Air-B-N-Me

Although I was uncertain of what to expect from this experience, I must say that I had a fun time navigating our class NetProv, Air-B-N-Me. Prior to taking this class, I had never heard of NetProv (aka Networked Improvisation), and I had no idea what to expect. Even having grown up in the midst of all of this technology, it's still mind-blowing to consider the possibilities that the Internet has to offer. Networked participation can link together people from all over the world for so many different reasons, and this was a cool way of exploring those possibilities.

I think the concept of Air-B-N-Me was a fun spin off of Air-B-N-B, and I honestly wish it was a real life possibility. How wonderful it would be to check out of the boring or unpleasant times, and into a different kind of life. Truly, a way to "walk a mile in someone else's shoes." The work that went into the story behind Air-B-N-Me was innovative, and I also liked the feeling that we learned as we went. Last I checked, people still seem to be participating, so that's a mark of success!

The most daunting part of this NetProv for me was coming up with a character because, as much as I love writing, coming up with characters isn't really my strongsuit. But, after doing a little brainstorming, I decided to with the concept of an antisocial writer and StudentofLife42 was born!

Considering the resources I had at my disposal, that is, more books than the NY Public Library (possibly a slight exaggeration), an obnoxious cockatiel, and a senile old poodle, I decided on the character of a misanthropic, animal loving writer. 

All things considered, when it came to developing a character, the creative side of this project wasn't as difficult as the video execution. I came up with a few different character ideas, but the issue I ran into was the lack of ability to share in those characters' lives. For example, I might pretend that my character is a supermodel at "yet another photo shoot," but no part of my life would allow me to make a convincing video of that-- even for 60 seconds. This issue was discussed with a few classmates, and we agreed that instead of making up characters, we would have preferred to come into this project as ourselves, and make videos about moments in our own lives. I also would have liked to work with other students on a more personal basis, and I think that videos of our own lives would have enabled that kind of connection. That being said, improv is all about creating characters and acting in set situations, so I understand why making a character was necessary for this scenario.

That being said, once I was able to create a workable character, I had fun! I chose to make YouTube videos instead of using Periscope, because my schedule can be a little crazy and I wanted the ability to post a link, rather than set up a time to live stream. Additionally, I do much better when working off of a script. I did download and check out Periscope, but the app seemed a little iffy to me, and I didn't really want to have a presence on it. The idea that anyone could check in and see what I was up to freaked me out slightly, whereas I felt that YouTube was a more fixed and controlled way to share my life. 

Here's were my two videos:

Two people swapped lives with me each time, and reported back with good experiences!

I swapped lives with three people, one of whom I knew (hey, Deb! :] ) and two of whom I don't. This was a very cool aspect of the NetProv, getting to work with people across the country who are students just like me, also involved in this project. 

Here are the three links that I explored:

http://robwit.net/airbnme/forum/topic/Midnight-stroll.htm

http://robwit.net/airbnme/forum/topic/Morning-Routine-2016-04-18.htm
http://robwit.net/airbnme/forum/topic/Deck-Dancing.htm

I wrote response paragraphs to each experience in the comments of their forum post, and I enjoyed stepping into their lives. The first link introduced me to Funky_Freshman, a 21 year old college student whose life I stepped into as she walked across her campus at night, from her dorm to the library. An eerie experience to be sure, but I liked seeing another college campus!

The second link brought me to the life of Valerie18, who allowed me to step in to her morning routine, in which she made a delicious looking smoothie. In addition to making me really want a smoothie, this was such a typical morning occurrence that I felt like I truly did step into someone's life.

My third and final life swap was with DebDupray, and here I learned a little about ballet dancing on a beautiful afternoon- what more could I ask for? Although, it's been a while since I last tested my ballet skills, so I was a little rusty!

Overall, I enjoyed this NetProv. It took us beyond the 4 walls of the traditional classroom, and that was the perfect way to conclude our studies of new media. I liked that everyone I was working with was a student or a teacher, all involved in the same project and working together, but I also liked that, for the most part, I didn't know who I knew and who I didn't know. Everyone was on the same field, playing the same game. I would certainly participate again, and recommend NetProvs to people interested in getting to work with people all over the world. 

Learning HTML and CSS with Codeacademy!

For my final project, I have decided to explore HTML and CSS, with the hopes of learning to decipher what goes into making a website. There are several different programming languages out there, but I believe that HTML and CSS are the most accessible and useful for my purposes, and I think I will find the knowledge I gain here useful to future endeavors.

I have a very bare-bones knowledge of HTML, and I've never worked with CSS. My familiarity with HTML comes from my MySpace days, when knowing how to edit the code that was behind your MySpace page layout was huge. I never learned how to build it from scratch, but I knew enough to figure out what certain abbreviations meant, how to change colors of text, etc. So, with that introduction, I will be delving into this new world!

I am going to be utilizing the services offered by Codecademy, to build up as much knowledge as I possibly can.

So, to start off, when they say "Basic," they mean it. But this is fantastic, because there is most definitely a method to the madness. Here's the first of many screenshots that I will be including to show my progress:

Pretty early on, I learned something that I think is interesting. The commands within the < and > brackets are called tags, and they are organized in an order called nesting. This means that the most recently opened tag should be closed first. For example if I want the following sentences, "Hi, my name is Marissa" to be both bold and italicized, I need to open two separate tags: <strong> (command for bold) and <em> (command for italics). Then, I would type my sentence. Next, I would have to close my two tags, and the proper way in which to do this would be </em></strong>.  

