Feed

A feed connected directly to the brain.  News, products, advertisements, messages constantly streaming in.  What would this do to us?  What would become of our minds, our relationships, our culture?  It is clear that the lives of the teens in Feed revolve entirely around this constant supply of information.  There are some things about them that I find extremely disturbing but I worry that the teens presented in the book are only a small exaggeration on what is already happening to us.

The characters in the book have to be constantly connected or their whole world seems to collapse.  They are entirely bored if they don't have the feed on and lots of other people around.  They use the feed to talk to people who are right next to them instead of just speaking to them.  They can access any information they want whenever they need to.

These uses of technology don't seem to be entirely different from our own.  The book is simply made more extreme by the fact that the characters are literally constantly connected.  But it seems that we too rarely spend time alone and are almost always connected in some way.  Sometimes I instant message people who are only across the hall simply because it is convenient. And it's easy enough for me to find the information I need on the Internet.

However, there are some bigger differences between us and the characters in Feed  that are even more troubling.  Everyone having constant access to information means that everyone is essentially on the same level.  If everyone has access to any information they wish whenever they wish does it mean that everyone is extremely intelligent or that intelligence is altogether irrelevant?  I would argue that intelligence is on the decline for the characters in the book.  It seems that the characters, completely dependent on their feeds, are less able to express their thoughts and communicate effectively.  They constantly search for words, shorten them or just omit them altogether.  Indeed, save for Violet, the characters don't even write.

Moreover, the constant information occupies so much of their mind that they seem to have trouble concentrating.  If they can't even think with a clear mind then of course they can't communicate or problem-solve properly.  Without ever getting a break from this incessant barrage they are unlikely to ever be able to critically think about anything.

The reality is Feed, while in some ways not so entirely different from our own, is certainly more troubling.  It will be interesting to see how the story plays out.  So far, it seems to be a cautionary tale about what our dependence on technology could lead to.

Project 3 Draft: Social Media for Social Change

In the past few years, the Internet, especially social networking, has become a powerful tool for social change activists.  Due to its widespread and pervasive nature, the world wide web may seem like the ideal space for organizing campaigns or generating interest.  Certainly, when used properly, social networking sites can help generate buzz for a cause.  However, digital activism is not always as effective as one may think.  This is especially obvious in social media campaigns concentrated in the United States.  Due to the nature of social networking sites and the United States' media culture, social media has not been effectively used to create digital activism campaigns which produce long-term, substantial results.  In this paper I will: examine how the fast-paced, crisis oriented nature of the U.S. media does not allow for sustained problem-solving, explain the shallow nature of many digital awareness campaigns, explain how even well-designed digital activism campaigns are not sustainable and examine why social media as a tool for activism seems to be working better for foreign countries.

The United States media culture including social networking sites are formatted in a way that sensationalizes problems for a short period of time which affects the way people think about activism.  Rather than leading the public to examine the roots of problems and contemplate how to make substantial change, the media culture encourages the public to perceive events as crises on which attention is focused for an extremely short period of time before the media moves on to a new crisis.  This approach does not allow a widespread public audience to think about problems in a rational manner that could lead to progress.  In The Atlantic article, "Learning to Love the (Shallow, Divisive, Unreliable) New Media", James Fallows refers to this phenomenon as the emergence of "infotainment" which focuses on giving the public the news they when they want it rather than the news that may be most important (1-2).  This leads the media (and the public) to focus on the scandals that are happening in the moment rather than the long term problems.

The emergence of the Internet, especially social networking sites, has only amplified the shallow nature of news reporting.  The study "Your news in 140 characters: exploring the role of social media in journalism" illustrates the controversy over using sites such a Facebook and Twitter to report the news.  In part, the study concludes that due to the interactive nature of social media it could "create a richer news experience for the user" as compared to "traditional media outlets" which only have "one-way communication" (Stassen, 13).  However, it is difficult to tell whether or not this "richer experience" is actually happening.  The allotted 140 characters, little more than a headline, have to be used in an extremely effective manner in order to entice people to quit scrolling through their news feed, click on a link and actually read a full story.  Because sites like Facebook and Twitter were created for social rather than informational purposes, it is more difficult to get a person to stop and read a news story because they are not necessarily looking for news.  Therefore, if people do not actually read full stories this so-called "richer experience" may actually be a more shallow one.

