In all of my previous blogs regarding FtF (Face to Face) interaction and CMC (Computer Mediated Communication), I have heavily favored using FtF interactions more often because of the personal nature associated with having and actual conversation with someone. In this blog though, I will be examining OSSGs (Online Social Support Groups) and their role in CMC. OSSGs are online discussion where members can seek different kinds of advice such as informational support, instrumental advice, and most importantly emotional support.
Informational support, such as Santa Clara University's website, or instrumental advice, such as medical assistance on WebMD, are both very convenient ways to find information on the Internet instead of having to call the university or go to the doctor. More importantly than these types of advice or assistance that OSSG's provide is the emotional support many people use these discussions for. I believe that the best way to solve a problem is through confrontation and FtF interactions, but unfortunately there are many barriers that could hinder a person from fully expressing himself or herself to a peer or family member. Some of these factors include physical disabilities (such as being mute or deaf) or gender and sexuality norms. Even though it is a terrible realization, some people aren't taken seriously because their sexuality, race, or gender and therefore must use the anonymity of text-based OSSGs to fully express an opinion. You always hear the expression "think before you talk," but many people do not follow this advice and can usually say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Having time to fully formulate an idea on “paper" first, gives you all of the time in the world to say exactly what you want to say. This is especially important when the issues at hand are related to someone’s emotional well-being. On the other hand, if someone you know is having an emotional problem that you do not know how to handle, it would be wise to go to an OSSG and ask someone who is having a similar problem about what he or she is going through. This way you can be prepared to help someone through his or her emotional crisis.
Problems arise when people being to take advantage of emotionally unstable people online. Cyber bullying is becoming one of the bigger problems of our new media generation. It is one thing to have the balls to harass someone FtF (which is still wrong), but when cowardly and immature Internet users are bored it becomes too easy to anonymously harass someone on an OSSG. The problem these days is the convenience of the Internet. Everything becomes so much easier to do that extra leisure time is created and not everyone is spending that time appropriately. Cyber bullying can and has affected others in negative ways that the instigator cannot even begin to imagine. When using OSSGs it is important to be able to filter out the appropriate from the inappropriate, and even though some cowardly outsider has an ignorant opinion, ultimately ones own perception of his or her self is most important.

Remixing and Convergence Culture

Finding an outside topic to write about for this blog was pretty easy for me because there was one topic from this quarter that has stood out to me and that is remix culture. I am a big fan of the many different genres of music that remixing has produced and I have even attempted to make my own mashup songs on remixing software (albeit not many were very good). The critiques of remix culture that we discussed in class (intellectual property arguments) do not outweigh the pros of this culture. Someone in class mentioned that through remixing different genres of music, an outsider could be introduced to a different genre of music (i.e. hip hop mashed-up with dubstep). I have been personally affected by remixes in this way. When I first heard dubstep I thought of it as loud noises mixed with an intense bass, but after I heard some dubstep hip-hop remixes by my favorite dubstep artist, Rusko, I began to like all kinds of dubstep music.

Before watching "RIP!: A Remix Manifesto" I gave absolutely no credit to the producers of mashups and I assumed that it was fairly simple to mix samples of different songs together(even though I'm no good at it), but I was very wrong! I couldn't keep up with any of the procedure GirlTalk was demonstrating on the documentary, and it seems like one has to have an ear for mixing the different beats together. After seeing how talented one actually has to be to produce good mashups, I am enraged that people out there do not consider mashup artists to be musicians. For my presentation in class I showed a video of a guy playing 32 songs in 8 minutes because I thought of it as an acoustic mashup. If someone wants to argue that fading between different songs the way he did does not require talent, then I’m all ears.

This entire year we have been talking about convergence culture and the impact technology is having on remixing old and new forms of media. Another key aspect of the technological age we are living in is participatory culture, and what better describes participatory culture than mashups? If we aren't blessed with a great voice or the hand-eye coordination necessary to play an instrument then there should be another way for the average music consumer to participate in music. That way is through remixing! If the individual wants to put out free mashups for the world to hear or download he/she shouldn't have to pay an outrageous amount of money to record companies in order to do it. Our generation is defined by remixing songs, books, movies etc. from already existing media, and soon intellectual property laws will have to be amended to take this into account while also protecting some of the rights artists have to the “original” music they produce. The battle between these two sides will be an interesting one, and hopefully the final result will be beneficial to mashup artists and “original” artists.

#1 My Media Diet

Monday-Friday
10:30am-Check weather, news and facebook on laptop before class. (15 minutes)
11:30am-Listen to Pandora on my phone on the way to class (8-10 minutes)
5:30pm (usually when I’m finished with class)-watch TV for 2-3 hours (varies depending on whether there are any good games going on.)
8:00pm- Pull out my laptop and facebook for an hour before I start doing work. Using Camino and other internet resources to do work takes about 2 hours a day. Usually listen to Pandora while doing work also.
11:00pm- when my work is finished I usually play around on the internet, usually on stumbleupon. (1 hr playing)
Throughout the day- Check espn.com on my phone to check news and scores (5 times a day 5 minutes each time), also check facebook app to see if I have any new notifications (7 times a day 5 minutes)
Also throughout the day- time spent text messaging and on phone= around 45 minutes a day

