Electronic Messaging

Nicholas Moyer                                                                                                                         EDU 681

Information Literacy Guide

One of the biggest issues facing many adult users, who did not grow up in the digital age, is understanding the benefits of sending messages electronically. Messages that are immediately posted on social media websites, and are designated for a broad audience, are called “blogs”. The action of sending multiple electronic messages is called “blogging”. What makes this form of communication so appealing to many users is that “blogs” are sent instantaneously and do not require the recipient to be online during the time the message is posted. The sender can simply type a message in the corresponding area of the web page, and once it is finalized the sender can press “send”. The message will automatically show up on the web page of the recipient, and will be ready to view whenever the receiver chooses to “log on” and view it.

This is in many ways similar to texting, another instantaneous method of communication. The primary difference is that texting is simply an electronic message you create and send directly through your cellular phone, rather than through a social media website. What also separates these two methods of communication is that texting is done to convey a message to a specific recipient. “Blogging”, on the other hand, allows a message to be seen by a vast amount of viewers. That is why we label “blogs” as a way to communicate from person-to-many, rather than person-to-person. There are specific ways to text large groups of people at the same time, and give them the ability to see each other’s comments and responses. But this in itself is just a hybrid of texting, and requires the group members to accept an invitation in order to be accepted into the group. This amalgam of texting still differs substantially from “blogging”, since only the people who have been invited are able to view the group texts. As technology continues to develop, texting is taking over as the primary method of communication; talking face-to-face and on the telephone are beginning to fade away. It is important to note that by texting (also by “blogging”) you do not have to continuously allocate your attention to people you send a message to and you also do not need to repeat yourself if you are looking to inform a broad group of people about specific news or information.   

Emailing is one other digital means of communication that helps expedite and simplify sending and receiving information. Email has many key differences though when compared to texting or “blogging”. First off, you need to be certain what email address the recipient has created. Even though you may be sending through a popular email site such as Gmail or Hotmail, any business or organization can create their own email address, designed for specific Web users whom are part of the organization or company. Additionally, it is important to be aware of who you are sending messages to, since one or more of the multiple recipients may not recognize your email address. This is due to the fact that it may have originated from a different company or organization. With such a broad array of email users from many different email networks, it is crucial to know who you are sending information to and who is viewing your email messages.

These are just three of the ways that help Web users hold the ability to send messages quickly and efficiently. There are arguments that these methods may hinder people’s grammar skills, since these electronic messaging forums often possess the ability to automatically tell you when words are incorrectly used or spelled. But if you consider the benefits of these communication methods, being automatically corrected is a small price to pay. 

Infrastructure

Infrastructure: Network Neutrality and Network Future

This writing serves as a book review for the scholarly journal titled, “Infrastructure: Network Neutrality and Network Futures”, written by Francois Bar, Walter Baer, Shahram Ghandeharizadeh, and Fernando Ordonez. The article focuses on the progression of technology and how the Internet came into existence. Interestingly, it does not just focus on where technology originated, but also where it is headed. Much of the piece uncovers the perpetrators who have hindered advancement and the changes we must make if we are going to evolve as digital consumers. 

It is hard to fathom how far technology has come. Will all the purposes we now use the internet for, it is hard to imagine that at its beginning stages we mostly went online for texting and emailing people. Now it has become part of our everyday lives. In the 1970s and 1980s, the internet was beginning to come into existence, and its early uses were implemented by Gopher servers. The internet is quite different from the traditional networks, cable and telephone, in two fundamental ways: there is a less controlled atmosphere for users and it is an E2E environment for communication. When we think about the internet, we begin to understand that we now have gained the freedom to watch and experience whatever we want; we are no longer adapting to predetermined programs and times. 

            Currently, the Internet still has a stronghold on viewer capabilities. According to Bar, Baer, Ghandeharizadeh, and Ordonez (2012), “..Comcast and Time Warner control well over 50% of the U.S. cable market and, instead of competing, cooperate so as to consolidate their regional monopolies” (pg. 113). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revealed staggering statistics in regard to broadband accessibility in the United States. Currently, the United States ranks fifteenth among developing counties when examining the percentage of users. But this can be a deceiving factor in some respects, since it includes people residing in rural areas. Bar, Baer, Ghandeharizadeh, and Ordonez (2012) made it clear throughout their writing that the duopoly of providers needs to be “contained”. There have been efforts made by companies such as Amazon, Ebay, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! to work towards more consumer protection, as many fear we could be facing the end of the Internet. It is not a new concept. Many have been weary of the control held by infrastructure owners, as they operate with the intent of controlling what people view. Staggeringly, when you combine the phone and cable industries, they still control 98% of the broadband market. 