The shallow nature of news reporting matters because it translates into shallow activism surrounding the problems presented in the media.  Rather than treating problems in a serious manner that deserve long-term substantial action, the public uses digital activism to frivolously promote a cause for an extremely short period of time.  This digital activism often takes one of two forms: either the entire campaign is ineffective or the campaign is effective in a widespread manner for only a short period of time.

The availability of news in just 140 characters has translated into the idea of promoting awareness in 140 characters.  Status updates are now seen as a way to raise awareness.  An example of one that has been floating around Facebook the past few days:

"All of us have a thousand wishes. To be thinner, to be bigger, have more money, have a cool car, a day off, a new phone, to date the person of your dreams. A cancer patient only has one wish, to kick cancer's ass. I know that 97% of you won't post this as your status, but my friends will be the 3% that do. In honor of someone who died, or is fighting cancer, or even had cancer, post this for at least one hour."

While that post is certainly a nice sentiment, it's not going to help find the cure for cancer.  Status campaigns of this sort tend to last a few days or maybe a couple weeks.  Much like the news media presents, they come and go as if these issues are ones that only need to be paid attention to every once in awhile.  Time Magazine commented on this phenomenon in an article about last year's Facebook breast cancer awareness campaign in which women were encouraged to provocatively post about where they like to keep their purse (i.e. "I like it on the floor").  This campaign, which was not the first of its kind, seemed "well-intentioned" but nonetheless "misguided" (Gibson, 1).  Campaigns such as these, which do not even overtly name their cause, are not going to result in any progress because they do not promote any real action.  Even when people are able to figure out what these statuses are promoting they still do not provide any link where one can donate to the cause or an event at which to volunteer.

The Washinton Post article "Facebook's Easy Virtue" explains the presence of such campaigns as a way for people to feel good for promoting a cause without actually having to do anything substantial and questions whether posting statuses and joining online groups are merely pieces "of virtual flair that members [can] collect to show off their cultural sensitivity, their political awareness?" (Hesse, 1).   In this sense, digital activism becomes more about the individual than the cause they are meant to be supporting.  Such shallow activism is common on social networking sites.  Digiactive.org, a website dedicated to social media activism, has published an online guide to Facebook activism in which it identifies the pro and cons of this type of activism.  It states that "dedication levels" are often "opaque" saying that "the low barrier to entry means that group size does not necessarily indicate genuine interest" making it difficult to "target those who are actually going to act" (Schultz, 5).  Therefore, because there are not limits to who may join a group there is also very little, if any, expectations for those people who do join.  Low accountability often means that very few people actually do anything to promote or support the cause.  A study of moveon.org, a social media political campaign which did both online and offline action, has shown that only 15-20 percent of members ever attended actual events (Eaton, 11).  Even the online activism, such as e-petitions, had little effect due to the popularity of such campaigns which end up saturating "the e-mail inboxes of politicians" who face "competing demands" (10).  While the moveon.org campaign certainly saw some success, it was not as effective as it could have been because online activism is unable to hold group members accountable or guarantee attention from politicians.  Certainly, activists are more productive and politicians more attentive when they primarily meet with each other face to face because there are higher levels of accountability.

 There are some social media campaigns which do see high levels of widespread success but they generally only garner this attention for a short time.  The mainstream public generally will lose interest in these campaigns long before the problems they address have actually been solved.  A recent example of this is the "It Gets Better" campaign which was started in response to the sudden press coverage of gay adolescents committing suicide.  The campaign is estimated to have led to the creation of over 10,000 videos in just two months (itgetsbetter.org).  It is difficult to measure the impact these videos actually had on gay teenagers viewing them but the response is nonetheless impressive.  However, this campaign, started in September 2010, has already fallen from the public consciousness.  The campaign continues for those invested in it in the form of videos, books, appearances by its founders and merchandise but the mainstream public is no longer paying attention.  Certainly, the problem of gay teen suicide existed long before the press coverage which led to this campaign and it is still exists now even though the public seems to have lost interest.  This once again suggests that the ever-changing news media largely dictates public interest in social issues and that people participate in these campaigns not because they are genuinely concerned but because it feels like the thing to do at that moment.

