Second life and other avatar-based programs allow the internet society to have the chance to become who they always wanted to be. From the name of your character to the behavior, you can become this new person. Some people become obsessed with this online version of themselves that they do not want to be themselves in the real world. They become addicted and spend their time and money on this online reality. Is it right to be spending thousands of dollars on virtual possessions? Does this only improve what the online society thinks of you? Does the more money you spend online reflect how much money you have in real life? People often become their online character and neglect their real life self. Is this neglect a form of cruelty?
The one thing people need to remember is that the people they are interacting with are real people too. They might be faking who they are and what they do as much as you are. How can we trust the people we have online relationships and friendships with when we do not know the truth about them? Do we even care if their identity is fabricated? Do our online personalities not associate that these people might be living a lie too? Is it really a lie if we put so much effort into it? People who are in romantic relationships online should really meet in person before they get married. How can you commit to each other when you might clash in person? Will your relationship only be between your online personalities and only result online? Often the personality of someone in real life is different from the one online. It is important to love and be compatible with all personalities of someone before you take the ultimate commitment of getting married. Could you be married to someone you have never met in real life?
Do you have control over your own personalities?
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Rights to our own news?
Who owns the news? To answer this question we first have to look at what is news. Is news anything that has happened? Or is it only when it impacts a larger number? What is important news? Is celebrity gossip news? It is important to define what news is because it will determine what effect it has on people. If the news is something that has a global impact then more people would want to hear it.
There are two possible owners of the news, the society who reads it and the people who broadcast it. People can argue either way but I think it is important to realize that they both interact with each other. If there was no one to read the news then they would not broadcast it. If we did not have people who broadcasted the news we would have been sheltered before the internet. The internet gives us a way to be able to report our own news.
The use of the word own is interesting; how can someone own something that happened to another person? Do we only own news about ourselves? We need to ask who controls/influences the news. The people who collect and display the news have biases and could contaminate the truth about the information being presented. Society has the power to boycott and ignore certain sources for news, giving them the power to choose which news we want to hear. This might result in biased sources as well but it also shapes each nation and community. Overall society has the impact on which news sources we rely on but we still rely on companies to give us our news. These companies have an overall say of what they put on their sites and newsfeeds. It is a debate that will always be fought until one side stops interacting with the other. Do the people who broadcast the news listen and believe that news? Do you research news if you don’t believe one source is true?
There are two possible owners of the news, the society who reads it and the people who broadcast it. People can argue either way but I think it is important to realize that they both interact with each other. If there was no one to read the news then they would not broadcast it. If we did not have people who broadcasted the news we would have been sheltered before the internet. The internet gives us a way to be able to report our own news.
The use of the word own is interesting; how can someone own something that happened to another person? Do we only own news about ourselves? We need to ask who controls/influences the news. The people who collect and display the news have biases and could contaminate the truth about the information being presented. Society has the power to boycott and ignore certain sources for news, giving them the power to choose which news we want to hear. This might result in biased sources as well but it also shapes each nation and community. Overall society has the impact on which news sources we rely on but we still rely on companies to give us our news. These companies have an overall say of what they put on their sites and newsfeeds. It is a debate that will always be fought until one side stops interacting with the other. Do the people who broadcast the news listen and believe that news? Do you research news if you don’t believe one source is true?
Friday, December 24, 2010
Addictive Updates
Overall the concept of spreading personal experience is related to free speech. Where do you draw the line of how much a person can post? Or what they can post about? Is there a better way to spread your experience? Is a summarizing vlog, story, or blook better then constant updates? Is Twittering about every little thing too much for people to handle? Would the responses to Ms. Jackson’s information be different? Obviously people would still be upset that she is discussion such a topic, but would as many people know about it? Is this just another way for people to become “famous”? Do you use things such as Twitter or Facebook status to keep your friends up to date on your life? Do you post every little detail about your life? Do you follow famous peoples’ blogs? Do people not make a living off of knowing every little detail about famous people? Why can we stand to hear about stars in the news but not local people? Is it the issue that we have grown up as millennials and always think we are special? We always want to self promote what we are doing to the world, do we forget to tell our parents?
Each person has a choice to watch or read what others post, would you post on something that you did not like even though you did not have to watch/read it? What gives you the right to comment on it? Would you then post a rant about that persons post on your own blog or vlog? The internet is open to all ideas and you do not have to read or believe everything that is on there. Some topics are taboo and should be treated with respect when being discussed. People have the freedom to talk about what they want, but they should do it in a classy way. Would you want to be known for an insensitive digital citizen?
Each person has a choice to watch or read what others post, would you post on something that you did not like even though you did not have to watch/read it? What gives you the right to comment on it? Would you then post a rant about that persons post on your own blog or vlog? The internet is open to all ideas and you do not have to read or believe everything that is on there. Some topics are taboo and should be treated with respect when being discussed. People have the freedom to talk about what they want, but they should do it in a classy way. Would you want to be known for an insensitive digital citizen?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Epic Fight of the Digital World
Today’s society is all about having the latest gadget. The ability of downloading books in seconds and taking hundreds of them where ever you go is what e-book readers provide. Is this selfish need healthy? Are e-books beneficial? Would this make society have a higher literacy rate? Would more people read if it was this easy? Or is this just another way for people to be disconnected from each other? Will we ever reach a stage where books are obsolete? Books might turn to electronic versions only but I do not believe we will get rid of them all together. Books are a way of tracing history. Hard copies and electronic copies should both be kept in case one is destroyed. What would you remember if you did not have all the digital pictures and text files?
