Not that this is a huge shock, but nonetheless…

http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS_FP7&ACTION=D&DOC=2&CAT=NEWS&QUERY=013b7534b9b8:12d2:25968b0d&RCN=35325

Police patrolling social media

From the city’s mean streets to Facebook, the police are responding to ever-changing developments and have expanded their beat from the streets outside our door to the virtual pathways of social media, and in so doing, making sure that people are kept safe and criminals apprehended. A new report discusses in detail how social media can be used to support police work – from compiling criminal profiles based on their ‘Likes’, to communicating with the general public. The study is an outcome of the COMPOSITE (‘Comparative police studies in the EU’) project, which is funded with more than EUR 6.6 million under the Security Theme of the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).

The report, ‘Best Practice in Police Social Media Adaptation’, is based on in-depth analyses, interviews and group discussions with information technology (IT) experts and officers representing the police forces of 13 European countries. The report reveals that, used in the right way, social media can help to improve trust and understanding between the people in an area and their police. This is COMPOSITE’s second report on technology adaptation and it effectively brings together the experiences of the pioneers and early adopters of social media among the European police forces. One example from the United Kingdom reveals that many police stations actively use social media as a regular part of their normal business. The police officers act as their own press office and use the social media to keep the people in their constabulary informed about their activities, and publish warnings or search warrants.

Project coordinator, Dr Sebastian Denef, from the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT) explains that moving into cyberspace and using these social media platforms is in part inevitable, and that positive outcomes can be achieved if properly embraced.

‘Police work in general and specific incidents are discussed in the social media anyway. Therefore, the question is not whether the social media are appropriate for police topics, but how the police forces get involved and reap the benefits. If the police is not active, others fill the void,’ remarked Dr Denef. One example is an unofficial Facebook page offering news on the Berlin police, with more than 15,000 fans. And in the Dutch region of Haaglanden, a Twitter channel of a self-appointed police fan has some 2,500 followers. The lack of a trustworthy police presence in the social media can thus provide a fertile ground for rumours, speculations and misunderstandings.

Another outcome of the report in favour of social media is revealing that traditional communication platforms such as newspapers, TV and radio are not effective channels communicating with the younger segments of the population, groups that are very important for many aspects of police work. Social media also proved to be very useful in exceptional situations like a terrorist attack or a disaster. In a major crisis, social media are a proven means of communication to keep people informed independent of the police IT infrastructure.

The report examines case studies, one of which was conducted during and following the 2011 United Kingdom riots and allowed the researchers to add insights from a situation where British police forces used social media during a crisis situation. The researchers can see social media as new public spaces – where the police must be present and visible. Another example occurred in April 2011 when the Helsinki police assigned three officers full-time to the task of producing a virtual police station on a number of social media platforms. In the first few months alone, they received about 250 reports from the public. The Netherlands, too, already has virtual police stations in operation.

In spite of the potential benefits, important questions still remain to be answered; for Germany there are legal issues, while in other countries, such as Great Britain or the Netherlands, the legal hurdles appear to be lower. A major legal and procedural issue for the police forces is cooperation with service providers like Facebook or Twitter, private companies that are based abroad, under foreign jurisdiction. Here, the police forces will have to collect and evaluate additional experience. However, these efforts are seen as worthwhile against the potential benefits of social media use for the police, which are described in the report.

In A Networked Self, Aufderheide mentioned the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video, which is designed to assist persons with identifying and distinguishing what video material can rightly be published from material that may be protected by copyright laws.  It is useful in identifying certain guidelines that may be the determining factor in these cases. There are four major factors mentioned in this reading that judges tend to use in litigation, the biggest of which is economic effect. This is defined as whether or not the use of the material would “cause excessive economic harm to the copyright owner” (Aufderheide 283). The other 3 factors mentioned are the nature of the use, the nature of the work used, and the extent of the use. These factors combined can be used in most instances to determine whether or not copyrighted material is being excessively abused and stolen.

In The Social Media Reader, Lessig tackles this issue as well, but seems to take a more definitive point of vew. His argument is that some of these copyright laws tend to cripple the ability for new ideas and concepts. He does mention that it is important to cite sources, and that obviously is key, both in the entertainment world and in academia. He is of the belief that at long as you give the original creator credit by citing sources, you have the freedom to take any material you’d like and use it for your creative purposes. I tend to somewhat agree with him, only I suppose it’s a little more difficult when you bring video/visual concepts into the equation. In literary or academic study, it’s sometimes necessary to quote an eact phrase or passage  to capture a thought. This is also true in the news, where editors are known to use “a piece” of a person’s statement to make a headline or story. And by the time it is said and done, the final product is completely different from was originally said by the person being quoted.