Given the only mild success of social media campaigns concentrated in the United States it should be questioned why social networking as a means for activism seems to be working in other countries.  Countries going through revolution, like Egypt and Libya, have found social networking to be a great resource.  In The Atlantic article "North Korea's Digital Underground", Robert Boynton explains how, in a country where Internet access has been largely barred, people are using alternative media to connect and gather information in order to liberate themselves (1).  The success of these countries in using social media for activism can be attributed to two factors: the solidarity of their cause and the emphasis on real world action.  First, the social media campaigns in these countries seem to be inherently stronger because the dominant ones on which the media focuses promote revolutionary, political causes.  Because the governments of these countries tend to be so oppressive everyone feels a stake in this revolutionary action because the problem affects all of the citizens.  On the contrary, in the United States, the dominant social media campaigns tend to address niche interests (Social Media: Online Activism video).  This means that the multitude of social media campaigns in the U.S., while covering more causes, are also inherently more divided because they serve very specific interests that are unable to attract people in the same way.  A multitude of smaller causes are not going to appear to have as substantial of success as a cause which an entire population is supporting.  Second, the dominant social media campaigns in the United States, such as "It Gets Better", are focused entirely online whereas the dominant campaigns in other countries are used to organize real world action.  In its guide to online activism, digiactive.org names "real-world action" as one of its key steps assuming the "intent is to have a real impact" (Schultz, 7).  People in countries facing revolution use social media as a means to communicate and organize events such as protests.  It is easier to create relationships and spur change when people are physically acting.  The actual presence of a large group of people all supporting a single cause imposes more pressure on people in power to actually change things than a scattered group of online supporters.  Physical action also makes it easier to measure involvement, commitment and success of activism.

In the United States, social media is not being used effectively to create widespread digital activism campaigns which produce substantial results.  This is largely due to the nature of U.S. news media and the inherent restrictions of social networking sites.  It seems that the divisive nature of media and the limited scope of social networks do not encourage people to become fully engaged in meaningful causes for periods that will allow for significant progress.  Rather, digital activism in the United States has a more frivolous nature that is more focused on self-virtue than actual change.  This is not to say that all social media campaigns in the United States are doomed.  It seems, however, that the campaigns that have garnered the most attention have either produced little change, quickly faded out of public consciousness or both.  In order for social media campaigns to become more effective, the producers of them will have to find ways to make their causes relevant to the mainstream public for sustained periods of time as well as motivate people to act in the real world rather than simply the virtual one.  Social media can be a great tool for activists when it is used creatively to generate interest and spur positive change.

What Is Real?

What is real?  This question kept coming up while a couple friends and I watched The Matrix over the weekend.  Not one of us had seen it before and we were driving ourselves crazy trying to figure out the various aspects of the movie and what it all meant or why things were certain ways.  At some point, after trying to explain things to each other became too frustrating we finally just decided to comfort ourselves saying "it's only a movie!"

Within the context of the movie it's easy to take that escape but The Matrix raises larger questions.  Not just what is real in the movie but what is actually real in the world?  What if everything you thought was true turned out to be completely fake?  The movie frames this question by providing a red pill which will reveal the terrifying truth and a blue pill which will allow a person to continue their dream existence is blissful ignorance.  Of course, Neo chooses the red pill; it wouldn't be much of a movie if he didn't.  But I don't think I would have done the same.

The blue pill seems far more appealing to me.  Not simply because it would allow me to continue on in the life I know but because I have a different definition of real.  Rather than "real" being something that is externally and objectively defined, I think that humans actively define our own reality.  The first definition of real would probably lead a person to the red pill but the latter leads me to the blue pill.  If my existence is constituted by a so-called dream world then so be it.  That dream world is real enough to me.  It is everything I know, it is how I have defined my existence and who I am.  The problems in this dream world are the ones that concern me and I am content to live my life in that world because it is what is real to me.

