Filed under: Reflections, USC Annenberg Program on Online Communities | Tags: Annenberg, annoyed, blogger, Blogging, blogosphere, blogs, L.A. Can't Drive, USC
Oh! What a weekend it’s been. I am trying to drill down into these final projects and in the midst of it I had to take my cat, Larry, to the vet. That got me thinking that someone should develop a web community for cats. Oh, wait…shoot.
ANYWAY, this week I am pondering a simple concept: Why do I care? Well, you may say, “care about what?” Good question – I mean, there is a lot to care about, but today I’m wondering why I care about reading so many people’s personal blogs. And by personal blogs I mean blogs written by and about one person where it is very clearly one person’s musings on a variety of topics – OR – blogs that are supposedly not really a one person show and go under the guise of being “newsy,” but really … it’s a one person show.
Before I continue I say that I am not an idiot – I get why people, in general, care about reading blogs. It’s nice to have the horse’s mouth sharing things about…things…and we in theory subscribe to and read the ones that speak to us the most and or appeal to some part of our sensibility. Like my husband’s blog…because it’s awesome.
But here’s the quandary … I subscribe to a bunch of blogs that I actually could not care less about … and I read them. I actually read the updates because I think I will get some sort of inside scoop into my industry … or life … who knows. I came to this thought today when I read Marc Andreesen’s latest post on his personal blog about the Series D round of VC financing for Ning. This guy who has what could easily be argued as a CRAP LOAD of money just got more money for this project/product, which, of course, will most likely eventually be sold for another CRAP LOAD of money. Sometimes his posts are entertaining. But, for the most part, it’s Marc just chatting about what is interesting to him, his take on starting a business, etc. Well – who cares? But I keep READING this stuff because of announcements like the one he made today … and it all comes down to this – I’m addicted to getting the news from the horses mouth. That’s why I subscribe to Lawrence Lessig’s blog (even though he’s awesome … not that Marc isn’t … I mean, I don’t know him … but I’m sure he’s cool), or Pink Is the New Blog (more of a personal narrative/breaking news combo than Perez), or Scoble’s Blog…Whatever, you get the point.
I’m annoyed that I feel tied to these people for my breaking news. I am annoyed that I continue to clog up my netvibes page with unnecessary feeds because I’m waiting for the once in a blue moon moment when someone says something I need/want to know. I’m annoyed that people announce pregnancies and engagements on blogs and then that becomes the “official source.”
I don’t know – today, I am just annoyed at the blogosphere (except Mike’s blog cause I’m TOTALLY BIASED). Does anyone else ever get annoyed at the blogosphere?
Filed under: Uncategorized
Check out the piece on the great divide between the Silicon Valley and Hollywood … this one is more financially driven … and I would also like to say that I’m not a blind follower of LA and the culture – there are a lot of numbnuts up in these parts. But, in the end … it’s my home and I gotta represent. 
Filed under: News, Reflections, USC Annenberg Program on Online Communities | Tags: Bloggers, Blogging, New York Times, Stress
I, like most people in the tech blogosphere, could not ignore the New York Times piece about the trials and tribulations of blogging and today’s bloggers. It’s actually a pretty dramatic piece … who knew blogging was so, well, dramatic. A good amount of the article is how two “among them” died recently from what will never, ever be proven as blogging related stress induced heart problems. A third, the well-known Om Malik, suffered a heart attack last December.
Ok – first of all – yes, the two men who died were young (50 and 60) and Om Malik is 45. And yes, they are all bloggers and coincidentally all had heart conditions. Now, I don’t want to take away from the drama of the article, but … isn’t there a chance that maybe … just maybe … the fact that these three men share a profession and had heart disease is a coincidence? According to my good friend Wikipedia, “as of 2007, [heart disease] is the leading cause of death in the United States, England, Canada and Wales, killing one person every 34 seconds in the United States alone.”
But, let’s say that these men did in fact get heart disease/failure as a direct result of their blogging lifestyle. Michael Arrington of TechCrunch fame describes how his blogging life has caused him to gain 30 pounds in the last three years, develop a sleeping condition and lose all sense of home as it now doubles as an office for him and a few other people. Here’s the thing – I get that blogging has officially arrived as a legitimate source of news and information … I also get that the level of competition is exponetially tougher than traditional print as anyone can have a blog about anything and scoop anyone. BUT … the kind of “dedication” these guys are describing is a little obsessive compulsive if you ask me.