In the Social Media Reader chapter, it was discussed how some fans of “Star Wars” have used the original concept of the movie, and put their own spins on it to make a very similar style of production. It isn’t just that these fans are making movies. Some of them are gaining an amazing amount of notoriety from these films, which in many cases blatently use the original themes to create “original” material. And the use of the internet allows some of these independent producers to have thier material spread throughout a pretty large network of followers. Although some laes are in place to somewhat protect this type of activity (Copyright Act of 1998), this is still something that we see far too often. You can even see pornography (don’t ask me how I know!!) that is based on actual movie themes. At some point, a more sure-fire method must be developed to prevent this very plagiaristic form of production.

In  A Networked Self, the writer discussed some boundaries between “labor and leisure”, and “consumer choice” which are  topics we’ve touched on before. As mentioned, we as consumers obviously have a choice as to whether or not we choose  to “participate” in many of these forms of social networking. We have a terms of use policy (though you almost have to be an ancient scholar or philosopher to totally understand) that makes us aware of the some of the ramifications of joining and using such networks. However, what if we are not told the entire story, such as that our online behaviors and patterns may be used to advertise to us and in reference to us? I guess fair is fair – once we make the commitment to participate, all is fair. It was further discussed whether or not our participation could be viewed as free labor…well, we are receiving an online service without a “financial” payment being made. So I guess it’s really true that nothing in this world is free.

Over the years, the use of the web has gone from strictly research purposes, it has now expanded to serve purposes as entrertainment and networking. In the Correa and Jeong piece, we were given insight on different races, and their reasonings for using the web.  While White students surveyed slightly mentioned keeping in touch with family, minority groups stated that they heavily used the web for these purposes. In contrast, White students surveyed were more likely to use the web as a means of displaying their work and ideas, or self-promotion, as it was described in the reading. Also, minority groups appeared more likely to use the web to connect with niche communities, or ommunities in which there are shares interests.

Banks and Humphries go into discussion about co-creation, which is something that we touched on earlier this semester. Co-created material on the web is a good way to generate additional fan and user participation, by allowing them the opportunity to participate in the production of the material. Such an example was given with Auran Games, a game development company in Australia. The company allowed people from the community to give feedback and input into the Trainz game. Over 200,000 participants joined this online community. As an extra motivating factor, the company promised fans early access to the game. These factors combined allowed for cheap, unpaid labor,  and a way for more ideas and innovative concepts to be included into the project by the consumers who partake in it.

In Loveland and Popescu’s piece, there is a question of whether the internet is capable of fostering constructive debate and deliberation. They tied some factors into this debate, including socio-economic status and the risk of spamming and flamming as things that could be detrimental to the internet’s ability to host intelligent debating. The emotive content content was taken into consideration as well, which is certainly understandable, as people definitely can be passionate about their political beliefs. I think that their conclusion was thah while the internet definitely had the potential to foster positive interaction, that the lack of face-to-face interaction that is caused by the internet makes it not quite as effective.

Castells discusses how prople now, more than ever before, are using new forms of communication to push a message more quickly, and to a broader range of people. One example was of David Cameron launching a video blog via YouTube, which he used as the backdrop for discussing a political platform. In retaliation, Sion Simon posted a pofff of Mr. Cameron’s video blog. This “video battle”, if you will, brought much more attention to the issue than a plain news broadcast would have allowed. According to Castells, “it has become customary to post embarassing clips of an opponent, sometimes recording a direct hit on the targeted candidate”.

In Tufekci and Wilson’s piece, the title is self-explanatory…it gives insight on social media and political protests. Social media, as stated here, has become a new system of political communication. I have a few (several actually) Facebook friends, democrats and republicans alike, who express their political views openly on their accounts. I am admittedly relatively apathetic about politics. Truthfully, I probably keep up with more political events via Facebook and the political tirades presented there than I ever would by just watching tv or reading a newspaper. Based on my personal experience, it is definitely not out of the realm of possibility for social media to have an effect on protest.

In the Campbell and Kwak reading, we learned about the “uses and gratifications” (U&G) theory. This theory is primarily used to determine “how user needs and motivations shape media use and other outcomes ” (Blumler and Katz, 1974).  A study was conducted using the U&G theory, and the results trevealed positive relationships between mobile phone use for information exchange and civic and political involvement. This is interesting, considering I use my mobile phone for information exchange, but have very little to no interest in political affairs. I guess this could be true for the masses, but I’m having a somewhat difficult time making the connection between mobile interaction specifically and political interaction. Now if we were talking specifically of “social media” or the internet, then I’d totally understand. For example, on Facebook, I see much more political dialogue taking place among my peer group taking place than I would ever see in face-to-face interactions among my peer group. However, I can look at older adults who don’t use mobile technology who are very much politically active, so I’m having a hard time seeing a correlation with the mobile technology and politics. Maybe if they are using Facebook or Twitter from their mobile devices…I don’t know.