Moreover, if we constantly question our existence how long will it take before we drive ourselves crazy?  I mean, just watching the movie was frustrating enough to my friends and me.  To always be wondering if there is something else controlling us or something more real or powerful out there is too much for me to take.  The questions are simply too big and probably unanswerable.  Sure, it's cool to think about every once in while but soon enough I just have to force myself to stop because it's too much to think about.  I think it's more productive and realistic to concern ourselves with the existence we have been given and define ourselves and our actions based on what we know to be true in our own lives.

I do, however, see the rationale behind the red pill.  How are we supposed to solve anything or improve our lives if we don't ask the big questions?  Just from watching the first movie in the series it seems that a willingness to address the bigger problems may lead to a better or at least more true (by the first definition) existence for everyone.  It is certainly a noble thing to do and a tough fight.  It seems that how we interpret the problems that the movie presents largely comes down to how we each determine what is "real'.

Project 3 Proposal: Social Media for Social Change

For project 3 I plan to research how social media is being used to redefine traditional ideas about activism for social and political justice.  I am especially interested in how social networking sites such as facebook and twitter are being used to raise awareness around issues and how (or if) they motivate people to take action.  Due to the relevance that these sites have come to have in our lives and as someone who is interested in social justice activism I think it is important to explore the connections between the two. 

While I think that these sites probably have a strong ability to organize people and bring them together for the purposes of physical activism I am skeptical as to whether or not this is the way they are being dominantly used.  Sometimes I look down my own facebook feed and it seems that people think clicking a mouse is activism in and of itself as if changing your profile picture to a logo or "liking" an organization is actually helping anybody.  I worry that, instead of inspiring people to work for social change, social networking sites are holding people to a lower standard as to what constitutes activism. 

Therefore, I am questioning how social networking sites can be used to create actual change.  What implications does this have for the future of activism?  Does it change the definition of activism?  Is there any way that activism can be centrally focused online (without physical action) and still be effective?  While there seemed to be plenty of news articles and popular discussion on this topic, I had trouble finding academic articles that specifically addressed the connections between activism and social networking sites when searching through the databases listed on our course guide.  I found several that addressed online activism and organization but not in the specific context I was looking for.

Aaker, Jennifer. The Dragonfly Effect.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.

Aaker's book is advertised as a handbook for social change through social media.  She highlights how different corporate, political, and social organizations utilize social media in order to create a community that works for the social good.  I plan to use this source as a way of looking specifically at how online resources can be used most effectively as activism toward a socially just end. 


Berkman Center for Internet and Society.  "The New Change-Makers: An Introduction to Digital Activism." youtube.com. youtube. 23 June 2008. Web Video. 14 March 2011.

Published by the Berkman Center at Harvard University, this video interviews several different people currently involved in different types of online activism through social media.  They highlight why it is an effective strategy and give advice for how to use it.  The video is formatted and cut in an easily understandable way that highlights the role of the internet in modern activism.  I think it would be a useful piece of media to embed within the project.

 Calabrese, Andrew. "Virtual Nonviolence?" Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information and Media. 6.5 (2004): 326-338. Communication and Mass Media Complete. Web. 14 March 2011.

Calabrese questions whether or not the traditional idea of civil disobedience can be translated into the online realm.  The article looks at how things such as hacking could be used to protest within the online realm.  Instead of using the internet simply as an organizing tool for physical activism, this article looks at how activism could be turning into something entirely electronic.  I think this is important for a discussion of if and how activism could fundamentally be redefined by the internet.

Eaton, Marc. "Manufacturing Community in an Online Activist Organization." Information, Communication and Society. 13.2 (2010): 174-192. Communication and Mass Media Complete. Web. 14 March 2011.

Eaton's case study of moveon.org, which focuses in on political activism, allows him to see how organizations create online communities and then motivate the members of those communities into action.  He also looks at how the internet lets activists make things happen faster and on a wider level than ever before.  This article could be useful in discussions of both how the internet is effective in activism and how it has changed our sense of activism.

