The first reading by Beldad et al. (2011) proposed a theoretical framework for personal information-related behaviors on the Internet. There was a lot of good information in this article, however, to shorten my discussion, I would like to just discuss the idea of social exchange. This article discusses how individuals may trade their personal information for other benefits. That is, an individual may give up some of his or her privacy to gain a monetary reward, or some other type of reward such as group membership on a social media site such as Facebook. I found it interesting to consider our private information as a type of currency that can be used to purchase tangibles and intangibles. The second reading also discussed this idea when describing how Google is attempting to shift the responsibility of privacy over to the users. Although, I agree that that our information is just that, it is ours. I fear that we often hand it over without even realizing what is at stake. As discussed in some of the readings, even if the privacy statements are read in full, how many of us completely understand them? Also, can we really trust these companies with our information? It seems that this loss of privacy may be a cost of participating in the network.

Finally, the last three readings discussed the distinction between the public and the private. Ford (2011) started off the discussion by describing the times that we live in, and how we are currently seeing a break down of the barrier between the public and the private. Although the public/private divide has often been treated as a dichotomy, Ford argues that this view must change to better reflect this barrier break down previously mentioned. She goes on to give examples of how technology has helped to blur the divide between the public/private. For example, she discussed how some individuals have actually turned much of their own life into a public show by using webcams to broadcast themselves online. After discussing many other examples, Ford attempts to reconceptualize the public and the private by proposing a continuum that “is anchored on one end by the ‘private’ and on the other by the ‘public’.” Ford goes on to declare that “between the purely private and the purely public there exist an infinite and infinitely variable number of configurations that fall somewhere between” the public and private distinctions.

Although, Ford makes a good case for a public/private continuum, not everyone has bought into this idea. Shortly after Ford’s article, Jurgenson and Rey (2012) published a comment on this proposed continuum. In fact, Jurgenson and Rey discuss how Ford did not break far enough away from the traditional idea of the public/private distinction. They argue that privacy and publicity may “be better understood as a dialectic.” That is, they view privacy as implying publicity and vice versa. They go on to discuss how posting a picture online makes it public, but that this implies the private by not displaying the whole story. For example, individuals viewing the photo may not know who took it, where it was taken, or what the photographer chose not to photograph. In short, this dialectic view describes how publicity can reinforce privacy and the other way around.

In a response by Ford (2012) to the comments of Jurgenson and Rey, Ford states that her recent research has further strengthened her continuum argument. She goes on to explain in greater detail how her continuum may better explain some of the public/private examples discussed in Jurgenson and Rey’s article. For example, Ford discusses how the act of ‘white walling’ can be better understood within her continuum view. She describes how once information has been made public, but is then deleted, there is no guarantee that the information is completely private. This information may have already been viewed and even copied. She argues that this “deleted content exists in the liminal space between the truly public and the truly private.” To be fair, I can somewhat see both sides. However, I would probably side with Ford’s continuum model.

Beldad, A., de Jong, M., & Steehouder, M. (2011). A comprehensive theoretical framework for personal information-related behaviors on the internet. The Information Society, 27, 220-232.

Bodle, R. (2011). Privacy and participation in the cloud: Ethical implications of Google’s privacy practices and public communications. In B. E. Drushel & K. German (Eds.), The ethics of emerging media: Information, social norms, and new media technology (pp. 155-174). New York: Continuum.

Ford, S. M. (2011). Reconceptualizing the public/private distinction in the age of information technology. Information, Communication & Society, 14, 550-567.

Ford, S. M. (2012). Response to Jurgenson and Rey. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 294- 296.

Jurgenson, N., & Rey, P. J. (2012). Comment on Sarah Ford’s ‘Reconceptualization of privacy and publicity’. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 287-293.

This weeks readings included chapters 3, 5, 14, and 18 from The Social Media Reader. A common theme among all of these chapters was a discussion of the differences between “open source” and the proprietary model. Chapter 3 claims that throughout most of our history, technologies have been open source. Individuals have been allowed to freely add on and change these technologies to use however they see fit. However, with recent copyright laws that protect intellectual property, individuals cannot just take emerging technologies and change them however they want. The proprietary model protects the developer of intellectual property from others who may take their ideas and potential profit. As stated, “according to the proprietary ideology, innovation would not occur without a strong incentive system for the innovator to exploit for commercial gain (pg. 25).” The chapter further goes on to make some points against strong intellectual property rights. For example, strong intellectual property rights does appear to limit the amount of individuals that can bring in their own knowledge to produce new information goods. Proponents would argue that strong intellectual property rights might limit the creativity of our citizens.

Coming from a business background, this idea of open source does seem somewhat dangerous to me. However, I did find the readings interesting and I was surprised to find out just how much stuff their already is posted online for free use. I look forward to hearing everyone’s views on the issue tonight in class!

Another thing that stood out to me in this week’s readings was just how complex copyright laws are. We have already heard in class what a headache they could be, but chapter 14 discussed how even a lawyer specializing in intellectual property could not give the assurance that no laws were being broken when Eyebeam wanted to give away its Bright Idea Shade design based on the work of several designers in the 60’s and 70’s. Though it appeared to be a good idea, and there appeared to be customers willing to purchase the item, corporations were not willing to pour resources into the idea for fear that they might later be sued.

