Monday 24 February 2014

Week 8: Remixing Story

Read more on the site here: http://www.remixmylit.com/



Week 8: Remixing Story
Required and Recommended Readings

Guest Lecture by Carolyn Guertin
n  Carolyn Guertin, “Handholding, Remixing and the Instant Replay: New Narratives I a Postnarrative World,” A Companion to Digital Literary Studies, ed. Susan Schreibman and Ray Siemens. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008.
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/companionDLS/
n  Carolyn Guertin, "From Karaoke Culture to Vernacular Video," Excerpt available in our e-class Moodle.



Watch this Learning without Frontiers talk by Malcolm McLaren which Carolyn mentions in her chapter.



Take a look at this poster presentation from Carolyn which sums up her key ideas:



Digital Prohibition: Piracy and Authorship in New Media Art from Carolyn Guertin


This week, rather than having several key questions for you to mull over as you read and interact with the week's content, I would like to present one idea from Marsha Kinder:

"Narrative is a cognitive mode in all human societies that we use to contextualize experiences. Cultures are kept alive through open-ended narratives. Each remix of a narrative opens space for the unknown, filters out the unimportant and determines new priorities."








Sunday 16 February 2014

Week 7: Transliteracy

This week our theme is transliteracy. Along with the readings noted below, you may want to peruse what Professor Sue Thomas and last term's students discussed and wrote about the idea of transliteracy. Just search last term's blog for the tag "transliteracy."




Week 7: Transliteracy
Required and Recommended Readings
A background to transliteracy based on the founding article (“Transliteracy: Crossing Divides) and examples of transliteracy in practise.

n  Sue Thomas, Chris Joseph, Jessica Laccetti et al.,“Transliteracy: Crossing Divides,” Sue Thomas, “Nature of Transliteracy.”
n  #transliteracy on twitter
n  The Transliteracy Research Group blog, http://transliteracyresearch.wordpress.com/


The ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks.”

The word “transliteracy” is derived from the verb “to transliterate,” meaning to write or print a letter or word using the closest corresponding letters of a different alphabet or language. 

The idea of transliteracy is really about promoting a unifying ecology. As Thomas explains, 
“The concept of transliteracy calls for a change of perspective away from the battles over print versus digital, and a move instead towards a unifying ecology not just of media, but of all literacies relevant to reading, writing, interaction and culture, both past and present.
 It is an opportunity to cross some hitherto quite difficult divides.” 
Transliteracy asks key questions about communication:
  1. How were people remembering and communicating for the thousands of years before writing?
  2. Where are the similarities with the way we communicate today?
  3. Has our addiction to print made us forget skills we had before?
  4. Can digital media reconnect us with those skills again?

Monday 10 February 2014

Week 6: Content Creation with Pinterest

Along with the readings for this week, please see my powerpoint lecture in our moodle.


Wednesday 5 February 2014

Listen up, Soon-to-Be Interns and Grads!

Millennials grew up in the advent of the social media phenomenon and were the proverbial “guinea pigs” of the technology. With all of the successes and excitement also came the consequences from liberally sharing information. According to Dan Schawbel, the founder of Millennial Branding, a greater number of recruiters than ever before are searching for their applicants on Facebook. The primary reasons include narrowing down the pile of candidates, searching for candidates who have a good “personality fit”, as well as ensuring that the candidate does not have any compromising photos or posts, which demonstrates poor judgement. Even subtle nuances, like whether or not the candidate complains in their posts can be viewed in a negative light (Ford, 2012).  


In much the same way that recruiters ask candidates to provide references to gain insight, searching for the candidate’s online profile is another validation method.  Whether or not it is ethical for recruiters to engage in this type of invasive, and even discriminatory, practice is not the question here; it can be inferred that if a candidate has an online social media profile, this is part of their overall personal brand that they must manage carefully because if it’s on on the web, it should be assumed that it’s in public view. This recent problem has sprouted new business ventures to assist Millennials in reversing their online mistakes, including a website called simplewa.sh (formerly facewa.sh) for Millennials to “scrub” their online Facebook profiles clean of potentially compromising material. The fact that millennial branding services, “facewashing” sites and other online and in-class resources are available to remove damaging content from the web demonstrates Millennials’ temporary shift and even “blip” in privacy considerations and the increased desire for young professionals to be more mindful of their privacy on Facebook.



Source:
Ford, E. (2012, November 15). Beware the Facebook x-factor; Saucy photos or rude comments could haunt you at interview. The Times, 10, pp.10.

This post is an excerpt from Privacy on Facebook: Fundamental Privacy Principles Prevail by Diana Brown (2013).

