30 Minute Vacation

The perfect weather is the only thing that can make the courtyard of the international center even better than it already is.  I was so glad that I chose this place to relax and take a much needed break.  As I sat there it was like being transported somewhere else.  I love the way the breeze flows through that area just a little stronger than anywhere else.  When I closed my eyes I could pretend that the streams of water falling through the fountain were waves coming to shore.  The voices of students sitting around enjoying an outdoor dinner on this beautiful evening turned into the sounds of people laughing on the beach.  Perhaps I'm just a little too ready for summer.

Nevertheless, it was nice to take a chance to appreciate the beauty of this campus.  Before I was student here, I used to come visit campus and just gaze in wonder at how perfect everything looked.  Now that I'm nearing the end of my first year here, I don't often look at campus in this light anymore.  I've gotten used to it.  Maybe I'm just too distracted by all of the other things I have to do.  I'm glad I got to stop and enjoy it again the way I would have a year ago.  It's good to be here.

I think that is what makes this world far more real than any online space ever could be.  I could never get the feeling of peace or the overall sense of contentment that I get from relaxing outside on a beautiful day from an online space.  Staring into a screen will never free my mind the way that the natural world does.  This world is what is natural to us.  Online space is a construct.  What we call the "real world" is real because it's the first thing that any human knows.  For all of its faults, it is the most pure.  It's the most true.  It will always be the place that we return to.  It is real simply because we know it to be real.  We accept its reality as a basic part of our lives.  I don't think an online space could ever offer us the same authenticity.  No matter how complex or immersive online spaces become, they can, at best, only mimic the natural world.  We will always know in our minds, I least I hope we will always know, that online spaces are a human created construct.  An imperfect alternative to the natural world.

In terms of the class, I enjoyed the first sections of the course the most.  Learning about the history of communications industries, talking about the ways in which we interact with technology and how it shapes our lives was very interesting.  I think those are the types of concepts and discussions that are helpful to understanding the technological world in which we live.  I found the later material on artificial intelligence and virtual worlds less interesting.  While it was good to include in the course, I felt that we focused on it too much.  Sometimes I felt like the later parts of the course became very abstract and speculative.  As someone who came into the class with little knowledge of technology other than the what I use in my everyday experience, these later concepts became difficult to grasp.  While they definitely challenged a lot of what the class accepts about the world and our use of technology (and for this purpose I thought they were useful), I just wish we had spent more time talking about concrete uses and effects of technology.  I'm really glad we had to blog for this course.  I'd never done it before and I think it's one of the best skills that I'll take away from the course.

Exodus?

As a make my way through Edward Castronova's Exodus to the Virtual World, I become more and more skeptical of his claims with every page turn. 

I have a problem with his base claim that a migration to virtual worlds is going to happen on a large scale over the next few decades.  I honestly don't ever see myself becoming that immersed in a virtual world and I sincerely hope that younger generations don't either.  While I think that it is possible that virtual worlds could become more prevalent, I doubt that they will take over to the extent that Castronova predicts.

If such a migration were to occur I think it would mean terrible things for human interaction.  Online interaction is inherently more shallow than real-world conversations.  Physical proximity to others makes interactions more personal and relationships stronger.  I can't imagine developing or maintaining substantial connections through the filter of a screen.

Another main assertion of Castronova that I also reject is the implications of game policy and development for actual public policy.  Castronova presented this topic as if the connections between the two were obvious and undeniable.  However, I think his claims are idealistic and doubt they hold any ground in the development of real public policy. 

Virtual worlds are far more simplified and controlled than the real world.  Castronova admits this in another section of the book but does not address it in his discussion of policy.  Game designers have far more power to control and structure environments than real world governments ever will.  It seemed to me that most of the policy designs used by game developers that Castronova highlighted would not transfer effectively to the real world.  In fact, I thought that most of them, if they were even able to be instituted, would be terrible for real public policy.  I am interested to read the third section of the book, "How the Exodus Affects the Real World", in the hopes that some of my questions will be addressed.

Castronova calls his book a work of "speculative nonfiction" and I think it will remain purely speculation.  The claims that Castronova makes seem far-fetched and unrealistic.  Clearly, Castronova believes that an exodus is inevitable but I don't think so.  I hope I'm right.

Project 3 Final: Click a Mouse. Change the World?

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.

An introduction to online activism created by The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.

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 a status awareness campaign that has been floating around Facebook the past few days appears here:

"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.  The statuses were meant to start a conversation but instead turned into a game of inclusion (those who knew what they meant) and exclusion (those who had no idea the purpose of the statuses). 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.

 

The first video for the It Gets Better Campaign created by the founder, Dan Savage, and his partner Terry.  It is estimated that they are now over 10,000 videos for the campaign which encourages gay adolescents to stick it out through the tough times because "it gets better."

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.

 

"Social Media: Online Activism" explains how social networking sites have led to the development of organizing around causes that serve a multitude of niche interests.

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.

Bibliography