Okay, so pause for a second--- these two commands alone taught me something new, and really cool! When I used to mess around with HTML on MySpace, the commands for bold and italic were <b> and <i>. Curious as to why this changed, I did some googling. What I came to find was pretty interesting. Apparently, these two commands exist and still are used, and stylistically are the same as <strong> and <em>, but technically they do make a difference. One of the links I explored explained that an example of why you might use <strong> instead of <b> would be in the case of writing software that would read to a blind person. <b> would only look different, not helping the person at all, but <strong> would command the program reading the code to read that particular phrase with more emphasis. Another differentiating factor, this time in the case of italics, would be when <i> is used to stylistically define the name of a book, where as <em> would make more sense in the following sentence for emphasis: "I <em>only</em> accept friend requests from people I know."

Oops, tangent! But I think that is so interesting! Anyway, moving along...

Here's the perfect example of how sensitive this seems to be, in the next screen capture I highlighted and drew arrows to indicate the two tags that made all the difference in my code coming out correctly.

One of the lessons in this section was about the 6 different sizes of headers, and the only way to move on to the next part was to mess around with the different sizes of headers and include one of each. As you may notice, I ran out of things to say, but it was cool to see the differences in size and emphasis that each one offered.

A significant amount of time later, I'm working toward the end of the first section. This section included adding links into the code, as well as images. It then got a little more complicated, by having code that set an image as as link. I can see by this point that the most frustrating thing, much like learning a language, will be remembering all the separate parts (otherwise the code won't work), but I'm still really enjoying this.

Naturally, I added a picture of a poodle, because I am a fool for poodles.

Guys. Can I just say, this code doesn't look like much, but oh man, am I proud of it:

In code language, I just linked a picture of a puppy to Google (if you click the puppy, it will redirect to google.com) which makes absolutely no sense, but I DID IT!

And with that, I finished the lesson portion of Unit 1. Moving on to the Unit review, the goal is to create a very basic webpage. The directions say to fill it with facts about yourself, so I wrote about my job, a little about school, about the picture is of a poodle who looks like my Paddy! 

Here is the result! First, most of my code:

And finally, my first webpage!!

 This might not look like much, but I've realized that HTML is quite a complex language, but it's so cool that it can be used and manipulated to make something as simple as this, or as complex as all the websites that exist! This has definitely given me insight into how much goes into the code of a high functioning website, and how in depth it really is!

Going into Unit 2, the introduction tells me that throughout this unit, I'll learn how to make ordered lists, change font size, color, and type, change background color, and align text.

Finally, finally! at this point they address indentation, which is something I've been wondering about. If you were to look at good, proper code, it's all indented so that when you look at a line, you can clearly tell what the command is. If you look at my screenshots, on the other hand, my code is pretty messy-- quite clearly, I'm a beginning and trying to get function over style. I don't have much to show for this lesson, but it did give me a better idea of how to indent lines appropriately.

Moving on, the next part of the unit is ordered lists, and I was able to follow the instructions of using the <ol> and <li> commands to continue the ordered list that the site provided:

Now, what isn't evident from this screenshot is that I struggled a bit on this one. It's easy to get the different commands confused, and I mixed up the commands for the headings and the ordered lists. Headings are differentiated with numbers, <h1>, <h2>, <h3>, whereas ordered lists appear as numbers, but the command is the same each time: <li>. Originally, I was trying to set up my list as <l1>, <l2>, <l3>, which effectively got me nowhere.

In addition to some more practice with ordered lists, I've noticed that my indentation looks a lot better, my code is far more readable!

Again, the theme of this section appears to be "Minuscule changes to confuse Marissa," and next up on the list: The difference between numbered lists and bulleted lists is one letter! A numbered list opens with <ol>, a bulleted list begins with <ul>.

Pay no attention to the thoughts that plague me. I'm (mostly) kidding. But look at that bulleted list! Skills!

Funny thing is, I've started thinking in terms of HTML while writing this blog post. I keep thinking to type <br> instead of hitting enter, or <strong> instead of bold, or <em> instead of italics! It's becoming second nature!

Oooh, in this next section they're going full inception on me, lists within lists! This requires attention to the nested tags. Here's what I came out with:

Not too bad!

I didn't quite expect this so early on, but the unit moves into CSS, and explains it as the "skin and makeup" of the code, whereas HTML is the skeleton. This unit appears to be working with inline CSS, which works in the same file as HTML, so another document doesn't need to be incorporated. That being said, let's do this!

First up, font size:

And next, font color:

The next section is about font families, and I'm going to include this link, which Codeacademy directed me to. This is a really interesting page that shows different font options, and I enjoyed scrolling through it and seeing what my options were.

Progress!!

Next I tried setting a background color, which is another style command, i.e.: <body style="background-color:red;">. And check out this color blocking!

I realize this all looks very similar, but the slightest change in command means something completely different in HTML/CSS (think Spanish: Papa = Pope, papa = potato. Big difference there!)

This unit concluded with lessons on text alignment (center, right, and left), and then went into the <strong> and <em> commands, which I talked about earlier, and was already familiar with, so I'm not going to rehash that. But that was the end of Unit 2!

I am so excited to have picked up this topic for my project and, although I am ending my blog post on HTML and CSS here, I can see that the next lesson is in building a social networking profile, which is apparently something that can be done with a very basic knowledge of coding! I feel like I could go on and on with what I've learned, but I'm going to conclude with this:

It's frustrating to learn something like this from the ground up because you want to hit the ground running. I wanted to know how to make backgrounds before I knew the commands for colors, and each step is another building block. You can't speak fluently before you learn the vocabulary. I would absolutely recommend this experience to others. I think it's entirely accessible, and requires patience and determination. Codeacademy is an excellent resource which goes above and beyond to furnish each each unit with comprehensive explanations, and offers lessons and projects along the way. I also found that other sites were helpful in answering any "above and beyond" questions that I had that went beyond my current Unit in Codeacademy, and I found these through simple Google searches. Coding is a skill that I think should at least be appreciated, because so much goes into good code, and this isn't even beginning to scratch the surface. I can definitely see why Computer Science is so in-demand, and I have a better understanding of the allure that draws so many into this field.

