Chapter 2 and Herrin (2004) points out how people fear new technology use and harm that it will cause. People feel that it will diminish intelligence, cause problems in marriages and corrupt our kids.  As discussed in chapter 2 every new technology comes with its drawbacks. According to Baym, “when medias are new, most popular messages about them are deterministic” (page 24).  Some of the fear that develops is due to the reactions of other people. People tend to take the opinion of the majority in order to fit in instead of standing on or establishing their point of view. The major fear that people have is change and many people do not like change therefore technology cause resistance.

Baym points out many fears of technology and states that   “it will re-create political and cultural communities in cyberspace; it will bring pornographers, stalkers, and credit-card scammers into our homes, corrupting our kids and ransacking our privacy” (page 28).  She also states that technology would allow people to lie about their name, age and other things which would increase problems.

Technology has brought the fear of lack of privacy and the force of conformant. Herring says that CMC tends to “slouch toward the ordinary” which is so true because new things began as socially unacceptable and expensive but through time it become the norm and people cannot live without it.  It has been confirmed today that communication between one another is over and the use of advance technology has increase.  People hardly talk with one another face to face. Technology has taken over and now controls some people every move.

There are numerous new forms of technology in today’s world. While some people think those can help mankind move forward, others think they can potentially hurt the march of progress. Susan C. Herring stated her concerns on this matter in her article, which could potentially raise suspicion or concern as to where this increasing influence of modern technology could take mankind.

The individuals who state that the advancement in communication technology is a good thing have well-founded reasons to state why. These new forms of technology, including web chats and blogging, allow for us to communicate with people much further away. The benefits for this type of communication, while helpful, can potentially have its drawbacks.

There are numerous other people stating that technology could potentially replace face-to-face interaction between individuals and could eventually lead to social seclusion and isolation. Herring noted on page 7 how experience has taught many users to be more cautious of “what they say and do” while on-line. Some forms of technology, including internet pornography, have the potential to ruin relationships, even those as intimate as marriage. Personal Connections in the Digital Age, by Nancy K. Baym, gives examples of such occurrences. These include the rare but alarming potential of internet stalkers or rapists on dating websites.

Technology is so common place now that it is often taken for granted. On page 6 of Herring’s article, an interesting parallel is drawn between various “new” forms of technology and those that “came before”. As the latest generation noted in the same article, children tend to be the lost group to have drawn the same conclusion and, as such, have yet to grow tired of some of the newer technology. This is what I believe Herring meant in saying, “CMC tends to slouch towards the ordinary”.

Picture of IRC from Jumpin’ Jack Flash (1986)

The film referenced in my blog title is the only reason I knew what Baym (2010) was describing as Internet Chat Relay Chat in her review of early synchronous chat technology (p. 14). In the film a bank associate (Whoopi Goldberg) gets caught up with a British spy stuck in Russia. Using the IRC function they conspire to get him home and the required hijincs ensue. This film gave me a healthy dose of paranoia about the internet at an early age, similar to other films that Baym describes in chapter 1 like “The Net”. I guess I have my parents to thank for having HBO when I was little.

Baym’s discussion of the dystopian visions and rhetoric surrounding new technology seemed timely to me after our first reading. When reading over the blogs from week 1 and the comments that followed, it seemed that at least of few of us in the class were of the opinion that all of this technology is degrading society’s ability to interact meaningfully in person. Baym argues, “the language and forms of evidence may have changed, but the concern that communication technologies make us dumber is as old as writing” (p.26). I’ve certainly had those thoughts, but I’m glad that this week’s reading challenged us to be more moderate and to look back and see that other technologies that we have come to take for granted have been treated with similar negative rhetoric. While I do think that these fears need to be explored and studied by scholars, I find it equally important that we base our voiced opinions on the outcomes of this research, rather than voicing opinions only informed by our fears. Not to say that there aren’t some alarming facts coming out of the research. In particular for me, tribalism is both exciting and frightening. As a person using the internet, its a definite perk for me to be able to connect with people that share similar interests as myself. On the other side of that, it troubling that as a result , I would be insulated from being exposed to those of differing opinions that could give me a more well balanced view.

Herring (2004) describes CMC as “slouching towards the ordinary” as the convergence of two conflicting trends: “it overestimates the novelty of much CMC, and underestimates the effects of social forces such as mass popularization, according to which mundane uses of technologies tend to co-opt their destabilizing potentials over time ” (p.27). In Herring’s conclusion she predicts that 5 years into the future (which was 2009) that internet technology would become further integrated into our daily routine and therefore would lose some of its luster. While I do agree that it has become more intertwined with our daily lives, I’m not sure that 5 years is enough time for it to become  ordinary to us. I’m not certain that its become any safer either contrary to Herring’s prediction, but I’m no expert.

