Social networks changed my life! And you can too...

***Note: I wrote this ages ago and forgot about it, so I'm posting it now*** These days it seems everyone's on a type social network site (SNS) described by boyd and Ellison (2007) in this week's readings. Even the most cynical of us have a Facebook page, or some even Twitter accounts - the latest craze, which seems to take social networking and blogging to its most basic level, which appeals to those who are just wanting to express themselves in a few sentences.

Of corse, there's a backlash to any new practice, and SNSs certainly have their enemies. I have a few friends who are not on FB, mostly men (but also a few females, who seem to be more weary-of than anti-FB), who seem to be very cynical about the power of SNSs, and quite judgemental of the users.

Indeed, there does seem to still be, in some parts of the community, a real anti-tech mentality. Perhaps it is a throwback to old ideas of cool and geekiness. Perhaps people see the reliance on computers as a sign of the apocalypse.  There's no doubt, I believe, there is still a fear of technology out there, the idea that computers are taking over, humans are losing their autonomy and uniqueness, that the computer will one day enslave us all and rob us of that thing we like to call humanity - yeah, because humans are so pure and innocent without computers. Sci-fi and movies like Blade Runner, The Matrix and Terminator have a lot to answer for.

Personally, I find people who can work with computers are generally quite 'cool,' and SNSs are used by many people to connect and reconnect with friends - quite the opposite to the stereotypical isolated socially awkward computer user of the 1980s-90s.

I'm always a little disappointed when someone says they are not on FB - how can I keep in touch with them?! Phone?! Please, I hate talking on the phone and messaging is wearing thin. There is really, for me, a shift towards Facebook becoming my primary source of communication with people. And I love it, it has changed my life. I'm now in direct contact with one of my best friends who lives in Geelong and I rarely get so see.

Of course, I'm a Facebook girl, I don't get Twitter. I suppose its good for those people who want a blog but dont actually want a blog. I have a Twitter account, as you can see on the right, but I rarey use it. I love the status update function on FB as it lets me see how my friends are going, but using the status as a broadcast tool is, for me, a little strange.  If I have something to say to the world, I want to say it through a blog, where I am less resticted than 140 characters. But that's just me, clearly people love it.

Well, not all people. Here's a link to the story I talked about in class, where the internet film fan community got all huffy about Twitter use in the cinema. They were annoyed as it threatened the romamce and sanctity of the movie-experience. And if its one thing I learned from my thesis, its that you don't mess with the 'aura' of the film experience for a cinephile. Tweet responsibly people!

Random musings over now.

Design, web narrative, and a little bit 'o post-structuralism

I quite enjoyed this week's readings, and especially found myself nodding along with Mark Bernstein's A List Apart article. I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with his argument that narrative was an important ingredient in creating a working, interesting, engaging website. In a practical sense I really feel he has a point, although he did remind me of some of the theories of Roland Barthes, like the 'death of the author' and non-linear texts. Barthes' very influential post-structuralist ideas were expanded upon and applied to hypertext theory by George Landlow. He used them to describe how to read digital online, hyperlinked texts, arguing that it was a realisation of Barthes theories. The argument is that when a user browses the web, there is no set linear narrative, they can click on which ever link they like, a 'choose your own adventure' thing where there are many different outcomes. While this, in theory, seems to ring true about the Internet, I think Bernstein's article shows that there is a clear intention of web intent makers to give websites a 'story' - a beginning, middle and end. In most cases the story is used as a selling tool, in the realm of websites being marketplaces. Which we of course know they are. Like many Utopian visions of the Internet, the idea of free hypertextuality - where readers can roam freely without the constraint of traditional conventions - is a myth. Designers play with our eyes, enticing us to certain parts of the page, making some links easier to find or more attractive than others. I often find that with some websites I have trouble seeing where to 'log in' - its often hidden in a corner or perhaps on another page like through the 'are you interested.' It sometimes make me wonder of the creators really want participants to the site. Like active users would just create more work so they discourage it. But that could be me and my conspiracy theories again.

I wonder if this debate is really real, or just in my head. Is the Internet really a free network of links where we as users are free to roam where-ever our little hearts desire? Or are we subconsciously funneled onto certain parts so we can 'read the narrative' of a website and use its services or products the way the designer wants us to. Is Foucault's biopolitcal theory of mass-management based on probable statistics at work on the Internet, the seemingly last bastion of the free? Have I lost the plot? Where did I put my shoes?

How *not* to argue for the Internet

This week's topic for class was a lot more up my ally; talking about users of media, audiences and the way media actually works in the world. Being re-acquainted with the old Chris Anderson Long Tail article was good. Anderson presents a compelling and solid argument, saying that the future of the market will be less focused on mass assumptions of popular tastes and more on niche markets. He says this is mostly due to the emergence of the Internet and the world Wide Web as a highly dispersed, fragmented and collaborative marketplace. Henry (yes I'm going to bring him up every post, deal with it) Jenkins has drawn on Anderson's ideas in his book Convergence Culture to extrapolate on his arguments about consumers becoming more active: "The Long Tail model assumes an increasingly savvy media consumer..." While one could argue that there has still been a push but media producers to sell big, mass-focused, one-size-fits all brands (I'm thinking Apple, Harry Potter, Marvel) I think even conceding this one would have to agree that niche marketing is used to sell even these products. Apple likes to promote there being a version of its brand for everyone, and you can enjoy Harry Potter as a book, movie, audio-book, video game, website, lunch-box, etc. The other reading I was struck by (unfortunately not as positively) was the excerpt from The World Is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman. Where do I start? I have to say I noticed a similarity between Friedman and Richard Dawkins: in that they both have arguments I agree with in general, but I wince when confronted with the ideas because they sound like one of those crazy people with placards on the corner of Bourke Street. Coincidentally: Happy Birthday Mr Dawkins for yesterday. Anyway. Basically, Friedman loves the Internet. He wrote a love letter to it and its many founding fathers from about page 59 onwards in his book. That's great, I love the Internet too, and I believe (perhaps too ideally) that it has great democratising power. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Internet is a predominately Western, developed-world phenomenon, and that perhaps the idea of it bringing EVERYONE IN THE WORLD together might be a bit unrealistic. I mean, when you think about world poverty statistics, it puts things into perspective. So Friedman is not only a little off the mark when talking about a world shift in economics due to the Internet connecting us all, but its also a little bit offensively insular. Pankaj Ghemawat also wrote much more succinctly and intelligently than me about how Friedman is overstating the transformation occurring, pointing out: "just a fraction of what we consider globalization actually exists."

I would argue that there are many new media scholars (off the top of my head, looking to my bookshelf) like Jenkins, Lev Manovich, and Terry Flew, who all acknowledge the enormous cultural, political and economic power the Internet has as well as recognising the facts of an inequality to Internet access.

I'd be really interested in your ideas on this topic.

PS. I love Last.fm