Happy 10th Anniversary to the Site That Changed How We View Privacy

Facebook celebrated it’s 10th anniversary yesterday and to say that the site has taken the world by storm is an understatement. As of May 2012, there were one billion active users on Facebook and eight out of every 10 users lives outside the of U.S. and Canada (Bertolucci, 2012). There have been books, pop culture references in TV shows and even a Hollywood major motion picture about the site, demonstrating just how prolific this social phenomenon has become. In particular, Facebook has had huge social impact, as well as powerful economic impact in today’s knowledge economy. Socially, Facebook has changed the way we think about sharing and interacting with individuals in a virtual format, as well as the routine and ritualized behaviours adopted by users, some of whom check Facebook multiple times every day (or every hour!). Economically, the new, real-time data collection and data mining capabilities for marketing and advertising has forever changed how companies learn about and target their ideal customers.


But all of this technological advancement comes with inherent risks; privacy concerns, in particular. In 2010, Mark Zuckerburg, Facebook’s co-founder, stated that privacy “is no longer a social norm” (Weinstock, 2010). But how can this be true? Has society gone from respecting privacy pre-Facebook, to giving up privacy in order to gain access to the online social world in just a few short years?



In my opinion, the short answer is: no.


Although Facebook has fundamentally changed how millions of users share information on the web, I believe that Facebook has caused only a temporary shift in societal views on privacy. Although Facebook users can have differing opinions regarding the amount of privacy they expect (and accept) online, all users still want the ability to control their information, demonstrating a common, universal belief that remains constant.


In a longitudinal panel of 5,076 Facebook users, there is quantitative evidence to support that as time passed, users demonstrated an increase in the desire for privacy, such as limited publicly-accessible data and personal information (Acquist et al., 2012). Users decreased their public disclosure on Facebook between 2005 and 2009, including increasing privacy settings and/or reducing and deleting their personal content on the site. The authors of this study likened users’ decreased public disclosure to an increased awareness of privacy risks related to online social networking, as well as an increased awareness of how to use the privacy tools available to them on Facebook.


Users have already demanded, and will continue to demand, increased control over their information. In 2006, when Facebook introduced the “News Feed” concept, many users were outraged that they could not control the information that would be broadcast, prompting the 700,000 member group called “Students Against Facebook News Feed” (Debatin et al., 2009). Facebook’s actions to privacy concerns are primarily reactive in nature, likely because hosting so many users, in so many different countries is uncharted territory any Internet site.


In 2009, Facebook decided to ask it’s users about their views on their privacy policies. This demonstrates Facebook’s understanding that users desire control over their privacy online and users want to control their data (Fitzgerald, 2009). Additionally, Facebook has provided more granular control settings over time, allowing users to specify exactly what information they want to be showed and to whom, indicating Facebook’s understanding of user’s desire to have an increased level of control over their data (Acquisti, 2012).


Facebook’s size and level of influence in the online communication community ensures that their actions will continue to affect and shape the way users expect commercial enterprises of the same nature to behave. Communication, education and awareness to remind everyone of the permanence of information online, as well as the ability for anyone to access, duplicate, disseminate information posted on the Internet for years to come must be made clear. Facebook has fundamentally changed societal and economic conditions in today’s knowledge economy, but one thing that hasn’t changed is society’s fundamental views on users’ right to privacy.




Sources:


Acquisti, A., Gross, R., & Stutzman, F. (2012). Silent listeners: The evolution of privacy and disclosure on Facebook. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality 4 (2), pp.7-41.

Andrade, N. N. G., Martin, A., Monteleone, S. (2013). “All the better to see you with, my dear”: Facial recognition and privacy in online social networks. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 11 (3), pp.21-28.

Bertolucci, J. (2012, May 18). Facebook’s history: From dorm to IPO darling. Informationweek. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1014210272?accountid=13631

Debatin, B., Horn, A., Hughes, B. N., & Lovejoy, J.p. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, pp.83-108.

Fitzgerald, M. (2009). The privacy paradox. CIO, 22 (14).

Weinstock, M. (2010). The new privacy norm: What exactly does privacy mean in a world where we can share our entire lives online? Hospitals & Health Networks, 84 (2), pp.20.



This post contains excerpts from Privacy on Facebook: Fundamental Privacy Principles Prevail by Diana Brown (2013).

Sunday 2 February 2014

Week 5: Facebbok, Identity, Memory & Narrative


Week 5: Facebook and Narratives of Memory
Required and Recommended Readings
Key Questions and Ideas
Facebook and identity
Collective memory
Time and perpetually online memory
  • n  Nathan Jurgenson. (Nov. 2012), “Glad I Didn’t Have Facebook in Highschool,” Cyborgology. http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2012/11/26/gla d-i-didnt-have-facebook-in-high-school/
  • n  Mickes, L., Darby, R., Hwe, V., Bajic, D., Warker, J., Harris, C., & Christenfeld, N. (2013). Major memory for microblogs. Memory & Cognition, 41(4), 481-489. doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0281-6

  • n  Zimmerman, H. (2012). Diverging Strategies of Remembrance in Traditional and Web-2.0 On-Line Projects. At The Interface / Probing The Boundaries, 83151-163.
  • n  Maia Szalavitz, (March 2013). “How Facebook Improves Memory,” Time. http://healthland.time.com/2013/03/01/how-facebook- improves-memory/