East Village

So I just found out a friend of mine has a blog…granted, he is an alum of NU and this class, so it’s not too surprising. Pretty interesting if you’re into art history or just random musings…

…shout out to my boy Rubber Ducke

The Starr reading touches on the phenomenon of simulation games, focusing especially on SimCity and its derivatives. He marvels at its ability to expose tens of thousands of people, including children of an extremely young age, to important societal concepts such as urban planning, health care, and environmental protocol. What was especially interesting was that he toys with every possible perspective. He devotes a large part of the article to the danger of what is put into these programs - in other words, certain outcomes that occur “naturally” might just be the doings of extreme right-wing or left-wing designers, giving users a false sense of what is “real.” He then mentions people who go on to pursue careers because of these games, or at the very least develop a strong interest they otherwise would not have had.

So what did I take away from this article? Well for one thing, this guy’s kids are a lot smarter than I was when I was their age. I actually was a big fan of SimCity, and truth be told I liked the earlier versions better than the later versions because, well, there was less stuff you had to worry about it. The newer versions gave more control to the player. I’ll never forget playing SimThemePark and spending hours determining how much ice to put in the soft drinks sold at the concession stands. The instruction manual read like an economics textbook - supply, demand, product manipulation, and all I wanted to do was build a frickin’ roller coaster - but I couldn’t. My park had to earn a reputation, get investors, find a reputable supply company and contractor to build the damn thing. Then I could build a wooden one. I’d have to wait for a metal one, then wait for loops, you get the point. So I guess I saw through the “game” aspect and realized that they were trying to teach me to be responsible and aware of realistic factors. After that, I didn’t play SimThemePark too much. Starr’s point though is that it doesn’t matter if people are aware of any ulterior motives, A) because number of ulterior motives, positive and negative, could be argued and B) because people are enjoying these games regardless.

Nowadays, when I go to an amusement park, I buy the same food/drinks and ride the same rides I always have. But you know what? I give just a teeny bit more thought into the planning that went behind something as simple as the amount of salt in my french fries…

I must say, I’m very proud of myself. If you’ll recall my blog entry on technological dependency, you’d likely think that this assignment would be particularly difficult for me. But it wasn’t. What’s more, I quite liked it. I woke up this morning, went on the computer for just a little bit to check e-mail and re-read the assignment, and then checked out some other blog entries of people who had already done the assignment. Maybe that was cheating, but Eszter had said they were interesting, and in my defense I didn’t feel at any more of an advantage after having read them. In fact, the only idea I stole was to use the alarm clock on my cellphone so I wouldn’t have to keep glancing at my clock. Anyway, I set my phone alarm for 5 minutes, closed my computer, and lay down on my bed. Don’t worry, I didn’t snooze or doze, I was actually surprisingly wide-awake for 9:55 in the morning. What surprised me most was that I started out with no thoughts in my head. I thought it’d be the opposite, and I’d spend the five minutes trying to “swat” at these thoughts with my imaginary baseball bat. But as it turns out, my mind was completely clear for I’d say a good 30 seconds. I think because by “jumping” right into it, it took that long to sink in. The next few minutes were spent just breathing and looking around my room. If I started to notice something (a spot on the wall, one of my posters), I’d move on before I started thinking about it. Then I prematurely started thinking about what I was going to write in my post — whoops, that’s no good either, so I had to swat that thought away too. I thought of black screens, brick walls, the “stop” button on music/video players…and surprisingly, they all worked. True, I was “thinking” of them, but they prevented me from having any “real” thoughts. And just as I was getting comfortably used to this quiet time alone without my thoughts, my phone started buzzing. Seriously, it went by so quickly that I thought someone was calling me, but it was in fact the alarm.

What did I learn? What did I take away from this? Well, for one thing, it shows that if I’m ever locked in a room without technology, it’ll take longer than 5 minutes for me to break Seriously though, I really am impressed with myself. I wasn’t fidgety, I didn’t even move much. I thought for sure I’d be twiddling my thumbs or tapping on my stomach or something, but that wasn’t the case. What’s more, things like this are usually wasted on me, especially on Mondays when I have so much on my plate for the week, because any attempt to relax, escape, or distract before the work sets in is to no avail, as I’ll only think about how bad it’ll be once this time is up. But I didn’t.

