danah boyd's article on american class division through facebook and myspace was pretty interesting. as i myself am pretty new to social networking site-'facebook' and have never explored 'myspace', i can't really compare those two in my own words, but i've heard a lot about how immature and un-cool 'myspace' is.
what impressed me was the nature of division- it wasn't just a simple age division between highschoolers and college students. as boys suggests, there is definitely a socio-economic class factor embedded in the division. college-going youth from mainstream middle American background who grew up under parents with higher education, and youth from working-class families who are likely to stay in working-class lifestyle including those who are in the military.
what 'myspace' and 'facebook' attracts two divergent groups of teens is beyond just look and interface of those sites. it seems to me that it's a sense of being with like-mind or like-class peers.
being in a specific sns represents their class, status, ideas, future, etc.
well, i'm not sure if it's something really to lament over, as it has always happened in offline. the division of sns users is a continued pattern and reflection of the reality.
we, human being, are social animals, but honestly we don't socialize just with 'anybody'.
consciously or unconsciously, we 'deliberately' choose everything based on some sort of standards that we set as our status or identity. it can be applied to almost everything we choose- neighborhood, school, commercial brands, food, gym, friends, spouse, bars, work, etc.
what concerns me personally about the 'digital divide' is not who uses 'myspace' or who uses 'facebook'. i'm glad that at least both groups have access and knowledge to manipulate the user-oriented and participatory aspects of 'web 2.0'.
what i'm concerned about digital divide is the division between thosevwho have resources to use it and those who don't in the first place.
for many of us (living in a big city with corresponding lifestyles), having access and knowledge for the internet, web 1.0, web 2.0, web 3.0, etc, is taken for granted. but there're still a lot of people out there who don't or can't have this for themselves and for their children. i think this is troublesome.
and as an aspiring library media specialist, i think this make technology educatoin and digital/media literacy much more crucial than before. if left unattended and neglected, this divide will only grow further and eventually there'll be a great deal of individual and social costs as a result.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
web 2.0 and learning
i've heard of podcast, or podcasting frequently, but i've never subscribed to one and didn't really know what it is exactly. due to my laziness toward technology, i didn't really try to figure it out for a long time, and i'm glad that now i'm catching up with this.
reading Curtis Fox's article on podcasting gave me a good understanding of its origin and use, and more importantly, it reminded me of McLuhan's thoughts on the power of media in changing 'contents', or 'thoughts' of the user.
the traditional media outlets, televisions and radios, did not provide room for less mainstream and minority (not in the ethnic context) culture, and the emergence of web 2.0 brought out a second age of 'renaissance', in which people stop being mere recipients of what technology has to offer, but started interacting and connecting with other people on the web, thus creating new contents.
blogs ans podcasts are almost identical in nature, but the only difference is blogs reach out to people by text (writing), while podcasts do the same job by audio and video.
the concept and real-life application of the web 2.0 technology is, indeed, 'democratic'. it's 'technology', information' by the people, of the people, and for the people. no where in the history of human being, people have enjoyed more democracy and autonomy than now.
in conjunction of this claim, i think young students today shouldn't be deprived of opportunities of these benefits in the name of 'traditional' education. it is quite understandable that this new technology can be intimidating and overwhelming to some traditonalists, but i don't think it's right to treat it the same way as they treat drugs, violence, and sex. it is not only backward but also harmful not to teach students this new technology, because we cannot afford to mislead the 'maturing' digital natives who actually need to develop critical and directional tools in the sea of technology.
reading Curtis Fox's article on podcasting gave me a good understanding of its origin and use, and more importantly, it reminded me of McLuhan's thoughts on the power of media in changing 'contents', or 'thoughts' of the user.
the traditional media outlets, televisions and radios, did not provide room for less mainstream and minority (not in the ethnic context) culture, and the emergence of web 2.0 brought out a second age of 'renaissance', in which people stop being mere recipients of what technology has to offer, but started interacting and connecting with other people on the web, thus creating new contents.
blogs ans podcasts are almost identical in nature, but the only difference is blogs reach out to people by text (writing), while podcasts do the same job by audio and video.
the concept and real-life application of the web 2.0 technology is, indeed, 'democratic'. it's 'technology', information' by the people, of the people, and for the people. no where in the history of human being, people have enjoyed more democracy and autonomy than now.
in conjunction of this claim, i think young students today shouldn't be deprived of opportunities of these benefits in the name of 'traditional' education. it is quite understandable that this new technology can be intimidating and overwhelming to some traditonalists, but i don't think it's right to treat it the same way as they treat drugs, violence, and sex. it is not only backward but also harmful not to teach students this new technology, because we cannot afford to mislead the 'maturing' digital natives who actually need to develop critical and directional tools in the sea of technology.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
the internet and our intelligence
reading Nicholas Carr's article on the internet and google's business just reminded me of the two different arguments of mr.Postman and mr.McLuhan about the nature and function of media. yeah, it's all about media, whether it's nostalgia to print culture, adoration of electric medium, or ever-changing almighty internet.