Why? Well, a lot of it may have to do with how bloggers are paid. I didn’t realize a lot of them get paid per click or per piece (vs. a weekly or hourly rate). Some, like Arrington, seem to be driven also by the fear of missing out on the big breaking story … either for pride reasons or because you want to get all the clicks from being the first one to scoop a new story. This really started to resonate in me, because it’s something I’ve personally struggled with as it pertains to this space … it feels like there is no shame in admitting that a good percentage of this industry is driven by quantity not quality … clicks more than content. I get hundreds of feeds delivered into my netvibes universe everyday and a lot of it is pure dreck. Is most of what we’re getting fed to us spam so that the bloggers can just earn more money? I don’t know … but they obsessiveness of the industry does not make my heart bleed for those of the blogging community who do not carve out time to go to the gym, sleep … hello … they work from home … can you not take some time out to make a somewhat healthy meal?
I’m not as annoyed at the reality of the money grubbing blogging world – all industry is that way at the core. But why in the hayl does the NYT think this is some sort of breaking trend? The most hilarious part about this for me is how the blogging community itself reacted … most, I believe, thought the thinly veiled threat of blogging death was a little ridiculous. Marc Andreesen went on a particularly entertaining rant. Although there is definitely a permanent place for bloggers in this new world of the Web and the Net, it is hard for me to understand how the stress of bloggers outweighs the stress of traditional journalists – now or ever. Think about Woodward and Bernstein … they essentially brought down the executive branch of the government without any of the facility of our current technology … and you don’t see them talking about how challenging it was about gaining 30 pounds and developing a sleeping condition. I was a blogger in my former life and have friends who are bloggers … yes, I know they stress about being the one to break the story because of all the competition … but they are also really good at keeping life in perspective and not chaining themselves to their computers at all times.
I’m just sick of the sensationalism and the pity me stories. This was truly a ranting week.
Filed under: Facebook, Reflections, USC Annenberg Program on Online Communities | Tags: APOC, Facebook, friendships, Kids, Online, USC
I admit it – my post is late this week. I meant to do it before I took off for New York on Friday, but … alas, I did not. I’ve been doing a lot of general musings this past week – some about news pieces, some about the final project, some having nothing to do with class but more my non-online life and how much more difficult offline relationships are than online ones (trite? yes. fitting? sure.). One funny note from last weeks’ blogs that I could not ignore – Comcast made nice with BitTorrent the same week that a Second Life related lawsuit surfaced having to do with the copyrighting of virtual genitalia and virtual sexual maneuvers. It’s one of those things that makes you look around to see if anyone else saw what you saw and then make you scratch your head in wonder.
Anyhoo, back to my major musings for the week. As you all know, I have been a little pre-occupied with the idea of kids going online and how the online space is influencing their lives as it pertains to relationships with their peers. One interesting bit of information I gathered from my original conversation with my 9-year-old cousin was that when she wants to interact with her friends online, she talks to them about it first offline. Meaning, they’ll either make a plan to go online later in Club Penguin or Webkinz, or she will call them up and ask if they want to meet her online. What is striking to me about this is that there is still a distinction about the online life and the offline life, and to her there is still more value in that offline relationship (and I gathered this based on the fact that she doesn’t just try to engage her friends through digital means – she still picks up the phone and calls).
I, like Erin, was also intrigued with Facebook’s newest featured rolled out this week (the LinkedIn-esque “you may know this person” feature) and had the exact same reaction – it’s not that I didn’t know those people I may know weren’t on Facebook…because of the nature of the past relationships, both parties have up until this point decided not to engage the other. However, that isn’t to say there aren’t people I am friends with on Facebook and MySpace who I have not seen or spoken to in ten + years or who I have had tenuous relationships with (either presently or in the past).
But … which of these two scenarios is genuinly more reflective of what “reality” is even in a virtual state? I almost feel like by not engaging certain people who I actually do know but would prefer not to associate with on Facebook is ignoring reality – some of those people I interract with in my offline world and have to come face-to-face with them on a daily basis … why should I be able to avoid it online. Of course there are people on these sites who we are friends with who really do fall into a different era of our lives – people we knew in elementary school who we haven’t seen in 20 years … but we’re friends online. If online is becoming more of a reality, shouldn’t we in theory then still be friends offline?