Libraries are places for information and quiet study. Libraries have started to move towards the digital age by having the ability to find an article or to check if a book is in the library. Libraries will not disappear, they will simply transform. People will still need a place to study and a place to get hard copies of books. The textuality of E-books will never be the same as a normal book. The smooth texture of the pages, the crack of a spine, the new book smell, the way light reflects of the pages, and many more things can never be duplicated in electronic form. People who grew up with books will always have those memories. Do you hold memories of reading a book?
E-books vs. books whose side will you pick?
Libraries are places for information and quiet study. Libraries have started to move towards the digital age by having the ability to find an article or to check if a book is in the library. Libraries will not disappear, they will simply transform. People will still need a place to study and a place to get hard copies of books. The textuality of E-books will never be the same as a normal book. The smooth texture of the pages, the crack of a spine, the new book smell, the way light reflects of the pages, and many more things can never be duplicated in electronic form. People who grew up with books will always have those memories. Do you hold memories of reading a book?
E-books vs. books whose side will you pick?
Sunday, December 19, 2010
World Peace vs Self Destruction
WikiLeaks was created in 2006 and has gained many followers over the last four years. Is this because today’s society is more tech savvy? Or more people have access to the internet now? Is it because the information that been published on the site is more closely related to today’s society? Or is it just rebels trying to find a fresh news site? The news posted on this site was not about well known people it was about soldiers, people that we might know. Is this site just like celebrity news for the common people? How far can we push secret telling? Will it ever turn into something such as leaking a friend's secret to the world? Where does the site draw a line of what secrets are important enough to be on the site?
A big concern people have with wikis is that they might be biased. Information has always been bias. Newspapers, radio stations, television stations, word of mouth, etc. all these forms of communication have some sort of bias. Can we ever have unbiased news? Freedom of press would then be controlled by the influence of the website. If the influences did not like what the user was saying then they do not have allow it on the site. Can a website ever be fully unbiased in the information it holds? Does this just mean the author needs to look for a different site to host their information?
The biggest issue that rose was about secrets in general. Many people have stated that we are able to handle hearing these secrets. Was the society before us better off not knowing the secrets? Will this lead to world peace or self destruction? Does leaking these secrets to the world better the world as a whole or just make things more chaotic? It would be ideal if there was no need for secrets but will that ever happen? Does sheltering society from harsh reality actually help keep the peace among each other? Or will the hate towards these wrong doers ban us together?
A big concern people have with wikis is that they might be biased. Information has always been bias. Newspapers, radio stations, television stations, word of mouth, etc. all these forms of communication have some sort of bias. Can we ever have unbiased news? Freedom of press would then be controlled by the influence of the website. If the influences did not like what the user was saying then they do not have allow it on the site. Can a website ever be fully unbiased in the information it holds? Does this just mean the author needs to look for a different site to host their information?
The biggest issue that rose was about secrets in general. Many people have stated that we are able to handle hearing these secrets. Was the society before us better off not knowing the secrets? Will this lead to world peace or self destruction? Does leaking these secrets to the world better the world as a whole or just make things more chaotic? It would be ideal if there was no need for secrets but will that ever happen? Does sheltering society from harsh reality actually help keep the peace among each other? Or will the hate towards these wrong doers ban us together?
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Information Cloud vs Pirates
The act of piracy has been around for many years. Piracy was a term used for robbery at sea. Now it is also used for “robbery” on the internet. Was the way they dealt with piracy at sea a humane way? Is it suitable for today’s version of piracy? Obviously we are not going to hang people. Or are we? Is death a suitable punishment? Is piracy the right word to use? Is robbery better? Is copyright infringement? Will films ever become part of creative commons? If you are the one watching the pirated material what does that make you? Are you promoting it? Would you pay for steaming video? Why do people feel the need to not support the artists that create videos? If we removed all the sites that had pirated material would more just spring up? How can we control what websites are allowed to be about? Does that go against free speech?
What if the film industry created a site similar to iTunes? Members pay for credits to be able to watch streaming videos. Part of the proceeds goes to the film studios and the other part goes to host the website. Would this work? I think it is worth a shot, many people will want to support the artists but it is inconvenient to go to a theatre or rental store. Would people actually pay a small fee for videos? How can we stop people from screen capturing the video and spreading it for free?
The idea of a buying a license to be able to see or use a product, instead of an actual product, could be an alternative. This way you would be able to access it whenever you want. You buy a license to a CD, instead of bringing it where ever you go you have a card or an id tag that all your information is stored on. Instead of buying multiple CDs or copying it you would be able to pay for something and have it where ever you wanted. They have started this by having DVD, Blu-ray and digital copies bundled together. Would this idea of a master license ever come into existence? Would this help cut back on the piracy? Would we then just get a new form of piracy?
What if the film industry created a site similar to iTunes? Members pay for credits to be able to watch streaming videos. Part of the proceeds goes to the film studios and the other part goes to host the website. Would this work? I think it is worth a shot, many people will want to support the artists but it is inconvenient to go to a theatre or rental store. Would people actually pay a small fee for videos? How can we stop people from screen capturing the video and spreading it for free?
The idea of a buying a license to be able to see or use a product, instead of an actual product, could be an alternative. This way you would be able to access it whenever you want. You buy a license to a CD, instead of bringing it where ever you go you have a card or an id tag that all your information is stored on. Instead of buying multiple CDs or copying it you would be able to pay for something and have it where ever you wanted. They have started this by having DVD, Blu-ray and digital copies bundled together. Would this idea of a master license ever come into existence? Would this help cut back on the piracy? Would we then just get a new form of piracy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