In the Rojas piece, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) focused on issues of access, digital inequalities and descriptions of how they were used. I definitely see how the access has the ability to play a role in the increase in participation, simply by giving a person a more convenient means of acquiring information. And definitely, demographics have the potential to impact the availability that a person has to this type of technology. However, it certainly in my mind is not the “end all, be all” to whether a person is active in political spectacles.

In the Burke and Kraut authored piece, we discuss the different users and usages of Facebook. If there are in deed three kinds of social activities that take place on Facebook – directed communication with individual friends, passive consumption of social news, and broadcasting, then I have used Facebook to meet all three of these purposes. I initially joined Facebook for the communication with individual friends and classmates. However, as time passed and I saw how valuable of a networking too Facebook could be, I began to use it more for the other two purposes. It certainly allowed me to consume social news, and broadcast, or better stated advertise my basketball program.  As stated in the article, social network sites foster many types of relationships. It allowed me to reconnect with the high school classmate that I haven’t seen since graduation, but also connect with the high school or AAU coach in Texas who has access to an extremely talented pool of high school players, or meet and have conversation with a person who lives in California but is also a diehard Chicago Bulls fan. My networking in Facebook has expanded way past the typical geographic region or educational circle that it would seem like I should be limited to.

 In the Vitak and Ellison piece, an interesting point was made about how “network composition”, basically the people and networks reprenented in your friends list, can be a barrier to a person’s interraction. As a result, some persons may  not to interact with a particular network. I have faced this dilema a few times, and know people who 1. will not add persons from their employer to their friends list or 2. have a seperate personal and professional page, and will only invite their co-workers to the professional page. This is a solid strategy to maintain privacy, and one that I do not knock anyone for practicing. Of course as stated, the easiest way to avoid this problem is to not post any content that could be deemed as inappropriate for anyone in the network. Of course, there are so many freedom of expression type issues that go along with this train of though…

As we all know, social media has become a phenomenon in nearly all facets of society. Whether it be for advertising or personal entertainment, social media has become an outlet or one person or organization to communicate with others. The world of athletics is no exception. However, there is one specific area of athletics that I would like to take a look at – college athletics. Professional athletes first of all, are technically adults who are considered to be old enough to be fully aware of the ramifications of their actions. Secondly, professional athletes to a large degree are their own brand, so their thoughts and feelings are much more personalized. However, it is a slightly, maybe even largely different scenario when you look at college athletes. Not only do college athletes represent their personal brand, but also the brand of an institution of higher learning, one who in all cases looks to maintain a certain level of credibility, distinction and integrity. Therefore, when a student-athlete engages in social media, they are indirectly carrying the banner for their institution, whether willingly or unwillingly.

What role can the university play in an athlete’s decision to partake in social media? Should an academic institution concern itself with the postings on one of its student-athletes? If so, why would there not be the same concern for a non-athlete? Does a university have the right monitor, or regulate an athlete’s social media posts? Does the Constitution protect the athlete’s freedom of speech? What steps have certain universities taken to monitor their athletes’ social media exploits? Do these universities take the same initiative to monitor their own social media usage? And is there any sort of regulation over what a third party decides to post about the student athlete?

Much emphasis is placed on the athlete’s use of social media. In 2011, Ray Fittipaldo of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote an article about some of the steps taken by some of the nation’s NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) Division I (the highest classification of college athletics) programs. While the NCAA itself does not have a social media policy for member universities, several schools have implemented their own policies. As a result of there not being an official policy by the governing body of college athletics, it has given the individual institutions, athletic directors and coaches the freedom to establish their own regulations for athletes’ use of social media.

Some universities have chosen to construct their own policies for social media usage. On the Dartmouth University athletic web site, you can find a official “Student-Athlete Social Media Policy”. This policy goes into effect for a student-athlete upon signing his letter of intent, and any violation of the policy can result in temporary or permanent dismissal from their respective team. 

I tend to agree with the position taken by Eric Stoller in his article written earlier this year. There is a lot of hypocrisy in college sports. This phenomenon of social media is just another example. While coaches have the  freedom to post as they please, the athletes in some of these institutions are being monitored and controlled. I find it very ironic that a young man who is old enough to be drafted into an army to fight for his country doesn’t even have the freedom to use social media without limitations. Stoller challenges these coaches and administrators, and rightfully so. First and foremost, these people are “educators” as he states. Therefore, instead of banning them or limiting their use of social media, these institutions should educate them about the risks and rewards, and how to protect themselves from making critical mistakes in social media.