Full of Sound and Fury?

Chapters 6&7 of Participatory Culture

In every age, people have found new ways to get involved and express themselves, and one of the great things about this new digital age is that it has allowed for the world to become even smaller. Jenkins' introduction makes note of this happenstance. He highlights that, even though he grew up and chose a political science focus in college, his personal interests allowed for him to draw parallels between traditional studies and the culture in which he participated during his free time. Studying law is one thing, seeing fans struggling with copywrite issues first hard is another-- it is at this point that the textbooks become real.

Jenkins also talks about how digital communities have become places where young people can learn about political, civil, and moral issues, and see what people outside of their own families believe. The conversation has transitioned from being around the dinner table to the whole world and the funny thing is, you don't even have to leave your house. Participatory culture has done great things in this sense, because it engages the youth in ways that haven't been available in the past. Jenkins says that "Youth have often felt excluded by the kinds of 'policy wonk' or 'inside the belt' language used by more traditional organizations" (157). This does not have to be the case anymore.

This introduction made me think of Tumblr, and the rise of the social justice warrior and, to be honest, I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the digital world opens up opportunities for participation in causes and learning new points of view and opinions, which is great, if you are well grounded enough to be investigative. If someone believes something, or has grown up their entire life in one kind of atmosphere, I think they should be challenged. If you're never challenged, how will you ever grow?

On the other hand, it is widely known that the "Tumblr social justice warrior" is not exactly the most grounded character. It's great that people of any age can go online and participate, but the risk here is that things can get disconnected and out of control. It's my worry that a lot of this participation is people who are jumping on the bandwagon of what is popular to complain about, without having any real life experience or knowledge to back it up. We've discussed this in class before-- by being able to pick and choose what news stories you see, what sources you look at, and who gives you information, are you getting a comprehensive view of the other side? That takes an extra step of work that I can only hope people are willing to take. Or, as was discussed in my presentation, talk is great, but action is what counts. It's great that younger people are taking an interest in causes, but what are they doing about it? Do you #feeltheBern, or are you actually voting? And if you are voting, do you know what you're voting for? Are you jumping on a bandwagon, or are you an educated citizen, understanding of both sides? Or are you, as the great Bard once said, full of sound and fury but ultimately signifying nothing?

Going back to the reading, youth participation cannot be ignored. I thought that Mimi Ito's example was perfect to show the power of youth, when thousands of students in LA organized a walk-out via MySpace, IMs, and texting, to protest HR 4437, the border control act of 2005. The media did not cover why the students left, instead it was framed as an issue of truancy. Ito makes a good case, "After years of complaining about teens' failure to engage in political issues, these teens did something pretty phenomenal and classically political, only to be dismissed and ignored" (159). That being said, no matter the organization style, this is also not anything new-- the rebel youth are the ones who often try to make a stand, are pushed down, but, historically, they do make an impact. Think of the hippies.

Later on in the chapter, Mimi again makes a point that I appreciate: "The challenge with youth-only or niche worlds is figuring out connections to other sites of power. Otherwise, they don't harness power beyond the specific community" (164). The things that are discussed sometimes don't the opportunity to be heard, because of the natural division. I had never heard of the Harry Potter Alliance prior to this chapter, but I learned that it partners young people with political elites in order to open up a conversation about public policy. It's pretty cool, in my opinion, that a generation of kids who grew up reading Harry Potter and writing fanfiction, are now able to take the ideas that have been cultivated within the community and present them to people who have a say in the laws of our society. Literature has always been a way in which people provide commentary on their respective worlds. If we read literature of the past to learn about the past, perhaps there is validity in looking at the literature of the present to learn how people truly feel.

Toward the end of the chapter, the authors bring up the Kony 2012 debacle, and I was glad for this, because it highlights my argument from above-- it's great when people get involved in a cause, particularly youth, but please, please, know what you're talking about. Kony 2012 and Invisible Children brought the horrific reality of child abuse in Uganda to the public's attention, but that story got so twisted and misconstrued that people now mention the movement ironically, and joke about "#kony2012." That's not what anyone wants, and boyd comments:

On the one hand, it's exciting to see youth play a central role in a global media phenomenon-- and many youth who were a part of the Kony 2012 project felt seriously empowered. On the other, it's a bit troublesome to watch youth be used uncritically to amplify a message. (175)

I appreciated the work that boyd, Jenkins, and Ito put into this book, and I feel that they portrayed youth culture in a welcoming light, which is refreshing to see in the midst of all of the concerns about the next generation. There were certainly cases in which I did not agree with the ideals put forth, but overall I enjoyed the discussion throughout the chapters, and the format gave the book an easy, conversational flow. A lot was covered in a little over 200 pages, but I feel that it was covered comprehensively. Our new world and the participatory culture that it allows for is a powerful weapon, and I think we will continue to see this more and more as time goes on.