Time spent on different media:
Time spent on internet doing work- 2 hours
Time spent on facebook- 5 minutes per use 7 times a day=35 minutes+1 hour onlaptop= 1hr35 minutes
Time spent playing on internet- to check espn 5 times a day for 5 minutes= 25 minutes plus 1 hr after work is done= 1hr25 minutes
Time spent listening to music- 8 minutes per walk* 4 walks between classes and home per day=32 minutes +2 hours listening to music while doing work= 2 hrs32 mins
Time watching tv 2-3 hrs a day

So it turns out my media diet is pretty intense. At least 8-9 hours of my day are spent on my personal media, and this number is skewed because of all of the classes that I take (On the weekend it’s more like 12 hours). After reviewing this list, I realize that much of my media consumption comes as a result of having an iPhone that makes all of these mediums mobile. Even when I read books (the few times that I do) I usually do it on my phone. Compared to the average college student I think that my media consumption is less. Jenkins said that play is an important part of being an efficient Internet user, I feel that my Internet play has made me efficient enough so that I do not have to spend countless hours daily performing tasks on the Internet. Max Weber’s critique of a capitalist society is a pretty accurate depiction of todays society. We have rationalized that we need a constant influx of media so much that you always see people walking around on their phones completely oblivious to their surroundings. I am one of these people and I have never stopped to think how ridiculous it is to listen to music, text, and facebook all at the same time, while crossing a busy street. Even though I enjoy the luxuries of smart phones, they detract from the everyday interactions one needs in life. Because of this I think that phones should function as just that… phones!

Technology and Social Interaction

With the creation of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and other famous internet social internet sites, there is less social interaction between people our own age. Social networking sites are designed to keep us continually checking in, which detracts us from studying and being social. The spread of technology in general has had a negative effect on my everyday face to face interactions. I remember when I used to go to the mall or movie theater with friends just to hang out. But now hanging out means sharing comments on one-another’s wall or fb chatting. I can’t even remember the last time I went shopping at a mall because it is extremely convenient to just order clothes online. I wouldn’t consider myself an anti-social person but sometimes it is easier to collect your thoughts before sharing them with someone and sometimes facebook is the best way to do that. The same applies for going to the movies; there are so many movies online (legally and illegally) that going to the movies is really a waste of money. In general people today don’t get together in coffee shops and reminisce of the good ol’ days. Instead you share all of those personal conversations on facebook for the world to see.
Every time I see one of those cheesy eharmony commercials, I tell myself that I will never in my life use one to meet a girl. A teacher of mine from 6th grade who I have kept in contact with is in a serious relationship now and met his fiancée through a dating website. Obviously I heckled him a bit for it and he told me that he used to do the same to other couples who met online, but that it actually did work for him. It is almost becoming common to meet people through those sites. If being with a statistically compatible mate is what you’re looking for then I think dating sites are right for you. Since I do not know exactly what I am looking for in a mate, I would like to meet people the old fashioned way. At least for now.
There is a difference between people who already have friends and only try to connect with them through social networking sites and people who are looking for friends or mates online and need to communicate with them online. If we are in close proximity to our friends and only talk to them through Facebook then we are definitely neglecting our everyday relationships for “virtual relationships.” If our friends are estranged or living far from where we live, then we are still embracing our friendship with those people. Social networking is a perfectly acceptable place for people to discuss political and social interests, because they can be shared and distributed to anyone worldwide.

#2 Social Networking and Blogging

Before taking this class I didn't actually think about how often I was on Facebook, and I assumed that it was less then the average college student, but throughout the quarter I've noticed differently. Whenever I need to check anything on my phone such as the weather, news or email, I would always instinctively go to my Facebook app instead. I casually check facebook on my phone around 10-15 times a day, and that doesn't include the time I spend chatting with friends while on my laptop. The point is that we social network a lot throughout the day and facebook and twitter have become prevalent forms of communication in our generation. Why have a 35 comment length conversation with a friend on Facebook when it is quicker and more efficient to just text message that person? Social networking sites provide people with an audience of "friends" who can like your status or interrupt your conversations. As the documentary "We Live in Public" states, we all want more than just 15 minutes of fame, and social networking sites are our individual way to attain that fame.
The privacy issues associated with social networking sites are a concern for our generation. Anything we post on Facebook can be saved by any other individual and kept forever. You see universities and employers looking at possible students/employees' Facebook profiles and determining whether or not to accept them. Because of this I try not to put incriminating photos of myself online, and if a friend tags an inappropriate photo I immediately un-tag it. Intertwining our personal lives with technology is not all bad though. One is the like function on facebook, and other sites such as digg. I've used this to find news and entertainment that suits my likes (and save time at the same time since I do not have to look through all of the stuff I don't for). When I think about how companies can "buy my information" and personally advertise to me, I think that no one should have the right to my information without my consent, but that is one of the costs of living in public.
  In my opinion this problem will not continue in the future when the digital divide has lessened. When the internet is more universal and more people have access to social networking sites, then everyone will live in public and most people will not even notice or care that his or her information is being distributed without his or her concern because everyone's life will be more convenient. Unless we fix the privacy issues associated with the sites we use on a daily basis (such as Facebook), we will be forced to live in public. For now it is best for people to educate themselves and find out how their information is being used online, and it is most important for people to be discrete when posting information about themselves.