January 8th-10th, there were dozens of reported deaths during the protests.
Many have referred to this movement and these protests as a social media, and more specifically, a Twitter revolution. There is some credence to these claims as protesters organized and spread the word through their use of Twitter and Facebook. There is no doubt that technology and the newfound connectivity between Tunisians, in how their plight was played out in the eyes of the international community, played a huge role in the sacking of the interior minister, the dissolving of the parliament and Ben Ali’s subsequent flight.
Many claim, however, that it would be inaccurate to attribute this revolution to social media as there was already great dissatisfaction with the government and how Ben Ali and his wife’s families seemed to own every big business in Tunisia. Apparently they possessed extravagant wealth even as the rest of the country struggled to get by. Condoleezza Rice, in a state visit to Tunisia during the Bush administration, praised the country for its stability. The price of this stability, however, was limited freedoms in press and television as well as an excessive display of propaganda around the capital city.
But would the protests have been remotely as successful (I’m using the word “successful” very loosely as the killings were inexcusable) without mobile phones, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and blogs? I don’t think so. But what really charged the atmosphere for us in the United States (who in general are oblivious to the struggles of those outside our own country) were the videos rife with acts of violence posted online as well as the cables released by WikiLeaks which assert, in detail, the corruption of Ben Ali’s administration.
Here's Obama's take on the situation:
"I condemn and deplore the use of violence against citizens peacefully voicing their opinion in Tunisia, and I applaud the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people. The United States stands with the entire international community in bearing witness to this brave and determined struggle for the universal rights that we must all uphold, and we will long remember the images of the Tunisian people seeking to make their voices heard. I urge all parties to maintain calm and avoid violence, and call on the Tunisian government to respect human rights, and to hold free and fair elections in the near future that reflect the true will and aspirations of the Tunisian people.
As I have said before, each nation gives life to the principle of democracy in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people, and those countries that respect the universal rights of their people are stronger and more successful than those that do not. I have no doubt that Tunisia’s future will be brighter if it is guided by the voices of the Tunisian people."
But there’s little value in arguing the case, what matters is what lies ahead for Tunisia and its people, and whether there are further implications for other oppressed nations and whether these tools promoting connectivity will play a role in the days, weeks, months, and years ahead. Already there is evidence of this as Slim Amamou, one of the most prominent bloggers in Tunisia, accepted the post of Secretary of Youth and Sport. He has promised to keep the people updated via Twitter and would like for other cabinet members to also use Twitters as a means of communicating with citizens.
Currently, with no opposition leaders taking the mantle of leadership, Ben Ali’s Prime Minister has taken control and the future of the country is uncertain, though he has promised to step down as soon as elections are conducted democratically. I suppose all that’s left to do now is wait and see what’s next.
*UPDATE*
Professor Pruitt has brought it to my attention that there is a discrepancy between my source, International Business Times, and NPRwith regards to Mohamed Bouazizi's academic standing. In my post, I stated that he had graduated from college with a computer science degree, but the more recently published article from NPR says that he had dropped out of high school. Wikipedia agrees with NPR.