Delving deeper- Participatory Culture Chs. 4&5

Chapter 4 of Participatory Culture in a Networked Era is called "Learning and Literacy." Mimi Ito introduces this chapter by talking about how learning methods are changing. We no longer live in a society where the knowledge has to be put into kids' heads, instead, she argues that "the educational agenda should focus....on supporting contexts where kids could belong, participate, and contribute" (91). I found that I could relate to the examples given, especially the ones in which the subjects did not thrive under traditional math instruction in school, but were able to problem solve in a real-life situation. For this reason, I both liked and agreed with her question: "Why should we be sitting kids down in rows to learn math in the abstract when it is both more engaging and effective to learn it in the real word or through meaningful social activity?" (92). Kids have so many more advantages now than ever before, and ways in which they can learn new skills and techniques, and it would be great if education practices were to keep up.

I found the discussion regarding participatory learning environments interesting, but I wonder if it is too theoretical? It sounds to me as if the authors are proposing that the system needs to be revamped (which is likely true) but, as we have discussed in class, there is a lot to the system and so this is much easier said than done. I am interested to hear what my classmates who are teachers have to say on this topic because, while the concept of a participatory learning environment that "respects and values the contributions of each participant whether teacher, student, or someone from the outside community" (95) is a fantastic idea, but is it likely? The authors do acknowledge that teachers have a lot of responsibilities in their roles as is, but it still seems that this may be a very idealistic model that would have to be implemented in smaller ways.

One of the things that occurred to me whilst reading this section was the importance of learning how to filter information, and I think that is a skill that should certainly be refined. The example was given of Wikipedia being a bad source of information-- whereas this is not true! Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for knowledge, and yet it is still stigmatized as being bad. Wasn't it Reagan who said, "Trust, but verify"? Wikipedia isn't a bad start, and can lead to great sources, so why are students still avoiding it like the plague?

Another good point that was made in this chapter was the abundance of "junk food content" that is on the web. If Buzzfeed, for example, is the perception of the digital news world, we're in big trouble. Or, a few days ago one of the top stories on my Facebook news was regarding a picture of an actor eating corn in an odd way. Why? This is what gives digital media a bad name! However, perhaps it is wise to consider that the same can be said of many things-- the salacious is what sells. Gossip rags exist for a reason. The search for quality knowledge amidst the junk is key. The quality is there, but let's just say they put candy and gossip rags by the cash registers for a reason--- they know we can't resist.

Stepping back to the idea of Wikipedia, because the authors take some more time to focus on it later in the chapter, this site is an interesting form of a participatory community. If one was to go to any Wikipedia page, he or she could click back and view the edits made throughout the span on the page's existence. danah boyd cites the example of the American Revolution as being a true example of collaboration, in which American and British historians had to work together on a hotly debated event in history to come up with an unbiased account. It is the inherent nature of Wikipedia as participatory that makes it more trustworthy, not less.

The question of participatory culture and collaboration introduced into the school environment is an interesting one.  Among other things, the authors talk about fan fiction, and mention how people aren't quite sure if something like that should be welcome in schools. They have defended it as being a creative way in which people are able to write themselves into the stories they love, but does it have a place? If writing fan fiction is the most likely way to encourage certain students to write, would it be a valuable contribution?
Fan fiction also leads us into the topic of interest, and which interests should be valued. I think that they make a good case that, yes, interests are crucial because they are ways in which a teacher can connect to his or her students. In a lot of cases, traditional schooling isn't going to cut it. Some students are going to need more, and the access that we now have to the digital world may be a way in which teachers can learn to better connect with their students.

Chapter 5 is titled "Commercial Culture," which immediately reminds me of the advertising world that I live in every day at work. Society is attacked by our commercial culture every day, and from all directions. And, if you don't believe that-- what does the below splotch of ink represent?

I rest my case. 

But I found it interesting that, although it doesn't tend to occur to me, we are attacked in a similar way by the digital world and social media-- it's everywhere we turn, and to see that laid out before me was eye-opening. 

 It is for this reason that I found danah boy's introduction to be a fascinating walk-through of the growth and development of the digital world, from the early days to where we are today. It was also in this introduction that I learned the definition of a new term- Web 2.0, which is the name for current social media. Considering social media in the sense of it being a rebirth from the imagined purpose of the internet was enlightening, but Jenkins staunchly argues that to synonymize participatory culture with Web 2.0 would be incorrect, and that participatory culture did exist prior to Web 2.0. 

Web 2.0 did represent a fairly fundamental rethinking of how cultural production operates under capitalism, though it did not make producing culture more democratic in any absolute sense. It did broaden who could produce and share culture; it did invite some discourses about responsibility and accountability that have helped to fuel current struggles over corporate terms of service; it did offer a model of cultural and social participation that many found enticing when the terms were first introduced. But those of us who care about the values of participatory culture need to be deeply critical of that move to capture and commodify the public's participatory impulses. (126)

The Web 2.0 discussion linked it back to capitalism, and the desire to make money (isn't that what we all hope for?) based on capitalizing on the things people seek, enjoy, and want, but the topic also came up that people utilized these tools to create better opportunities.

I've mentioned my shame-laden love of MySpace and, because of that, I enjoyed the discussion of the site that popped up later in the chapter. MySpace is, apparently, a prime example of early Web 2.0 and "the perpetual beta," that is continually being updated and reworked. On that note, I had no idea that the ability the edit the HTML of one's MySpace profile was a fluke! However, that turned into a major thing that MySpace was known for-- and, on that note, part of the reason that I am doing the final project that I chose! By learning how to get around the rules, people became enabled!

There has been so much over the years that has gone into the digital world, including discussions of what is ethically owed to creators. This is something that is still hotly debated to this day because, at the end of the day, people are driven by some kind of payment system. People want credit, praise, money, or all of the above, for the things they have created. And where does the copywrite issue fall in the midst of this? Surely, creators have rights to the things they have made, but how is this to be handled in the new digital age? It is certainly harder to keep tabs on, although the effort is certainly made.