As for future research into this arena, I hope that scholars will look further into the etiquette that has developed around online interactions. I would like to know more about the “unwritten rules” of online and mediated exchanges. Apparently I’m supposed to text before I call to make sure its ok now? Also, is Herring correct, has the internet become safer? Maybe since those of us that spend more and more time online become savvier at spotting the spam. Perhaps its increased or reached a plateau as more and more people go online and those that take advantage follow?

Reading Chapter 2 and Herrin (2004) the hopes of new technologies were primarily  to make easier avenues for communication for people. In contrast the fears are much higher issues. People fear that the replication and storage of content online is permanent and can be reproduced at a rapid rate. A sense of privacy invasion or lack there of is also a concern on the table. As noted in chapter 2 of our text, there are strong anxieties that stem from the media being interactive, deceiving, and exploiting.

It is evident in the rapid growth and popularity of people adapting to the use of technology and high traffic on the internet the the hopes are evident that the use of computers, tablets, and cellphones will become the ordinary in our society. For most people, it has. The fears about technology are also lurking in the back ground, of these fears the highest are sexual exploitation primarily concerning children and privacy. A lot of debate about being trackable is out there on the internet and is a testimony to the the evolution outlined in Herring (2004) from the first types of messages being text only to the current formats that allow rapid response and even videos (skype, fact time, etc.)

The observations made by Herring “CMC tend to slouch towards the ordinary” is a confirmation that our communications among each other will be over the use of new and advanced technology tools and messaging.

After I read Herring (2004) andchapter 2 (Making new media make sense) by Baym, I found that the technology quality is one of the fears that people may have about the new Technology. Because of the “Internet’s ability to store and replicate information without regard to its content” (Baym, 22), people fear that content can be harmful in many ways. Just like, people used to think that Google can diminish our intelligence; today, they are confused whether Facebook and Twitter, for examples, would do the same and make us dumber.

Other concerns about the Internet is that “it will re-create political and cultural communities in cyberspace; it will bring pornographers, stalkers, and credit-card scammers into our homes, corrupting our kids and ransacking our privacy” (Baym, 28). In addition to that, people become unreal or authentic; they would lie about their name, age, and everything else. Additionally, there are fears that Internet and other new media can ruin the close relationships such as marriages, by finding another love, and cause social isolation. Finally, communication technologies have been seen as a source of stress for families, for  it is easy for people to engage in “irregular courtship” with people outside the community which can be the “wrong kinds” of age, class, and racial, in addition to the big fear of facilities to loose control over their children because of the “sexting.”

Even though some people think that the mediated interactions lacks the depth and rich of meaning, cold, and pointless, others hope that it can promote human connectivity and lead to a new relationships, and new relational opportunities. In conclusion, I agree with hearing when says that CMC tend to “Slouch toward the ordinary,” because, just like every new thing it seems in the beginning as something unusual, expensive, and unacceptable socially, but when give it the right time for people to use it can become the society norm and more acceptable, especially, if it was use in the right way it can actually have more beneficial and not as harmful as people think.

One thought I had after completing these readings was about innovation itself. What is innovation? To me, innovation is developing a new concept or product that fulfills an intrinsic need or want that people didn’t realize was a need or want until they experienced the new concept or product. Take the general masses use of the web, for instance. I doubt ordinary people in the early 20^th century were upset at the lack of opportunity to access endless amounts of information via an electronic system. Yet, the web as we know it today did not create that desire within us. The web is rather a symptom of that desire. Baym (p. 47) notes a similar point made by readers of Ann Landers and Dear Abby.

What about violence? We can trace murder back all the way back to the beginning of time, when Cain killed Able. It’s true that guns enhance the ability to commit murder (and I’m all for regulation on a personal note). But guns don’t make us violent. Violence will never go away. The same point can be made about CMC and our use of it. The evolution of enhanced technology is an evitable course that will continue to magnify our desires, needs, wants and human nature.

Meanwhile, as discussed in the Herring article, some aspects of modern technology and CMC  have become ordinary and mundane in their use. Email and texting are prime examples. They clearly fulfill a text-based communication need. Herring noted that “the robust popularity of, for example, email over the past 30 years suggests that it satisfies some important communicative needs.”

