This is a webinar that I received an e-mail advertising…

http://thompsoninteractive.com/site/offer.jsp?promo=001629EM&priority=00296004996&utm_source=00296004996&utm_medium=email

Typically I have always been against  the “push” style of advertising, mentioned by Wilken and Sinclair in the “Waiting for the Kiss of Life” piece.  This type of advertising, defined as “a subscription-based campaign where recipients are sent mass messages over an ongoing period” (Wilkes/Sinclair 431) seems very intrusive, and somewhat bothersome. , in the “COBRAs” piece, a direct correlation between the products that we discuss, inquire (YouTube), or “like” (Facebook) and the advertising that we see on social media and other online sources is presented. I guess this means that to a certain degree, we are responsible for our own intrusive advertising. *sigh* I guess it only makes sense that if I “like” Pizza Hut on Facebook, I will now see the special of the week, or other advertisements seeking to gain my patronage. I guess this could be considered fair. That is the risk that comes along with engaging in social networking, and sharing my personal likes and dislikes. But to tell me that I may receive on-the-spot advertising based on making public appearances? Does this mean that I’ll receive advertising for alcohol when I walk into a liquor store? Will I receive a text message or e-mail for a chat line if I walk into an adult store? I am not sure how I feel about this type of advertising, although technology certainly has the capacity to make it a reality.

I was somewhat intrigued by the writing about the use of YouTube for public service announcements. I honestly have not seen very many public service announcements on YouTube, so that is something that I will have to look further into. However, I have seen  many personal channels. Although I do not technically “follow” any YouTube producers, there are several channels on YouTube that I do keep up with. While the majority of them are either persons who post footage of live performances (mainly band) or athletic highlights, I do watch quite a few YouTube producers who use their channels as more of a “visual blog”. I’ve been highly entertained by the social commentary of some of these producers. While some use their channel as mainly a way to vent or discuss issues, many of them do hope to gain popularity, and ultimately gain a cult-following of fans that ultimately may lead to business ventures.

Beldad, de Jong and Steehouder in my opinion did an excellent job in discussing the ways in which people respond to risks in privacy, specifically as it relates to the sharing of information online. They classified different categories of people based on the level of oncern that they have for the privacy of their information (privacy fundamentalist, pragmatist, and privacy unconcerned), gave 3 categories of the nature of privacy (privacy of the person, privacy of personal behavior,  privacy of personal communications, and privacy of personal data) how people respond to the sharing of online information based on some of these categories. While some people have no qualms whatsoever about entering and sharing personal information, others are more skeptical and use different measures in determining whether or not it is appropriate to do so. Many people seek to measure the amount of control that they have over the spread of information once submitted, whereas some people look at the risk/reward aspect of sharing their information. In other words, are the benefits of sharing this information worth the possible ramifications that may occur if something goes awry? I think that in many cases, I myself use this approach to making these decisions. As a result, I for the 1st time last month made an online purchase. I was extremely leery about submitting the necessary information (credit card numbers, etc.) to set up online accounts and make online purchases. However, after doing research and talking with close acquaintances who regularly make online purchases, I now am more comfortable in doing so.

Bolde analyzed the privacy policies of Google, the primary search engine that we all use for instant clarification of information. Although they do have protective measures in place, you have to read the fine print!!! Google is extremely cautious in the terminology that it uses in its privacy statements. “Lexical choice”, or “the systematic use or avoidance of words” is the primary measure that Google uses in order to C.T.B. (cover their behinds) in case of privacy infringement. They also state that while they have the right to share user information with third parties, it is degigned to “provide you with a better experience and to improve the quality of our services.” However, they do not tell you that this allows them to increase revenue based on the on-site advertising that they are able to create based on the use of this information. Google benefits just as much as the user does, but does not reveal how it simultaneously benefits from it.

Last but certainly not least, this week’s main event – Jurgeson/Rey vs. Ford!!! Both sides made some good points, and even agreed in some small areas in this debate. Jurgeson and Rey ended their piece by stating that Ford’s opinions have opened the door for future dialogue in reference to the classification of private vs. public. Personally, my stance is pretty clear, especially as it relates to social media – once you click on the “submit”/”send” button, your private thoughts have now become public!!!! Even with this blog, once I hit the “publish” button, I may come back 2 minutes later and edit something that I’ve said. However, if 1 person saw what was written prior to my editing, that is enough to “copy/paste” my statements, and share it with whomever they choose. Pictures, same principle – any picture is one “right click/save” away from being shared with the rest of the world, even after you have removed it. And let’s not even mention the newest cell phone technology, “screen shots”!!!!! One snap shot can make any text message, picture, e-mail, web posting or anything else public domain, even if it is intended to be private.