With a third party ready to compete with the duopoly of TCNOs, we could begin to notice more affordability and a better infrastructure. What we need to consider and focus on is network neutrality. With a third infrastructure that is municipally-owned, costs would be more feasible. We show a lacking in broadband development, on a global scale, because of the unaffordability that has denied us a sense of empowerment. The possibility of social and technical innovation has ceased to exist. Bar, Baer, Ghandeharizadeh, and Ordonez (2012) made a good point when discussing an ideal scenario in which “strict rules forbid all network owners, telephone, cellular, and cable alike, to discriminate among users” (pg. 133). It is amazing that this path to inequity began as far back as 1969, when the U.S. Department of Defense first led us to TCNOtopic, and the first bits of information sped across the computer. 

This evaluation of technology at the current moment, and the explanation Bar, Baer, Ghandeharizadeh, and Ordonez (2012) provided when discussing its early history, were very “readable”. Newly introduced users, such as me, were intrigued by the historical background of the Internet’s development. It went on to explain further how new technology is soon to become more commonplace; new technological applications make it possible for passengers to transport themselves without having to set a hand on the steering wheel. I think what made the book a little confusing at certain points was how the authors included scenarios along with things that actually happened. At times, the only time I was able to distinguish between history and plausible scenarios was when the authors listed a year next to their timeline of events. It is obvious that technology is ever-changing, but it seemed the authors were anticipating change a little too rapidly. 

Bar, Baer, Ghandeharizadeh, and Ordonez (2012) anticipate that in 2017, cities such as Los Angeles will show “a growing number of people are driven by their AutoMata from place to place” (pg. 139). It was this anticipation that was a little unconvincing since many people are still dependent on their cellular devices, while the authors feel AutoMata will be replacing mobile phones by this year. They predicted as well that by 2014, GM and Ford will introduce the AutoMata software in all its vehicles while a multitude of drivers are still remaining responsible for their cars performance.

The population is growing in this world, so I find it hard to believe that vehicles can possibly avoid all reckless drivers and potential “surprises” without any assistance from the human drivers. An epidemic is still in effect among many media users, especially young adults and teens. Drivers are constantly distracted by texting while driving. Laws are being implemented to deter people from using digital devices while driving, but it is difficult to differentiate between using their phone and using one of the devices designed for their vehicle (i.e. OnStar, GPS systems, car video players).  The authors discussed the benefits of AutoMata systems, but we first have to resolve the current issues. I still remember the last time I visited my friends in New York City. Once I arrived and we began our trip to Harrisburg, PA, everybody was mesmerized by a different digital device in the car and we rarely talked. 

To truly provide ample resources for broadband users, we need to “shake things up.” There are ways to avoid the duopoly of local access providers. Universities, schools, businesses and other public agencies have bypassed this stronghold upheld by local access monopolies, by providing direct links from their internal broadband networks to points of presence on the Internet services. It will take time, but the dictatorship we now face from providers will eventually fade away.

References:

Bar, F., Baer, W., Ghandeharizadeh, S., & Ordonez, F. (2012, August). Infrastructure: Network Neutrality and Network Futures. Networked Publics, 109-144. Retrieved December 9, from http://site.ebrary.com.library.esc.edu/lib/empire/reader.action?docID=10251680&ppg=120

Adolescent Interview About Social Media

Week 11 Blog Post

Adolescent Interview

                This week I conducted an interview with four adolescents, each of whom was comprised of differing characteristics in regard to class, age, and gender. It is staggering how different opinions and concerns can be when you compare such a differing set of interviewees. I have always believed that in order to understand the effects of social media, we need to analyze how such media affects individual whose personal lives differ.

 The adolescents I interviewed were of the following ages: 12, 13, and 16. The interviewee who was 12-years old, George, was male and came from a working-class family. The remaining adolescents were each female and came from rather middle-class families: Tessa (13), Baileigh (13) , and Aiyanna (16). These children were asked the same group of questions in regard to their personal experience as Internet users.