The final discussion on legal regulations and policies is one that I hope we get to talk about more in class. This is a sticky topic, because raise your hand if you like government control? ...Yeah, not many people are up for that. As boyd says:

All too often, new policies are introduced for political interest, and those who are making the decisions do not have an understanding of the ramifications of what they're putting forward. Laws are introduced before technical systems have stabilized and before the public has really engaged with the issues at play. As a result, we see all sorts of unintended consequences, and make regulatory moves intended to protect vulnerable populations backfire.

This argument, along with my personal beliefs regarding government intervention, make me highly suspicious of any attempt of governing the online world. More than anything, what comes to mind is the following image, which littered my Facebook profile for a decent period of time when it was the topic at hand:

I look forward to discussing this further in class, and seeing what everyone else has gleaned from this discussion.

Youth Cult(ure)

This week, I will be presenting on Chapters 2 and 3 of Participatory Culture in a Networked Era by Henry Jenkins, Mizuko Ito. and danah boyd, and the supplementary reading I have chosen is "Vlogging, Teens, and Literacy: Engaging Youth" by Antero Garcia. I'm excited to talk about these chapters because I feel that Jerkins, Ito, and boyd do an excellent job of analyzing the youth and presenting their culture in a way that is analytical and appreciative of the Digital Age.

Chapter 2 is titled "Youth Culture, Youth Practices," and opens with an introduction by boyd, who speaks to the rather taboo-like atmosphere that surrounds youth culture in the Digital Age. boyd addresses the aversion and confusion that many older adults, predominantly parents, face when considering the implications of the foreign technology that has such a huge impact on the lives of the modern child. What I liked about the introduction however, is that boyd tied the modern fears to fears that once were relevant in the past, exemplified especially in the following quote: "Whether comic books were morally corruptive or video games made kids violent mattered less than the ability to drive fear through the heart of parents by suggesting that any new media would ruin their children" (32). boyd closes her introduction by explaining the collective goal for her, Jenkins', and Ito's work: "We are defenders of and advocated for youth, but many adults do not believe that youth are anything but innocent and vulnerable children" (35). This sounds about right to me. In the midst of us shaking our fists and exclaiming "Those darn kids," it's important to step back and see the bigger picture.

The writers widely found that the internet was widely colonized by the kids who were the "freaks, geeks and queers" (34), those who didn't quite fit in with their peers. They were the ones who stood out, who had interests outside of those that were popularly accepted. Some of these kids were the victims of bullying, but many had one thing in common, they turned to the online world to find community. This is something awesome that the Digital Age has offered, and the writer's give it the credit that it is due. Young people were able to go home and log on, and suddenly were about "to find others who share their interests without the constraints of geographic location" (38).

They talk in depth about the concerns that many parents have about the online world- the fact that age is not necessarily a factor in communication, that the ability to stay on top of everything kids are doing is lessened, and visibility is heightened-- by this, they explain, "that youth can be exposed to new ideas and new people, not just in the abstract, but through direct interaction. Some see this as a good thing, but plenty of parents do not want their children to be exposed to or interact with children who aren't raised in the same way" (41). This leads into my first discussion question: Is this a valid concern? In what new ways must parents now be aware of their kids, and how are they able to monitor?

Additionally, on the topic of visibility, the concern of cyber bulling naturally arises, however the writers cite research from 2012 which found that "studies regularly show that no increase or decrease in bullying is associated with the internet" (qtd. in 44). By turning off the computer, one is not decreasing the chance o cyber bullying, they are merely reducing its visibility.

The writers go to introduce the terms "native" and "immigrant" in terms of the Digital Age, and make interesting cases for these terms not truly conveying what they seem to convey. Society tends to hail the youth as being the digital "natives," they ones who have a better handle on the technology, and the older generations as the digital "immigrants," who are new and who flounder around leaving embarrassing comments on their children's Facebook statuses. However, the case is made that these terms are inappropriate. Historically, boyd points out, the natives aren't usually the ones who are hailed...they're the ones who become enslaved by the colonizer. And Jenkins further makes the case that we would never say to an immigrant, "You will never truly belong here." These are loaded terms, and I thought that a lot of work went into debunking them as valid categories.

Following this, the writers make a case for the digital world belonging to those who wish to utilize its power. They argue against the adults who bow out of participation via the "I was born in the wrong generation" or the "I can't use this, so you shouldn't either" approaches. Jenkins makes a strong argument against this by making the point that

Senior citizens form one of the groups that moved most aggressively into a networked culture; they have used the internet in innovative ways that support their own needs and lifestyles...to trade pictures, to have more regular contact with their grandchildren, to escape the social isolation of being housebound. They also play online games and buy more music online than young people do. (49)

 The internet isn't safe. Then again, neither is the world. If you go wandering around in a bad area, you're likely to end up in trouble, and the same is true online. However, Jenkins, Ito, and boyd argue that it's worth the risk, and it's worth the lesson. It's impossible to protect the youth from everything, and the digital world has so much to offer in terms of learning opportunities, and in interacting with all types of people. One of the most compelling points they make to this end is as follows: "Even when there are teens who are exhibitionists or engaging in risky behaviors, they're not representative of the whole cohort" (57). Well said!

The digital world certainly is different from the world that came before it. However, it is a grave mistake to dismiss it as silly, unsafe, or "just for the kids." To understand why today's youth like the transiency of Snapchat, or the brevity of Twitter, the best thing one can do is immerse themselves in it, and learn to understand the key difference between participating in public and being public.