I also got to thinking about how societally we are starting to rely on common web tools to alleviate the normal stress of relationships and not just communication in general. We all know that email has allowed millions and millions of people to keep in touch and maintain relationships that may have lost course had we only still had phones/letters. But I ask – if those relationships weren’t strong enough to overcome letters and phone calls, is it a relationship worth saving? Or - how meaningful is wishing someone “Happy Birthday” when all one needs to do is type it into someone’s wall on Facebook – is that person genuinly wishing another a Happy Birthday or is it something we feel we need to do based on these relationships we’ve forged online? What does it mean when a true, deeply routed friend stops calling or emailing and starts only communicating via Facebook? Are we getting to the point in time where we’re even too lazy to send an email? But then, even I sent someone an email tonight that maybe … just maybe … should have been said in a phone conversation or better yet in person. But it was too difficult and emotional – so even I used the crutch that is the web to alleviate the stress and emotion of what could have been a face-to-face encounter. Is this really making us stronger more efficient people or are we becoming weaker and less able to manage everyday relationships, conflict and stress because we don’t have to?
That was the gist of my musing for the week. But, on a side note, I am also feeling frustrated because I fear the main idea I want to tackle for my main project needs more time to be mused-out than I have before it’s due. So, I am still musing but am also thinking of some backup ideas.
I’d love to know people’s thoughts on any of this – anyone having similar situations with the final project? Anyone annoyed at Facebook?
Filed under: News, Reflections, Safety, USC Annenberg Program on Online Communities | Tags: Annenberg, Internet, Kids, Online, Parents, Reflections, Teens, USC
I feel like it’s been ages since I’ve blogged for class, and that is probably because it has been. A lot has happened in the last few weeks since my last entry – my three week vacation came to an end, I started my new job, I had a birthday, and I even put down a bid on a townhouse (by far the scariest thing I’ve ever done). But one thing that has notably changed is how much time I’ve spent thinking about kids and how they interact on the web. I previously had no reason to think about this topic before, and therefore…didn’t really think about it at all. And then two big things changed – I discovered that my nine-year-old cousin has become a huge fan of the Net and I started working for Disney.
All of a sudden, this understandable buzz-worthy topic is the focus of all my web-related discussions. It started with me finding the “Growing up Online” special at PBS.com. That special really intrigued me in respects to the dichotomy between parents and kids in terms of their perceptions of the web and how they perceive the web as being a part of their lives. That special really got me thinking about how we’re really in the middle of a culture shift here – the new “texting” language, the fact that kids feel safe to express their deepest fears and emotions in what is possibly the most public place they could go, and the reality that social interaction through avatars and pokes is as real as walking up to someone on the street and saying “hello.”
Then of course I start my new gig, and now kids on the web is officially all I can think about. I guess it was a meant-to-be situation. This week I read about KidZui - the new “kid safe” Web browsing tool. It seems fairly robust, and even though Walt Mossberg found some interesting hacks it seems fairly difficult to break the system considering the demographic (I don’t know many 9-year-olds that would try and get to The Wall Street Journal online).
There are several communities online for parents (and some for kids as well) to come together and discuss web safety. But, I’d argue that web safety isn’t the biggest threat at the moment. Based on research quoted in the “Growing up Online” special, a good number of kids and teens using the web know what is safe and unsafe online (i.e. something as simple as not accepting a friend request or an IM from someone who you clearly don’t know or doesn’t know any of your friends). To me, the biggest potential threat is this breakdown in understanding between parents and kids in terms of the overall relationship to the web. What does the web mean to kids, how do they perceive it as being a part of their lives (peripheral or integral?), how do their social interactions change depending on whether they are online or offline? I’ve been watching the new series on WE called “High School Confidential” for two reasons: I am still in withdrawl from losing 90210 and again, I’ve been on this kick about parents and kids growing up in these times. And although the special doesn’t focus on the girls’ relationships online it does show that parents are starting to understand that things just aren’t the same anymore, especially as it pertains to experimentation (drugs, booze, sex, etc). And because they are starting to understand that their kids are probably going to be exposed to way more than they were, they are talking about it more openly and earlier (at least in the case of the girl profiled last Monday). It’s just as important for parents to know what their kids are doing online now as what they do offline. Any ideas how to get the ball rolling on this?
Filed under: Reflections, USC Annenberg Program on Online Communities | Tags: French, Italian, language, mobile, SMS, text, Verlan
If the title of this blogpost reads like a different language to you … in some ways, it should. I have done a lot of thinking this week about “txt spk” or “text speak” for those who aren’t yet fluent. The thought process really started with the AT&T commercial where a family is playing scrabble and everyone minus the mother is using text language to play the game – including grandma. This is after I noticed a billboard around Los Angeles written in…yep, you got it, text language. I don’t remember offhand what it’s for, but it reads something like “how gr8 r u?” And today comes the New York Times article entitled “Text Generation Gap: U R 2 Old (JK).”