I was baffled at the responses I received. Tessa, who was barely a year older than George, spoke with the eloquence of a college graduate. The verbiage she used was astounding to say the least. I started the survey off by asking subjects, “When did you first began using websites and/or social media as a way of locating information.” Tessa responded by saying she first started in 6^th grade, but has not used it for two years. When asked, “What are you looking for in regard to the ‘ideal’ website?”, Tessa responded, “Anonymous information, sharing things that only include usernames that aren’t going to reveal names.” It was mesmerizing that a child so young could already recognize the ramifications of putting too much personal information on the Internet. When I asked Tessa the question, “Is cyberbullying a big problem you see when you go online to social media sites?”, she replied by saying, “Cyberbullying, I see it a lot. It’s terrible. My school never does anything about it. I think it should be stopped.” Tessa’s response may seem “expected” to the everyday listener, but let us dissect the way in which she declared it was an “issue”. She had stated earlier that she only uses the Internet for about 45 minutes a week, and that she only used “Vines” of all social media sites, but still showed the empathy and concern for the rampant problem affecting many teens in today’s society.

George, the 12-year-old boy I interviewed, actually expressed he had a non-existent relationship with social media. I asked George, “Do you find it hard to ingest all the information people post online? When people comment on posts, what topics cause the most responses?” Though he was only one year younger than Tessa, and he first used social media when he was 9, he answered by saying, “I don’t use social media websites, only kid friendly.” Once again I was held aback. I have approached this class feeling that every teenager is obsessed with their phone and spends every waking hour commenting on their friends’ posts. But in actuality, the first two I interviewed do not even enjoy social media. I also asked George, “Do a lot of people you see in school choose to text rather than call? Do you feel it is easier to talk online or via texting rather than in-person or on the phone?” He responded by saying, “I do not have my own phone. However, I do see a lot kids using their phones at school.” The answer made me curious, can George’s disengagement from social media be simply because he is not in a position to own a phone, or is he another example of potential teens straying away from the “social scene”.

Traditional vs. Online Dating

Online Dating Sites vs. Traditional Dating
 

1.       How did you first meet people before turning to online dating?

Online Dating

Erin: “I tried to meet through another personal friend but it didn’t work out.”


Traditional Dating

Don: “Through work. People who worked with me were potential dates. We never talked on the phone. It was at work so we only met face to face.”
 

Susan: "We met at school and at work."

2.       For what duration of time had you attempt to meet someone online? How many dates did you have a chance to go on when using that method?

Online Dating

Erin: “Six months. Six dates. That is why I gave up on that thing. I talked to more people than I dated. I talked to ten guys and went on six dates. One guy I talked to on the phone and he hung up on me. Another said he was coming right over and never came. An Indian guy said I am setting up dinner and that he was setting up a hotel room. He stalked me when I said no. One other said he wanted me to be his ‘submissive slave’. A guy said he wanted to do sexting.”

3.       What did you find most appealing about online dating?

Online Dating

Erin: “Nothing appealing. It was interesting seeing if the person was the same person they said they were online. A lot of psychos. One said they just wanted to hook up.”


4.       What caused you to seek people online? 

Online Dating

Erin: “I was lonely and frustrated. Emotionally distressed. Just wanted a companion. I didn’t just go to the bar. I wanted to get away from the atmosphere of drinking.”



5.       What did you find most unappealing about people you met? Were you willing to give them a second chance?

Online Dating

Erin: “No, because they had the ego. Their personality changed when I met them. Some were very cocky and arrogant. They never showed interest in me. I had intuition and a vibe. The relationships didn’t last very long. I think this guy was seeing another girl. There was no trust. I felt a lot of them were dating people on the side. There was a lacking of communication. They could say it on the computer but they were hypocritical.”


Traditional Dating

Don: “All they did was talk about work, very focused. I was willing to look past a lot and give the person a second chance.”

Susan: “Pushiness. I was very willing to give people a second chance.”


6.       What did you like least about online dating? 

Online Dating

Erin: “They were not upfront about how they truly felt. They would just ignore you. They wouldn’t be upfront. Lack of communication. The guys lied about themselves and whether they liked you or not.”

7.       What qualities were you looking for when you first met the person?

Online Dating (in this case referring to the first time she viewed their profile)

Erin: “Honesty, smart, funny, easy-going, determined life goals, has no kids or baggage. One man online was married when he was talking with me online. People would put photos online that aren’t really them. They couldn’t hold a conversation. Bad grammar. A lot get this image that they need to perfect girl. They want the ideal body. She can’t be overweight.”


Traditional Dating

Don: “It was just their personality, my choices had nothing to do with other features. The people’s friendliness and education were the main qualities I saw.”