Yet, despite some of the benefits of CMC, like efficient communication, closing the gender gap, information at our fingertips, there are also many aspects of CMC that have caused users to fear it. Some of these negative forces include loss of personal privacy, online harassment, spamming, excess noise (which leads to de-valued content), addiction, etc. Again, though, are these qualities caused by CMC, or symptoms of human nature and how we choose to use CMC? It certainly begs the question.

I think Herring is correct to note that CMC has become more of a practical necessity than an object of fascination. The same can be said about most new inventions and technology advancements. We adjust our use of these technologies over time and integrate the parts that satisfy the most pressing needs into our everyday lives. Then they become mundane, and we move our attention to what’s new. As for research, Herring makes a good point about the cycle I just talked about. Researches would be well suited to “take a step back from the parade of passing technologies and consider more deeply the question of what determines people’s use of mediated communication (p. 34).

According to Horrigan’s research, I am what the kids call a Digital Collaborator. In essence, a Digital Collaborator is someone using the internet on a regular basis to not only share his thoughts, but also his craft. In Horrigan’s words, “Using blogs and other content-creation applications, they collaborate with others online to express themselves creatively.”

In completing the survey, I took into account that I have, on occasion, used the internet as a means to share various pieces of art and writing with my social network. But, I believe that it would be inaccurate to say that I use the internet primarily as a medium for creative expression. Although I have recently begun exploring the many exciting opportunities the internet offers for building a portfolio and personal brand ―particularly from the perspective of a designer ― I currently occupy the role of a consumer more than that of a producer. Honestly, I would very much like to be a Digital Collaborator. However, I’m probably more of an Ambivalent Networker. So, while I appreciate Horrigan’s vote of confidence, I’m not quite there yet.

After taking the quiz, I found myself to be a Digital Collaborator. According to Horrigan, this makes up 8% of the adult population, consisting of mainly men, in their late 30’s who are well-educated and well-off (Horrigan 6). As most of these statistics do not portray my identity, the description of a “Digital Collaborator” seems to sum up my perspective on my own technological interests, in part. The other part of my technological interests, in my opinions, places me under the category of a “Roving Node.” Horrigan states to “picture a Roving Node as a woman in her late 30s who is rarely without her smart phone, often using it to chat, but also checking email or fielding a text message (Horrigan 10). I do not fit in the age description, but sometimes in other aspects of my life, I feel like that age would better fit my outlet on life.

Getting back to being a Digital Collaborator, I truly do use ICTs to help connect with friends, coworkers, and family in various ways. As a manager of a restaurant, I use the Internet to create and display schedules, messages, and regulations which are used throughout many many people within the restaurant. I also am “heavily engaged with digital content – consuming it, but also sharing it with others and using it as a means for expression (Horrigan 27). I use social networks such as Instagram, Facebook, and Pinterest to do many of these sharing thoughts, creations, and ideas.

On the Roving Node side of my technological outlook, I use my cellular device for many of my electronic needs. I mainly text and email on my phone and would be lost without these two basic applications I use so often. Since I am so reliant on all of my ICTs for retrieving information, as well communicating, “it is no surprise that Roving Nodes would find it hard to do without them (Horrigan 53).

Being a combination of these two profiles, I feel like I overall have a good sense of technology. At the same time, I understand those who do not grasp these technological advances and am always patient with them, striving to boost their knowledge and show them that it is okay to be semi-dependent to your ICTs. If we all were on the same page with technology and all it can bring to us, we would live in a very technologically-based world. Sometimes it is okay to take a break from all of the devices and dependency we all seem to have within some degree.

According to the study, I am an “ambivalent networker”.  Ambivalent networkers make up 7% of the adult population. They are described as “adults heavily use mobile devices to connect with others and entertain themselves, but they don’t always like it when the cell phone rings” (Horrigan, 2009). I do not quite fit the demographic type. In the report it says the demographic is “primarily male (60%), they are young (late 20s) and ethnically diverse” (Horrigan, 2009). I am obviously a female and in my early twenties and I am definitely not ethnically diverse. However, I do fit this type perfectly. Ambivalent networkers are said to be avid texters. I text probably more than I call. Most of my friends usually just text me if they want to check in with me or see how I am doing. Usually, the only time I get phone calls is when it is something important. I can be having a casual conversation and send 3 page texts depending on what the topic is. I always hate it when my phone goes dead when I am out somewhere, especially if I am talking to someone important. I do have my days when I kind of take a break from my phone and internet to just relax and read  a book. When I have these days, I don’t text anybody back or answer calls because I am just in one of those solitary moods where I don’t want to deal with anyone. One side of it is that I love my phone and other technology, but I also think its good to take breaks from it.