There were two things about all this texting fun that strike me in particular.
1. I don’t know if text speak could actually be considered a “new language,” but it is most definitely moving in that direction. The Times article refers to it as digerati generation’s pig latin. Not unlike pig latin, there is at least some logic (of sorts) inherent to the architecture of the language. However, when certain “text phrases” are spoken they are much more difficult to decipher than pig latin ever was. For example, the buzz phrase on American Idol for the past two weeks was “TMTH.” That’s it. TMTH. If you didn’t know what TMTH stood for (too much to handle)- or caught the blip of an explanation – you’d be totally and completely lost.
I even found a website that will translate “English” into “Txt,” and there is an SMS Language entry in wikipedia.
2. I started thinking about this linguistic evolution (or revolution) of sorts and became curious how other cultures and languages were adapting – or if they were adapting. Of course, it makes total sense that most other cultures also have their own version of text language as mobile phones are so prevalent in other parts of the world. There is a French texting language, an Italian texting language…I’m sure every culture that actively uses SMS technology also has a version of text language.
The thing that is so interesting to me about American kids (as those are the only ones I have exposure to) who are starting to speak text is that they are using it not unlike the French youth used verlan - as a secret language to keep information private among friends. Of course, this isn’t a new concept as the youth of every generation have found their own version of this (i.e. the aforementioned reference to pig latin). However, no other “youth language” has been linked to/stemmed from something that requires payment – i.e. those pesky usual fees that always seem to apply. I don’t know enough about the mobile industry to make a fair prediction as to the signifance of this – that mobile technology has ostensibly spawned a new language – but I think we will find out in a very short period of time exactly how telling that is.
So I leave you with this thought: wot did U tink of DIS post? teL me wot U tink… txt spk, of corS! lol!
Filed under: Entertainment, News, Reflections, The Networks, USC Annenberg Program on Online Communities | Tags: Bravo, Internet, NBC, Quarterlife, Video
This blog post is a little long, today, but this is a pent up musing I’ve been mulling over for quite some time.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about Quarterlife and what it means for the Inter-tainment (yes, a made-up word, but I’m looking to have it catch on) industry ever since Producers Marshall Herkovitz and Ed Zwick said a proverbial screw you to the networks and took their project online. I am of the belief that there is a general lack of understanding as to how to successfully merge these two industries – traditional entertainment with web technology/web sensibility. Yes, I know, thanks Captain Obvious Protector of the Known. But, I think this statement is made too often without really thinking of what it means.
It’s only relatively recently that more than a select group of Internet fans saw the Net as a place to go to be entertained. I think it was originally seen as a practical place that helped make life a little easier – emailing v. letter writing; online shopping vs. fighting the mall crowd; automatic calendar reminders vs. post it notes in a Filofax. But sometime in between doing all these wonderfully practical things, we started to become entertained by the web and looked to it as some of us had previously looked to traditional entertainment such as films or television. I personally spent hours on Ebay just surfing, in total awe of the type of junk people were selling from around the world. And let me tell you, it was darn entertaining (still is).
So we all know that television has made its way to the web in the form of streaming video, but there’s nothing more to it than watching television on the web. It’s pretty awesome, don’t get me wrong, especially when there’s a little downtime at the office (it’s my job, watching Doogie Howser on Hulu is research, I swear). But, until Quarterlife no one had really attempted to go to take a successful web show and translate it online. It makes total sense to me why some may think this was a no-brainer – if you can put TV shows on the web, why can’t you put web shows on TV? As odd as it may seem, that is like saying that because pumpkins have seeds shouldn’t they be considered a fruit and shouldn’t an apple be considered a squash? And, of course, the answer is no – because they are two totally and completely different things.
When I originally heard that Quarterlife had been turned down by the networks and being retooled for the web, I was intrigued. The demographic, distribution model and general framework was spot on for the experiment. And, for all intents and purposes it worked. I think it was also new, untouched waters so the buzz factor helped the Quarterlife community and fan base grow at an accelerated pace. Then came the Writer’s Strike, and whammo – Quarterlife was going on-air at NBC. Why was I conflicted about this? I knew in my gut that Quarterlife as it was online would not translate, and the idea that you can’t just throw TV shows online and web shows on-air would not be taken into account. You can’t take a poem by Proust and do a literal translation into English and have it make sense. I don’t think enough people understand that what is a success on the web needs to be translatedinto something that will be successful on-air. Quarterlife premiered and titanically tanked, resulting in NBC immediately yanking it off the air and sending it to cable. Albeit it’s going to Bravo, which is the cool aunt of cable, but cable nonetheless. This isn’t even taking the element of “Interactivity” into account that is so unbelievably crucial when dealing with a web series vs. an on-air program. Part of the reason Quarterlife is so successful online is because of the community that has engendered around the content, not just the content itself.