Moving on to Chapter 3, "Gaps and Genres in Participation"! This chapter still sticks with the theme of youth, but focuses on the experiences that youth from different backgrounds have in the digital world. This chapter begins with an introduction by Mimi Ito, who introduces the term "genre" as a way to describe media genres and genres of participation in a community. She does this in order to set up three genres of participation in the online behavior of youth: hanging out, messing around, and geeking out

Hanging out is defined as what the vast majority of kids do online. It is friendship driven and motivated by a social connection with one's peers. Messing around is defined as kids exploring tools and techniques that are available online, to see which hold their interest. Some of the kids who participate in "messing around" will move on to the next step, "geeking out." Those who geek out what they have learned through messing around as a jumping off point to finding new interests. These kids are:

The fans, gamers, geeks, activists, and creative kids. these kids were driven toward specialized knowledge and getting good at something. They often get held up as poster children for the promise of the digital generation, but in reality they were a small minority compared to kids who were hanging out. (64).

The writers then enter into a conversation about the digital divide and the participation gap, and Jenkins posits that "However successful Americans have been at increasing access to the technologies, we have not made as much ground in providing equal opportunities for participation in the kinds of communities and practices being discussed here" (68). This was the entry point into a very interesting conversation regarding race in the Digital Age. Research cited by Ito explains that:

Black and Latino youth tend to lead in engagement with popular media like television and also digital media like video games...[they are] adopting and engaging at higher rates than their white and Asian counterparts....we can't pretend that access to digital technology is synonymous with access to elite power. (70)

I found their example of the Danger Sidekick of the mid-2000s to be a particularly interesting example of this point. According to boyd, the Sidekick was launched by T-Mobile, a carrier that targeted urban youth, and the youth responded in droves. Prior to any smart phone, the Sidekick was used for AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) and, according to boyd, became responsible for 1/3 of AIM's traffic. That's huge!

The topic of "connected consumption" also tied back into this theme. Connected consumption includes studies of how communities share resources though peer-to-peer markets, and maker spaces and hacker spaces are offered of examples of these. These spaces are community-run places in which people have the tools and guidance they need in order to create things, and connect with mentors. I especially liked the example of Jeff Sturges in Detroit. I looked up his website, it is now no longer in operation, but there is an active Facebook page. Knowledge should be accessible to everyone, and these spaces are a huge asset.

The chapter concluded with a discussion on the issue of invisible barriers of participation and, to be perfectly honest, this is where I thought that well defined points got a little dicey. The issue of class shaping taste was brought up in conjunction with the 2009 #racefail debate regarding the low number of people of color attending fan conventions. I think this is an interesting thing to consider, and the writers certainly draw attention to it being a concern, however I don't know that this is something that is easily surmounted because it's an issue of background. As one possible example, they suggest that:

People raised in different economic or racial/ethnic communities may have different degrees of access to cultural materials or practices. They may be encouraged to define or discouraged from defining their identities in certain ways, may be more or less likely to express certain fantasies or desires, and thus are going to be more or less likely to enter specific communities of practice. (81) 

If something is or isn't culturally something you might care about, or something you might be expected to care about, that will certainly dictate your participation in events concerning it.

And, in terms of gaps in interest, no matter how interesting "nerd culture" may be, not everyone is going to be into it. So that's a gap that I don't see closing, kids are always going to have different interests.

Geek and nerd culture is complicated because, while it is tied to academic and technological privilege, it doesn't have high status in youth culture, where interests like music or athletics are more dominant...The kids who do engage deeply in civic, creative, or academic interests and who form close bonds with teachers and other adult experts often get marginalized as the nerds, geeks, creative freaks.... (83)

And so, this leads me into my second discussion question: Do you think that the invisible barriers are things that can be surmounted? Can this appreciation be taught, or does it need to come independently?

Finally, moving on to my supplemental article,"Vlogging, Teens, and Literacy: Engaging Youth" by Antero Garcia, this ties in because the vlogger culture is a huge part of current youth culture. Most big-name YouTubers, and many who hope to build a name for themselves, make videos of themselves talking to the camera, on any number of topics. Off the top of my head I can think of ctfxc, who has made a vlog documenting his life every single day of the past 7+ years and has a Guinness World Record to prove it, Michelle Phan, whose beauty empire grew from makeup tutorials,  PewDiePie, whose gaming channel grew to be the most popular channel on YouTube, and so many more.

Of vlogging, Garcia makes two key points to start: 1) One size does NOT fit all, and 2) Vlogging is an ephemeral act.
The first of these means that different vlogs work for different personalities and different scenarios. You have to find the type that works for you. Secondly, vloggers have their fingers on the pulse of what is going on in culture. If they don't constantly update their content, they will get left in the dust. There's a long list of YouTubers who are has-beens for this exact reason.

The idea that our literacies are expanding stuck me as being remarkably true, especially when you consider all the new ways in which media is shared. Emojis can be used in place of words to convey emotion, some of the most popular videos on the internet are 7 second Snapchats and Vines, entertainment culture is shifting drastically. As Garcia says, "Youth don't want my MTV." It's here that I want to introduce my third and final discussion question: What are the implications of vlogging on the Entertainment industry?

I thought it was pretty perfect how Garcia references Henry Jenkin's idea of participatory culture within his article, and I think this fits in perfectly with what I discussed earlier regarding youth culture. Vlogging is a huge part of youth culture, most YouTubers will admit that their fans are their "bosses" (so to speak), because the viewers and their participation matters. Feedback is crucial, comments and likes are what make all the difference. Without participation, vloggers do not have a job.