I’m not saying I deserve a medal, and I realize that by treating this like such a big accomplishment I’m only further exposing my sad, pitiful technological dependency. Maybe so. But as I’m enjoying my Hungarian candy on Wednesday, I’ll feel like I deserved it just a tiny bit more…

Before heading off to my good ol’ trusty google.com, I thought I’d be smart - I figured since this Gallo fellow is coming to give a guest lecture on the internet, odds are he has his own website. So, like the erroneous web users we talk about in class, I typed in www.jasongallo.com in my browser. Sadly, no such site exists, and I became another statistic for the next Internet & Society class to laugh at. Downtrodden, I retreated to Google. After typing in “Jason Gallo,” being sure to put the terms in quotation marks, I was treated to over 10 pages of results. I’m sure everyone used Google at one point or another, so I won’t go into detail regarding the search results, suffice to say this guy does a LOT of blogging. I did laugh, however, when I saw his name in bold towards the bottom of the first page of results, under the “Internet and Society” online syllabus…

Just for fun, I tried a site:northwestern.edu search, since we’ve been discussing those searches as of late, and got 3 pages of results. Looks like this guy’s a pretty prominent figure in the internet world, so his discussion on Wednesday should be pretty cool…not that our normal professor’s discussions aren’t cool as well…crap, this isn’t anonymous. Oh well

Honestly, while reading Norris’ chapter on “Virtual Parties,” the thought that kept going through my head was “doesn’t this sound like a class discussion?” Honestly, I feel like our class could have written that chapter simply by having the type of discussion we always do - what are the advantages/disadvantages of having online political parties? And I guarantee you we would eventually address all points covered in the reading. I feel like I’m starting to sound like a broken record in my bloggings on the readings, but I must reiterate - does any of this come as any real surprise? I mean come on - e-mail allows parties to reach a larger amount of people? You don’t say! Websites make party information more readily available to a larger segment of the population? Nah, for real? I know there’s more to it than that, but that really is the gist of the article, no? Norris even says “levels of democratic, technological and socioeconomic development can be examined to help explain the distribution of party websites worldwide.” Again, I have in my mind an image of Eszter asking the class “what might be some of the reasons for the unequal distribution of party websites worldwide?” This course is listed as being in the departments of both Sociology and Communication Studies. Could this article make it any clearer as to why that is the case? I think not. Now just because what Norris is saying might not exactly be the most groundbreaking of suggestions, that is not to say that I don’t agree with it. I think it is extremely beneficial for parties to become “digitized” - in this day and age especially, with swirling ideologies and questionable authority figures, people need as much information as they can get. I suppose we might take things for granted, so perhaps it was in everyone’s best interest that Norris did put all the benefits of online parties down on paper for anyone to see, as opposed to leaving people to their own devices. Not that this article was particularly mainstream, I’d imagine, but it’s nice to know that someone is keeping track of how the internet is making the political world (albeit slowly) a better place…

Whereas Norris’ reading illustrates the potential benefits of online political parties, the Howard reading shows the manifestations of these benefits and the multiple forms they’ve taken. He goes into detail describing online Political Action Committees, online political services such as data gathering sites, software designed specifically for political usage, and many more. It’s apparent that this was written for a wider audience, as there are “lay-person” examples of just how each of these services can be used, i.e. hypothetical scenarios with applicable circumstances. It is my hope that the more technological politics become, at least from logistical standpoints such as data gathering, etc, the less controversy there will be over more tangible issues. Not that politics will ever be free of controversy, but certain unpleasantries (coughfloridacough) could potentially be avoided in the future with more technologically advanced methods of actions previously susceptible to human error.

You always hear people comparing Friendster to Facebook, and vice versa. Boyd’s article sheds light on not only the concept of Friendster, but on the phenomena that have arisen due to its existence. For example, Friendster, she notes, has caused people to redefine in a sense the word “friend,” citing examples of people with varying levels of discrimination when it comes to “accepting” or “confirming” friends. The same is obviously true for facebook, as you will encounter people with friends numbering into the multiple hundreds, though it’s likely less than half are what people would call actual “friends” - then again, what people call actual “friends” is obviously different nowadays. Another thing the reading touches on that was of particular interest to me was Boyd’s claim that Friendster, and other sites like it, are causing people to rethink how they identify relationships and develop new social norms in response to this phenomenon. Anything that can have such an effect is, in my opinion, a valid “community.”

The Resnick/Zeckhauser reading touches on a similar theme, concerning online reputations and identities. I have quite a bit of experience with ebay - enough to know how it works, what kind of things to look for, what to avoid, etc, but even I’ve run into trouble every now and then. What’s happened is a lot of retailers, both online and physical, have set up ebay accounts, so that you’re not bidding on a used item from a random buyer, but rather a new item from a wholesaler or retailer. I was recently duped by a seemingly-legit company selling Apple products, whose “page” resembled those of other trusted retailers with whom I’ve had good experience. I therefore chose to bid on a remote for my iPod, and when the item arrived it was clearly not Apple brand, nor was it of any decent quality. Needless to say I left negative feedback, but the point of the article is what led me to bid on that item in the first place. Granted, it was only a transaction of about $15, and the truth is I don’t know how comfortable I’ll ever be with really big or important purchases, but the article explains that some people are comfortable with these types of transactions, because by BELIEVING that the trust is there, they make it so. Kind of like a “if you build it, they will come” mentality - if you believe that you can trust these people, odds are you can. Isn’t that sweet. I want my $15 back.