i remember when the internet was first introduced to the general public and started spreading on an explosive & global scale. i was quite puzzled and also scared of the new 'machine', and did not know at all how it was going to evolve or whether it was going to stay or short lie.
the way the internet changed how people access and retrieve information is mind-blowing. beyond that, the way it enables people to communicate and connect each other totally changed my old habits.
i remember, as a young girl, loving writing letters to friends a lot and going to post office, buying stamps and finally putting them in the post box. i don't know how to describe the feeling of joy... now that i think of it, it seems like a long time ago, and to my sadness it's an activity that pretty much disappeared from my life, not because i don't like it any more but because the way we communicate changed. people just don't do it anymore.
of course, i do contact people frequently, actually more frequently than before via email and social networking sites, but the nature and content is different from that of letter-writing. maybe what i feel missing is deep thinking or deep emotion involved in the process, which is also what i miss.. i agree with Nicholas Carr on this point, and doubt how google's project of the artificial intelligent will bring these back to us. or do we want some sort of artificial intelligence to do our emotional and thinking work at all? then what's left for our own intelligence?
personally i'm not a crazy user of the net. although i use them on a daily basis, my use has limited purposes: checking emails to keep up with people and projects, and doing some leisurely and academic research. the internet is one of the playgrounds that i enjoy along with others such as television, movies, outdoor activities, and daydreaming, etc.
still, the modest use of the internet brought about some changes in the way i function. i can't say it changed the way i think or read clearly to what extent, but it certainly made me less patient. at some point, i stopped appreciating the speed and amount of information i can access and retrieve, and started getting really impatient, insatiable and constantly wanting more convenience. in occasions where i encounter problems with computer and the internet, i find myself reacting like an impatient monster.
the 'super' convenience of the net technology indeed gives us indescribable benefit: more information/work done in less time, but the benefit comes with a price: we're required to do more work in less time. the internet saves us a lot of time, then we should be left with more time for rest or other leisurely activities? is it really the case? i doubt it. we are way busier than before and life is a lot more complex, and work certainly didn't get easier.
the advance of technology gives us more work under the condition of saved time. this new condition created by the internet transforms the way we use our intelligence ultimately, as the author worries.
it's been some 13 years since the internet became an indispensable part of our lives, and much has changed during the relatively short span of time, and maybe we need more time to gauge the impact of it on our intelligence or we as a whole will be interesting subjects for research for our future generations. in a way we're being experimented in the grand scheme of the internet technology and i guess that's what it is for now.
i remember when the internet was first introduced to the general public and started spreading on an explosive & global scale. i was quite puzzled and also scared of the new 'machine', and did not know at all how it was going to evolve or whether it was going to stay or short lie.
the way the internet changed how people access and retrieve information is mind-blowing. beyond that, the way it enables people to communicate and connect each other totally changed my old habits.
i remember, as a young girl, loving writing letters to friends a lot and going to post office, buying stamps and finally putting them in the post box. i don't know how to describe the feeling of joy... now that i think of it, it seems like a long time ago, and to my sadness it's an activity that pretty much disappeared from my life, not because i don't like it any more but because the way we communicate changed. people just don't do it anymore.
of course, i do contact people frequently, actually more frequently than before via email and social networking sites, but the nature and content is different from that of letter-writing. maybe what i feel missing is deep thinking or deep emotion involved in the process, which is also what i miss.. i agree with Nicholas Carr on this point, and doubt how google's project of the artificial intelligent will bring these back to us. or do we want some sort of artificial intelligence to do our emotional and thinking work at all? then what's left for our own intelligence?
personally i'm not a crazy user of the net. although i use them on a daily basis, my use has limited purposes: checking emails to keep up with people and projects, and doing some leisurely and academic research. the internet is one of the playgrounds that i enjoy along with others such as television, movies, outdoor activities, and daydreaming, etc.
still, the modest use of the internet brought about some changes in the way i function. i can't say it changed the way i think or read clearly to what extent, but it certainly made me less patient. at some point, i stopped appreciating the speed and amount of information i can access and retrieve, and started getting really impatient, insatiable and constantly wanting more convenience. in occasions where i encounter problems with computer and the internet, i find myself reacting like an impatient monster.
the 'super' convenience of the net technology indeed gives us indescribable benefit: more information/work done in less time, but the benefit comes with a price: we're required to do more work in less time. the internet saves us a lot of time, then we should be left with more time for rest or other leisurely activities? is it really the case? i doubt it. we are way busier than before and life is a lot more complex, and work certainly didn't get easier.
the advance of technology gives us more work under the condition of saved time. this new condition created by the internet transforms the way we use our intelligence ultimately, as the author worries.
it's been some 13 years since the internet became an indispensable part of our lives, and much has changed during the relatively short span of time, and maybe we need more time to gauge the impact of it on our intelligence or we as a whole will be interesting subjects for research for our future generations. in a way we're being experimented in the grand scheme of the internet technology and i guess that's what it is for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