Although the mediums have changed, it's really interesting to see what people find interesting in the changing world, and how this impacts our values and fears as a culture. I look forward to discussing this with all of you in class tomorrow!

Where is the li(f)e?

What's your favorite filter?

Mine's Valencia, although Lo-Fi is gaining in popularity on my Instagram. Or maybe X-Pro II? So many choices, and I can control them all. Isn't that cool? I can dictate what my friends think my life is like by pressing a button. In a matter of lighting, my hastily-grabbed cup of coffee before work becomes a relaxing stop at the local cafe, and a quick literary caption paints the image of spending hours musing over the works of my favorite authors. In one tap, I've built an entire li(f)e for myself, and an outsider might never know the truth.

I have an image in my head when I read the title of Chapter 2 of Jill Walker Rettberg's Seeing Ourselves Through Technology that looks something like this:

(Photo found here)

Filtered Reality. It's reality, but something is a little bit off about it. 

Rettberg raises a good point about filters-- they are generally used to remove what we don't want. On the most simplistic level, a coffee filter is used to keep the grainy, gross coffee grounds out of our morning (and afternoon and evening-- I don't discriminate) cups. Likewise, those handy Instagram filters lessen the features we'd like to hide. In popular culture, we don't just filter pictures, we filter our email, our social networks, and news sources. Filters have become so commonplace that in many instances we don't even realize that they are there. 

We live in a highly filtered culture. Most news cites offer a feed of "Top Stories," comprised of the stories that are popular at the time, the most shared, most read, most commented on. The rest of the stories on the site are still there, but the algorithms of the site push them lower down the list in favor of the stories that have more views. If we're only seeing what is popular, are we only learning the popular opinion? How is our awareness being swayed by only being shown the news that is popular?

Rettberg offers Reddit's up/downvote system as an example of a filtered system, and I can add Facebook, Twitter, and, most recently, Instagram, to the list. I have friends on Facebook who I never see and, due to this, I forget we are friends, because my likes and Internet tendencies have made it so the Facebook algorithms pushes them to the lowest priority. It's not even an active choice on my part, the social network does it all for me. Are our machines controlling us? Perhaps our dystopian worlds are not far off? (mostly kidding)

In the midst of Chapter 2, I found a particular paragraph that spoke to me-- I found it both interesting, and frightening. Rettberg says:

We cannot represent our lives or our bodies without using or adapting, resisting and pushing against filters that are already embedded in our culture, whether those filters are cultural or technological. Cultural filters change over time and are different in different cultures. We can and often do resist or change cultural filters, but most of the time we simply act according to the logic of the filter without even realizing that is what we are doing. (24-25)

The concept that we are so controlled is a scary one because it paints us as puppets, manipulated by "filters" well beyond our control. Going back to where I began, Rettberg comments that "One reason the filter fascinates us is that it gives the image that strangeness that defamiliarizes our lives. The filter makes it clear that the image is not entirely ours. The filtered image shows up ourselves, or our surroundings, with a machine's vision" (26). Following that thought, is my filtered cup of coffee trying to fool you into believing that my life is something other than it is? Or am I trying to fool myself. By looking at my life through the impartial camera lens, does it make it anything other than what it is?

Selfies can be raw and revealing. They can feel too authentic, too honest. Perhaps running them through a filter to boost the colours, overexpose the skin to hide its imperfections or give them a retro tinge is sometimes the only way we can bear to share these images of ourselves. (27)

This reminds me, almost unbearably so, of Frankenstein, when the monster says to Victor, "You are my creator, but I am your master." Are we too to be so controlled by the lives we create and dream into existence? What is this filtered lifestyle doing to our realities and our perceptions of the world? A recent article also comes to mind in light of this filtered, #instagood world-- Australian Instagrammer Essena O'Neill decided to walk away from the filtered life and, before leaving, edited the captions to many of her photos, explaining the emptiness and fake reality of the world that once consumed her. What does this say about the world in which we live?

On the flip side of all of these concerns, there is beauty to be found in the filters, and this thought occurred to me upon reading about #365grateful. Rettberg points out that an artful photograph of dirty laundry might remind us that there is a family to make that pile (okay, I know several people who would argue that they are perfectly grateful for their families and don't need the pile of laundry to remind them, but you see my point). This thought also led me to think about the past, and question if this world is so different from that of the past. After all, the Romantic poets certainly saw their worlds through a filter (if you follow my meaning). and we hail their work to this day. Is it so different? Aren't we also using our own filters for the purpose of making beautiful?

Chapter 2 ended with an interesting discussion on the racial implications of photography and the selfie. I had never considered the misrepresentation angle of photography in my view of filters and selfies but, especially when coupled with the discussion of photography and the African American community, I found that it raised an interesting case against the fears expressed in the rest of the article: "Taking selfies can be a way of avoiding cultural and technological filters that you don't like or that don't represent you in a way that feels real to you" (30).

Moving on to Chapter 3, Serial Selfies, I found that the abstract presented an interesting case for observing the full story, not just individual posts or pictures, but all of them combined, in order to attempt to understand the entire picture-- the entire person behind the profile.

I think about this a lot. A lot goes into the way one presents oneself on social media, and I often wonder what my profile looks like to those friends who don't know me all that well. Most of my posts are directed toward the people who I know look at my profile-- a moderately sized circle of friends and acquaintances-- but every so often I get a notification from someone who I barely know and I realize, they can see everything I post too. My friends know who I am, but what do I look like to those who don't know me?

Rettberg's study of the daily selfie is an interesting one, because it raises an interesting question of observation. Why do we like to watch the time pass via one snapshot a day? What are we hoping to learn about ourselves that a compilation of pictures might reveal? And further, how do people's responses reflect on the content we are putting out there?