Susan: “Handsome, nice, interesting”


8.       What was the longest relationship when you met someone through online dating?  What were your longest relationships when meeting through other venues?


Online Dating

Erin: “Five months. But my relationships always ended online. I met another Nick through a mutual friend, Peter, and the relationship was 2.5 years.”

Traditional Dating

Don: “I didn’t meet anyone online. Four year when I met your mother.” 

Susan: “I never used online sites. I had three relationships, three at school and they were four months each.”

9.       How many dates did you go on?

Online Dating

Erin: “Six total but a lot of them didn’t make it to a second date. Two I went on a second date with and one I went on for a third date. A lot of them were unsuccessful after the first and that happens to a lot of girls. That’s the truth.” 

Traditional Dating

Don: “Ten dates. They were always through the method of getting the chance to meet in person without texting first. Most of them went well.”

Susan: “Forty dates I have went on. It should be ten dates before I considered someone trustworthy enough to consider them a girlfriend."



 

Media Literacy

Week 8 Blog                                                                                                            Professor Gal

                                                              Media Literacy

             Media literacy has often been identified as a subject matter that needs to be implemented in schools. The concept has manifested itself many ways throughout the readings. But what struck me this week was the insight provided by Henry Jenkins (2006) in his piece titled, Who Should Respond? A Systemic Approach to Media Education. This reading was one of the clearest pieces when it comes to suggesting concrete ways to include media in the classroom without leaving educators with overwhelming anxiety. Misinformed teachers (and there are many) often believe that implementing media literacy in the classroom requires them to teach even more concepts that they already have to cover. What many do not understand is that media literacy will transform and revamp subjects that are already taught in classrooms, which is one of the most crucial point.

            According to Jenkins (2006), one of the best ways to familiarize students with the myriad tools the internet has to offer, is by incorporating investigation with the internet in afterschool programs: “Afterschool programs should be a site of experimentation and innovation, a place where educators catch up with the changing culture and teach new subjects that expand children’s understanding of the world” (p. 61). When we think of the term “afterschool program”, many educators imagine students trying to better their understanding of what they have already been taught, not learning new technology. Marshall McLuhan (1970), who gave a lecture at the University of South Florida, titled Living in an Acoustic World, spoke a profound statement regarding knowledge. “Knowledge creates ignorance. It is only the very ignorant person can get past that problem because he is not fogged over by knowledge.” Maybe that is the epicenter of this whole controversy regarding the incorporation of technology in the classroom. Teachers are considered to be knowledgeable people, and by being educated they see no reason to explore different ideas, especially ones that are more recognized by the very students they are trying to teach.

          No longer can we really say that teachers have a monopoly on knowledge, and that can be a scary concept to some educators. We have entered a new participatory culture; one that really emphasizes GREEN’S approach to literacy. The wave of social media has created a new culture; a new dependence on technology to gain knowledge and explore the world. Therefore, we as educators need to accept the fact that technology has become a major part of children’s lives and focus on these key issues: how can we make sure that each student can gain the creative and ethical skills necessary to become a participant in today’s digital culture, can we teach children how to express themselves in a meaningful and informative way, and can we help children become a part of the online communities while welcoming other’s thoughts and beliefs.

References:

1.      Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. . Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. , 61. Retrieved November 19, 2016, from https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

2.      McLuhan, M. (1970). Living in an Acoustic World. Retrieved November 19, 2016, from http://www.marshallmcluhanspeaks.com/lecture/1970-living-in-an-acoustic-world/           

Ways in Which We Communicate

            Many of us have viewed literacy as solely being one's ability to read and write. Though with the recent introduction of advanced technology, we have begun to extend the meaning of literacy to include digital technology. As education begins to expand, so too must the proper teaching methodologies. Digital literacy is not independent of other types of literacy (write, read, mechanical skills), but implementing such communication techniques can lead to one's message being misconstrued. Such misunderstandings are commonplace, especially with the option of having visual media included in a text.

            Messages can only be considered successful and a viable means of communication when the recipient and sender both can make sense of a text’s meaning. Different cultural values can place a huge role in how a text is interpreted. With the Internet now pervasively spread throughout the world, an enlarged amount of people can view the same message. People no longer have to read the same news and look at things from a single point of view. In other words, they can search for news and/or information driven by like-minded people and never have exposure to the actual facts. The lacking of authenticity information has achieved via various internet sources, we need to be sensitive of one’s thoughts and opinions. This is especially true when we are communicating through the use of technology.