"Guide: Introduction to Facebook Activism." digiactive.org. digiactive, 28 June 2008. Web. 14 March 2011.

This guide published on digiactive.org is a simple layout of social networking as a means of organizing.  It lists pros and cons of online activism, gives advice and steps and looks at current social media campaigns.  I like this guide because it is accessible to everyone.  I may take some points from this guide for my project but if not I will probably still provide a link for it because it is useful in understanding basic points.
 
Hesse, Monica. "Facebook's Easy Virtue." Washington Post, 2 July 2009. Web. 14 March 2011.

This Washington Post article examines my question of how the majority of people actually engage with online activism.  Are they doing anything in the real world or simply clicking?  It takes examples of several popular facebook campaigns and asks users how they participated in these campaigns and what they thought about it.  This article will be useful in a discussion of whether or not the internet is being used for activism in the best way possible or if the standards are too low.

Finding A Balance

Recently, in class, we have been exposed to the works and ideas of several people who resist the pervasiveness of technology in modern culture in order question its effect on us.  Instead of immediately engaging with new technologies with excitement, people such as Sven Birkerts and Ted Kaczynski view emerging technology with an eye of skepticism.  Resistance occurs in varying degrees.  While Birkerts leaves some room for the benefits of technology and hesitatingly embraces it, Kaczynski denounces modern technology in its entirety and wishes to overthrow it.

While I may not always agree with these widespread denouncements of technology I think they bring up an interesting point.  It's easy for us to get caught up in the glamour of owning fancy new gadgets and we don't often stop to think about how they affect our daily lives.  My cell phone is always attached to my hip and I'm on the internet (generally doing something unproductive) quite often.  I rarely stop to think about these things.  Like most people I know, they are just a part of my daily existence. 

It's tough to imagine not being constantly connected though I wonder if it's really necessary.  Leaving my phone in my room for the day, for example, can be liberating but at the same time causes anxiety; what if I'm missing something?  I spent this past weekend at my sister's house realizing with dread when I got there that her wireless internet still wasn't working.  I spent my time there without facebook or email (because really? a wired connection? not going there) which, while annoying at times, also meant I spent my extra time reading a book for class instead of mindlessly surfing the web.

This leads me to believe that extremes in either direction are not the way to go.  While Birkerts' and Kaczynski's ability to resist technology is quite impressive I don't think it's the best solution.  I also don't think one should feel the need to be constantly connected.  For me, the best way to approach technology and connectivity is through moderation.  Don't completely resist it but don't be a slave to it either.  Especially considering that technology can also be used toward productive ends, I think it's important to find a balance in our use of it.  Enjoy it because its fun, use it in productive and convenient ways, and step away every once in a while. 

The Internet vs. the Private Self

Sven Birkerts is extremely wary of the effects that modern technology is having on our lives.  He has opened up a little bit over the years but as technology continues to become ever more integral to our everyday existence his old worries surely remain intact.  One of the central points Birkets raised in "Into the Electronic Millennium" is that technology causes a "waning of the private self."

The notion of losing one's private identity due to technology is probably even more true today than it was when Birkets first wrote his piece.  This is likely what Birkets would criticize the most about our current use of the internet.  The internet is so pervasive that it causes us to be connected to each other almost constantly.

We not only access the internet on our computers but also on our phones, ipods and other portable devices.  The most popular websites tend to be ones like facebook and twitter which make communication quick and easy.  At any given moment there are likely a multitude of different devices surrounding us that will connect us to anyone we know.

Birkets believes that so much technology means that we lose time to reflect on ourselves; a crucial aspect of the meaningful individual.  He described the danger of a growing technological world when he stated that "the expansion of electronic options is always at the cost of contractions in the private sphere."  The aspect of technology is our lives has definitely grown exponentially since Birkets wrote that.  The private self may have already diminished far more than Birkets could have imagined at the time.

Our constant, sometimes addictive use of the internet and communications devices probably frightens Birkets most of all.