What really confused me, though, was the comments from Herskovitz that Quarterlife should have never gone to Network as it was too specific, and was better suited for cable or the Net. Well, if the show is aired on cable in its current state, I am guessing it will probably fail there as well. This comment actually frustrated me as Quarterlife was supposed to be for the web, first an foremost – not Network, not cable – the Net. Secondly, I fear it will deter people from trying to learn how to successfullydo these translated works and possibly just chalk up failures to anything and everything except the fact that no one took the time to figure out how to, in the words of Tim Gunn, make it work. You can’t just throw pasta sauce on udon noodles and call it spaghetti. Not every adaption of a book to a film works – but people have figured it out but people have figured it out for the most part. Not every translation from one language to another works – but people have figured it out for the most part.
We are about to see the birth of the new writer/producer – the web expert meshed with the TV expert. And I am so excited I will get to see the final translation.
Lessig has decided not to run. Check out his official statement on his blog.
Filed under: News | Tags: Intellectual Property, Internet Law, Lawrence Lessig, The New York Times
The New York Times ran an article stating that Lawrence Lessig may run for Congress. A very smart man once told me that if you’re frustrated with the way things are, don’t complain – either change things or get out. I love that Lessig may make a run for it. May the vote be with you.
Filed under: Google, News, Reflections, Safety, USC Annenberg Program on Online Communities, security | Tags: Google, IP address, Safety, security
In light of our discussion last week with Michael Overing, a piece I read in Ars Technica particularly stood out to me this week (in addition to the fact that I’m starting to notice a trend of me finding and blogging about posts in Ars Technica!). There is a new discussion in the world of the Internet as to whether IP addresses should be considered “personal information.” Google doesn’t think so. In an official statement from the company on their public policy blog, Google is saying that IP addresses aren’t “personal information” as much as “potentially personal information.” This has to do with the fact that while an IP address may in fact identify a machine, it is not identifying the person using that machine at any given moment. And, many people’s IP addresses change frequently (dynamic IP addresses vs. those of the static variety) if they are connecting to multiple networks. For instance, if you’re on a laptop connecting via wifi to various networks you are most likely working the dynamic IP angle.
The fact that this discussion is even occuring is interesting to me on many levels. First, it falls in line with the obsessive idea about protecting our privacy online and keeping people “safe.” While an IP address, I believe, cannot be considered in the same realm as a social security number, in theory the IP address could give away the location of the computer at any given moment it is being used – meaning, if someone were to track a stationary IP to the person holding the account and his/her address or phone number, that IP address has enabled the divulging of personal information. However, one could never use an IP address to identify a person, specifically as the address identifies the computer or the account holder but not the person using the computer at any given moment.
Specifically, though, I wonder why is Google so adamantly and openly opposing the notion that IP addresses are personal? I’m sure this may be common sense to some. However, in a search of the googling kind with the keywords “IP address personal security,” several articles or blog posts about this topic appeared on the first page of results, along with this posting from the Google public policy blog. While this finding could easily be followed with a “duh,” there are other major competitors to Google whose statements I did not find on that page or any of the subsequent pages – is that because they are terrible at SEO or because they haven’t commented on the issue? I’d put my money on the latter.
I absolutely see why this is such a hot topic – security, people’s private information, company’s or hacker’s being able to extract all that secure, private information - but what is in it for Google that they are actively seeking to have their voice heard here? I’m sure part of it has to do with the research they can gather via their cookies. Maybe they are trying to take an early stand against people getting too paranoid about web security – some may argue, of course, there is no such thing as too cautious when it comes to safety on the web, but that’s another discussion.
Personally, I am on the fence about this one. To me, IP addresses should not be held in the same regard as obvious “personal data,” such as a social security number. However, if that IP address could lead someone to gain that type of data about a computer’s account holder, then the line becomes very blurry for me. If someone is trying to use an IP address to track a criminal, I see the value in leading someone to a place – to a specific machine – but how could one legally argue that the person using the machine (unless it is the registered account holder) did any wrong doing on that machine? I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this.
