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”.