Chapter 18 of The Social Media Reader was also very interesting in its discussion of journal publications. This chapter discussed the idea bypassing for profit printing houses and placing scholarly findings online. It seems to me, that a “digital revolution” in scholarly research may allow individuals an outlet for new and exciting ideas that may not be accepted in mainstream journals. However, this is also one of the problems associated with the “digital revolution.” Publications of scholarly articles rely on peer reviews, but the peer review process is one thing that is lacking when it comes to the digital context. Also, even if all of our scholarly knowledge is posted for free online, it does not mean that it will be read. As chapter 18 pointed out, the power law distribution in the blogosphere may be instructive in this situation. As stated, “power law distribution ensures that the more material is placed online, the greater the gap between material that gets huge amounts of attention and that which gets merely average attention (pg. 264).” It is clear that some academics may not be ready for a switch to this digital context.

Mandiberg, M. (Ed.) (2012). The Social Media Reader. New York: NYU Press.

In my opinion, the most interesting readings this week came from A Networked Self. The introduction to the book discussed the differences between “random networks” and “scale free networks.” A random network assumes that nodes (individuals) randomly link to each other. This would imply that most nodes have the same number of connections with only a few having numerous connections and a few having none. On the other hand, scale free networks paint a different picture. These networks are represented by many small nodes coexisting “with a few very highly connected nodes, or hubs (Papacharissi, 2010).” Sure, nodes may have random encounters with other nodes, but their likelihood of connecting depends upon the number of connections the nodes already have and their fitness. Fitness was defined as “the ability to attract links after these random encounters (Papacharissi, 2010).” Since I am in the field of marketing, the idea of fitness and increasing fitness is very interesting to me.

Chapter 2 of A Networked Self also had many intriguing points. I was most interested in Boyd’s discussion of profiles within social network sites. He stated that, “Because of the inherent social – and often public or semi-public – nature of profiles, participants actively and consciously craft their profiles to be seen by others (Papacharissi, 2010).” Alexa already discussed this within her blog, but this idea of one’s self and how individuals express themselves within a social network is a research interest of mine. Do individuals express their actual self or ideal self in this context? Does the audience matter? For example, are individuals likely to express whom they would like to be instead of whom they really are when they are not likely to encounter audience members in the “real world?”

Chapter 3 of New Media Cultures discussed “new media” and how it has impacted the lives and culture of many people around the world. It is apparent that we do not just consume media, we interact with it, and we produce it. As we discussed in our last class, most phones have cameras on them that allow individuals to quickly capture a moment in time. This photo or video can then be shared with a myriad of individuals. This chapter also discussed the rise of a new work culture where technology allows individuals to stay connected to the job even when they are away from the office. However, the opposite is true as well. While on the job, individuals can use technology for personal reasons, such as, checking Facebook or playing online games. There appears to be a blurring of the line between work time and play time (Marshall, 2004).

Lastly, Stalder (2006) discussed Castells’s idea of networks and the theory behind it. Of particular interest to me was how networks coordinate themselves. Stadler (2006) states “they coordinate themselves on the basis of common protocols, values, and goals (process).” I also found Castells description of the roles that nodes play to be very interesting. Castells argues that a nodes importance depends on the level of its contribution. Valuable nodes contribute information to the network, and if a node fails to contribute, it will be dismissed from the network (Stalder, 2006). I would like to learn more about how nodes increase their value.

Marshall, P. D. (2004). New Media Cultures. London: Hodder Arnold.

 Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A Networked Self:!Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.

 Stalder, F. (2006). The logic of networks. In Manuel Castells and the theory of the network society (pp. 167-198). Cambridge: Polity Press. [ch. 6]

Hey!

My name is John, and I am starting my second year in the Marketing Ph.D. program. I was born and raised in Russellville Arkansas, which is only about a 3 ½ hour drive from our school. I received my bachelor’s degree from Arkansas Tech University and my M.B.A. from the University of Central Arkansas. I enjoy meeting new people and learning about other cultures. While working on my master’s degree, I was a graduate assistant for the M.B.A. department. Part of my job was to help with recruiting and social media. At times, the two worked hand in hand. After going to recruiting fairs within the state of Arkansas, me and the other GA would attempt to contact those individuals who seemed very interested in our school through our program’s Facebook account. This gave us a way to stay connected with potential students and answer any questions that they may have.

I am most familiar with Facebook and YouTube. I especially appreciate the way in which these sites allow us to connect with individuals from around the world. As I have already mentioned, I really enjoy meeting individuals from other cultures. Over the past few years, I have had the opportunity to meet many students from other countries. However, it is often difficult to stay connect with friends. New media types have made it much easier to stay connected, even with friends who are in other countries. New media certainly does make the world seem a little bit smaller.

New media has a huge impact on my area of study (marketing). Therefore, I anticipate learning many things in this class that I can incorporate into my own research. During my first semester, I actually worked on a paper with one of our fellow classmates and another student that dealt with social media and electronic word of mouth (EWOM). This experience introduced me to some of the social media literature. I anticipate learning a great deal more in this class.

This summer, I have been working on a research paper investigating counterfeit items in an online environment. Purchasing an item online can be completely different than purchasing an item in person. Clearly the way in which we interact with each other, and make purchases has radically changed in the past couple of decades. I am somewhat interested in the area of consumer behavior, and I believe that this class will provide me with some ideas that I can utilize in this area.

I look forward to meeting everyone in this class, and I hope that we will all have a great semester! See you guys soon!