Also ironic is the fact that the social media that is being banned or has stipulations placed on it for student-athletes is the same social media that many coaches are using to recruit them. As John Talty mentions, not only do coaches utilize social media to push out information about their programs, but also as a valuable recruiting tool. Whereas a coach has certain times known as “dead periods” where phone calls and text messages to prospective athletes are impermissible, there are not yet rules in place addressing a college coach direct messaging a recruit via Twitter or Facebook, or even using Skype to contact a player. Yet, once on campus, the university can dictate an athlete’s use of social media. Something is not right about this to me…

Dartmouth University’s Student-Athlete Social Media Policy http://www.dartmouthsports..com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=11600&ATCLID=205437343

Ok Ms. Boyd, you caught me red-handedly. GUILTY AS CHARGED!!! I am definitely fit the description  of those “always-on” people that you described yourself as in ch. 6 of The Social Media Reader. If I pull up the browser on my cell phone, it will go directly to my Facebook mobile page, which I remained logged in to, even when I’m not using it. If I go to twitter, it will come up, already logged into, ready for use. A lot of times, my Facebook account will be up all day, periodially checking for updates and posting into different forums and groups between work. I don’t know if I work and occasionally take internet breaks,  or surf the internet and occasionally take work breaks *that was a joke everyone, I definitely don’t want to get fired :-) * Text messaging is not exempt, where throughout the course of a day I can easily get 30-40 texts if I actually engage with the senders of the texts. I tend to agree with her that the always-on approach is definitely a lifestyle, and frankly can be very addictive.

A few weeks ago, I attended a seminar on Time Management, in which the presenter stated that the average time spent on social media and checking e-mails, etc. was almost 2 hours per day. He stated that he avoids this by only turning his phone on two times during a day – once at I believe he said 12:30 PM, and the other time at 5:30 PM. He said that his phone remains off at every other time during the day, and that these designated times are when he replies to texts, returns phone calls, etc. Maybe I need to take his approach!!!

In chapter 12 of A Networked Self, the “Kodak culture” (Chalfen 1987) is discussed. Personal photography in social media can be innocent, or can be extremely detrimental. For some odd reason, I’ve always been the person who will get up and move anytime someone pulls out a camera to take pictures. On the other hand, I know several people who are “camera hams”, and will pose at the drop of a dime. Never mind that some of these poses occur while they are in possession of alcohol (and other intoxicating substances), dressed provocatively, etc. And they have no problem displaying these images on their Facebook/Twitter accounts. As a coach who has recruited student-athletes to my institution, I on multiple occasions have looked at a person’s social media page to see what type of activities that person may indulge in. On some Facebook pages, I have seen student-athletes doing some things that needless to say, made offering them a scholarship impossible.

Jensen takes a look at the idea of “blogola”, which is basically a system in which an organization pays an individual to blog on their behalf. While there are some very legitimate ethical concerns involved, I don’t see these being any bigger of an issue than the typical television commercial we see on television. Political campaigns and product advertisements often give negative, and in many cases false information and mislead consumers into the purchase of products that are not what they are portrayed to be. I don’t think that these paid blogs could do any worse. With technology and communication advancing so much, it really makes sense for corporations to have a designated blogger. As long as the information can be deemed as relatively credible, I have no problem with it. FTC seems to be really lighting into these blogging systems, but in my opinion, there are much bigger fish to fry.

Online consumer reviews have now become a seemingly more credible way to determine the worth of a product or service. Because the consumer has no “ties” of affiliation with the company or product, it seems as if there is nothing to be gained from them making a positive recommendation, other than the feeling of helping to promote a worthy product. Typically, the input of the consumer, especially if other factors (number of comments, the perceived expertise of the reviewer, the diversity of the comments) are favorable, is considered to be more genuine than the information released by the marketer. The fact that a person must have and log into an account to post a review, and is only allowed to post one comment in regards to the product are other factors that seem to give these reviews credibility.

Somewhere in the middle of these two concepts is “Word of Mouth Marketing”. Defined as “the intentional influencing of consumer to consumer communications by professional marketing techniques”, it somewhat differs from “blogola”. Whereas blogola flat out hires a person to blog on their behalf, WOMM entices customers to speak on their behalf, with the offer of prizes, or discounts. The person is not actually on payroll, but is rewarded for their input on the product or service. The writers of this piece go into detail about some of the specific strategies and methodologies used as well.