So over the summer, I met with an entertainment lawyer whom I found through a mutual acquaintance- not really a job interview per se, just to talk about what my options are, possibilities, questions about the business, etc. Anyway, I emailed him, told him a little bit about myself, and asked if he’d be willing to meet with me, and he said yes. So the day arrives and I head over to his office. We sit down in the conference room and I tell him some more about myself, etc. And he says, “So tell me about x-factors.” And I just get all confused - X-Factors is the name of my a cappella group, but I had not mentioned it to him, nor had I sent him my resume. So I ask…”oh, did I mention that? Did I send you a resume?” (I obviously knew I didn’t, but I had already started to ask a question and didn’t want it to be ‘how the hell did you know that?!’) So he smiles and says, “oh, we do our research.” And I’m thinking to myself, “yeah, by research you mean GOOGLE.” Nothing surprising, I know, just a firsthand experience with the power and influence of Google. I thought it was pretty funny that this guy had “Googled” me - I mean, I google myself all the time, but it was cool to know that someone else had. I’m sure I won’t think it’s as cool once something incriminating comes up, though hopefully that won’t ever happen…at least, not anytime soon

Another thing I’ve been laughing about recently is the new Panhel regulation controlling facebook. I know we’ve talked about that some, but I still just have to laugh. I mean, if you wanted to be really really nitpicky, I suppose the new regulation is legit. After all, facebook is very influential, and if sorority rush is supposed to be as unbiased as possible, then yeah, facebook would be a factor. I think even people who scoff at how ridiculous it is would agree. Just keep that in mind the next time you poke someone. What the hell is poking, anyway?

After extensive research, I will soon be the proud owner of the HP dv4000 laptop. Highly rated by PCMag and Consumer Reports - good enough for me!

The Digital Divide reading examined the levels of technological development across the globe. The reading noted that, not surprisingly, most third world and underdeveloped countries are far behind the rest of the world in terms of technology, mainly connectivity to the internet. Like so many of our other readings, this isn’t all that surprising, but also like many of our other readings, it gives the reader pause in order to examine the circumstances. The part of the reading to which I devoted the most thought was the section concerning “human capital.” Basically, a human is “worth” more if he or she is technologically capable, or has at least some knowledge of technology, particularly the internet. The reading showed a surprisingly positive correlation between human capital and internet use, hence my choosing of the overly-clichéd yet strangely appropriate thread title. In other words, these poor countries with little connectivity to the internet will continue to be poor because their populations are of little use to the global economy. Certainly there are other factors, but the point of the reading was to show just how dangerous this digital divide is in terms of struggling nations and the ever-changing economy. It even showed statistical studies about how other sociological and economic factors are relatively insignificant when compared to IT usage, further strengthening their point.

So here we have nations with the opportunity to ensure their future by the simple means of internet connectivity, and then comes the DiMaggio reading. Now this is a reading that I’ll admit did surprise me. I can honestly say that I have NEVER considered people ceasing to use the internet - “dropouts,” as the reading calls them. Maybe it’s my overdependence on technology, as can be seen in my journal entry post, but I could not for the life of me fathom why people would discontinue their use of the internet - I mean, how is that even possible? Sure sure, here’s where they throw in all the requisite socioeconomic data such as race, income level, educational attainment, etc, etc, etc. Now correct me if I’m wrong, because 40 pages is a lot of reading and I may have missed that part, but do they ever explicitly say WHY there is this phenomenon of “dropouts?” Oh sure, they offer plenty of suggestions, and granted not all of the circumstances are cases where the choice was voluntary. Maybe the point is just to show its existence rather than explain it (which was surprising enough on its own), but I’m still stuck here (sitting online) wondering what goes through a person’s head when he thinks “Gee, I don’t think I’ll use the internet again. Ever.” When DiMaggio, et. al produce a follow up study just focusing on this phenomenon, I’ll be first in line to read it.

The Ganley reading reminded me of a constant joke my friends tease me about - they laugh that when they start surgically implanting cellphones/internet connections, I’ll be the first one to sign up. What’s not so funny is that they might be right. Hopefully I’ll outgrow my dependence as I get older, or just not live to see the day when that happens. Either way, Ganley lists all the personal power individuals attain from the “new media,” and I must say I read it with my friends’ scenario in mind. She shows the small and large scale effects of these powers, once so removed from the individual and nowadays getting more and more individualized by the day. By the hour, even. You read all these articles about the upcoming “all-in-one” gadgets. First they start out as phone/PDA/computer, then you hear about phone/camera/mp3 player and now they’re saying that soon you won’t even need a wallet anymore. To be fair, the article touches on a lot of the advantages, such as the Plebiscite in Chile, attributing its success to technology. However, the reading also reminded me of the Hargittai reading, in that it gave an example of a “crisis” of some sort occurring over the past few decades resulting from each new medium of technology - radio, then phone, then computer, etc. Does this mean we can expect newer disasters caused by newer media? Most likely. I ended my last post with the same comment with which I’ll end this post - scary, scary, stuff.