I've seen some of these videos, but I decided to watch Rebecca Brown's video, mainly because her 6.5 year commitment impressed me, and made me think that she had a story to share. And wow, did she ever.

Beckie Brown's video is a poignant tribute to her life story, and it is a story that could not possibly be grasped in pieces. Just like life goes on, as do the photos, through the good and the bad. Brown used her story to raise awareness of her struggles, and further, to help people know they're not alone. Between the years of 14 and 21 are some of the most important developmental landmarks in a life. We see one snapshot from every day in her life through it all.

Pictures serve as representations of who we are, which is why Rettberg moves to her next topic, profile pictures on social networking sites, and ties this into self representation. Why do we choose the things we choose to represent ourselves? If the only thing a stranger could observe about my Facebook is a profile picture of my dog, or if a potential friend is looking to add me and sees a poodle, what must they think? And why would I choose that image as my social network "first impression"? These are all questions I have considered over my own social profiles, as well as in observing others.

When we are able to dictate for ourselves what is put out there, it is interesting to see what we choose. Regardless of filters or "the chosen selfie," there is a mindset which goes beyond. Getting to the root of why we do what we do has only become more complicated by the digital age and our new selfie culture. I look forward to further discussion of this in class!

White Flight and MySpace?

"White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with Myspace and Facebook"
danah boyd

The beginning of this article took me by surprise. I've openly admitted this before ,God only knows why, because I should probably be ashamed of my middle school self, but nevertheless, my entrance into the world of social media was widely influenced by MySpace. I was a huge fan of MySpace.com, and I never, not for a second, thought of it as being "ghetto." MySpace was the place where I and all my friends could set up our highly personalized profiles, upon which we would showcase our angle shots, poorly edited pictures, and unnecessarily emo music-- I don't know why 11 year old Marissa thought that My Chemical Romance "just got me" but oh man, she did.

So, for this reason, "ghetto" was a description I was surprised to hear coming from a kid who was the same age as I was at the time of the interview. Take into consideration, I've grown up in Elizabeth, NJ. The school I went to was by no means homogeneous in terms of race. The reason I moved on to Facebook my freshman year of high school, was because it was new and interesting. It was the next big thing.

boyd certainly put in the research to make a case for a more racially based view of things. I found what she had to say interesting, especially that digital environments are shaped by race and class in similar ways to physical spaces. I think this stands to reason, as ones digital life is typically spent with the same people they would spend time with in the real world. However, boyd also invokes the idea of "white flight," and draws parallels between the digital and the physical in order to show how "people's engagement with technology reveals social divisions and the persistence of racism" (4). This is where I jump ship on her argument. I think the concept of white flight certainly draws a provoking parallel, but it's going too far, and here's why:

People abandoned MySpace because it was no longer the new thing. People follow friends and fads and, on top of Facebook being the new kid on the block, MySpace was going downhill as a website. It didn't have a solid basis as a company, as it grew corporate issues arose and metastasized beyond control, it became too big and too bloated, along with several other death blows that are very well laid out in this article from The Guardian. MySpace was poorly handled and it fell out of favor because of that reason. People didn't drift away from it because of "white flight" to Facebook, they drifted away because Facebook had a future as a social networking site-- and this is coming from someone who, once again, would love to have her old MySpace profile back. MySpace was going downhill, and when Facebook became available to the public (aka anyone with an email address) in 2006, the site began to gain traction. Between 2009-2011, Facebook took off as the next big thing, and all others fell to the wayside.

That aside, boyd's research reveals that many different justifications were offered by the teens she interviewed, in order to explain their choice of one site over the other. Overwhelmingly, this had to do with preference in what the sites had to offer, usually based around where friend groups gravitated. It's an interesting thing to note that kids stay with kids who are like them or, as it's said, "birds of a feather flock together." This proves to be true in many realms and social circles, in school, and in life, it stands to reason that this would follow to the online sphere. boyd had the data to prove this, however, I don't think that noting this is admitting anything breakthrough. Of course people follow their friends, and they'll go to the site that is better suited to their needs and desires. The business failure of MySpace aside, if I had made my Facebook account in high school, and came to find that all the kids were on MySpace, I would have gone back to MySpace.

I think her article is well written and incredibly interesting, and it certainly made me consider racial implications. However, I don't think the case she makes holds water.

"Self- Segregation: Why It's So Hard for Whites to Understand Ferguson"
Robert P. Jones

This 2014 article takes us back to the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, a case which caused racial tension to boil and underlying instabilities to rise to the surface. It serves as an interesting juxtaposition to the racial conversation in the previous article, regarding the nature of races to group together. Sadly, the line between white and black seems to be becoming all the more bold every day, and is aggravated by more and more instances that seem to drive a wedge between the groups.
The area of New Jersey we live in is, luckily, very diverse. However this is not the case in many areas, as exemplified in this quote from the article:

"The social networks of whites are a remarkable 91 percent white. White American social networks are only one percent black, one percent Hispanic, one percent Asian or Pacific Islander, one percent mixed race, and one percent other race. In fact, fully three-quarters (75 percent) of whites have entirely white social networks without any minority presence. This level of social-network racial homogeneity among whites is significantly higher than among black Americans (65 percent) or Hispanic Americans (46 percent)."

It is important to expand beyond social circles to truly attempt to understand what the world is like beyond your proverbial front door. Every day there is a new news story that makes this case again and again. Much like the social circles of children, it would appear that adults don't tend to expand beyond the "birds of a feather" mindset. By acknowledging this mindset, we can attempt to work past it in all areas of life and see life through different eyes.