Well…so much for my diminutive definition of “collaboration”!!!!! Not that I was wrong about the definition in its basic state, but it involves so many different criteria, especially as it relates to communication and social media. I certainly hope that for the rest of my life when someone asks me if I am interested in a collaboration of any sort, I don’t barrage  them these 20 or so questions that the writer asks of us here in the reading. However, these questions do make a lot of sense as you read them. Certainly “intent” is a pertinent, and probably obvious question as it relates to collaboration, as are the “goals”. There are other questions mentioned here that it may not necessarily be in our first nature to ask, but that certainly are important in the overall picture – “governance”, “property” and accessibility”  are three that seem to be key as well. One idea that I’d never put much thought into is the “coordination mechanism” aspect – mainly because most projects that I work on tend to be human-operated. However, what if a project could be properly contributed to without human attention? What types of projects could be contributed to without  human attention? I’m sure that the creator of any such product will have a very high earning power. I’ll put on my thinking cap and brainstorm for something at a later time.

The beginning of the reading led us to the use of open-source technology, and later the ideology of copyright. Open-source  in a nutshell allows for input and modification from people other than the original developers. Although this concept certainly is not new, it’s advancement is now evident to a mainstream audience. Wikipedia is probably the best  modern-day example of what we use as open-sourcing. Personally, I have strong feelings about the idea of copyright. Talents and ideas are special and unique, and should be treated as such. As a person who has a love for music and was myself a musician (way back when), the idea of copyright is very much necessary to protect the originality of an artist, writer, inventor, etc. Innovation is critical, and innovators deserve to be compensated for great ideas. These ideas should by all means, in my opinion, be protected, and furthermore, generate revenue and profit by the originator when applicable. I certainly expect that when I record that hit record (which at this point is probably no more than a fantasy!!!) that my work will be original, innovative, and PROTECTED from mutilation by a party that comes along later and tries to reproduce my hard-developed idea.

Several interesting topics and concepts were discussed in this week’s reading assignments. One of the major topics was the role of network(ing) in media. According to Manuel Castalls, “networks are becoming the preferred way or organizing in virtually all domains of social life” (Stalder 170). While I wouldn’t go so far as saying all, definitely a lot of social life is inspired by networks. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter definitely allow a person to contact and maintain ties with a large number of contacts through networks. While the network could be something as simple as a group of persons who attended the same high school/college or share a passion for the same sports team, these networks provide immediate access to a group of individuals with a common interest. While networking is certainly not new, technology has certainly expanded its capabilities, as well as the distance between members of a network.

Boyd went more in-depth about social networking and the impact that it may have, both now and in the years ahead. She described some of the features of social media sites, such as the profile, which is somewhat of your online introduction to the audience. Also, she talked about friends lists, which is where you develop your network to the people you are affiliated with. Even more importantly, she gave great insight on topics such as “invisible audiences” – meaning people who while are not the intended target of information that you post, certainly have access to it and can use it for their own personal entertainment, “searchability”, which is the ability to locate and track a person once they have registered themselves into the world of social media, and the fine line between what can be considered public and what can be considered private.

In Marshall’s book, we were given insight on the means that we are often introduced to new technology, and our reasons for being fascinated by new technology. Media outlets, such as newspaper articles and television shows have been designated to introduce us to new mediums of technology, and also how to adapt to technological advancements. One example of the new types of technology that one of these venues would highlight was the phenomenon of satellite radio. Although radio has obviously been around for years, and is free to its consumers (as long as you own a receiver), there are still those of us who choose to purchase satellite services. Due to the advancement of technology, a person is able to subscribe to a satellite station. These stations are often commercial-free, and offer an opportunity to listen to their preferred style of music, even down to a particular artist that they like. These new methods of technology feed into the idea that accessibility and the ability to filter the unwanted from the wanted fuels our passion for an ever-changing technology.

My name is Verties Sails, III. This is my very first graduate level course, so I am adjusting to being a college student after a  long layoff. I was born and raised in Memphis, and earned an undergraduate degree in Speech Communication and Theater from Tennessee State University in Nashville, TN in 2002. I have been employed by Southwest Tennessee Community College since 2003. After 9 years as a Coordinator of Student Disability Services, I now work with a federal grant program, Project M.O.S.T. (Men of Southwest Tennessee). The grant is designed to increase retention and graduation rates of our African-American male population. I also served for 9 years as an assistant coach for our nationally renowned men’s basketball program. I enjoy sports and music and cooking.

Besides having a communications background and wanting to one day go into broadcasting, I’d also love to learn how I can use different forms of media to publicise the activities that I am involved in, as well as myself for any future business ventures. Facebook and Myspace have been extremely beneficial to me in recruiting student-athletes, particularly those who do not reside in Memphis. Project M.O.S.T. now has a page on Facebook that our members can “like”. This will be used to post information such as future meetings, due dates, etc.