Smart Mobs: Flash Mob Style

In the articles by Howard Rheingold, he discusses how smart mobs are the next social revolution.  As he states, “smart mobs consist of people who are able to act in concert even they don’t know each other” (xii).  The way they communicate is through social media and mobile phones.  Large groups collaborate, share information, and plan to meet up to achieve some type of goal.  Rheingold argues how successful smart mobs can be when it comes to protesting and rioting for a specific cause.  However a recent fad in out culture, called a flash mob, has also been possible because of this smart mob mentality.  The following video depicts how unexpected these meetings can be and potentially used in a positive, entertaining way. 

Footloose Flash Mob-Original Recording

         This video took place January 28, 2011 at the Gyle Centre Edinburgh.  As seen above, a group of people showed up out of the crowd in the mall and started dancing to Footloose.  This was clearly planned out at a specific time, for a specific day, by a particular group of people.  Judging by the shoppers starting to gather and the looks on their faces, they were entertained by the surprise show.

Flash mobs tend work off of the element of surprise that smart mobs can make possible.  One person decides the dance and where it will take place then starts to spread the word via email, Facebook, or texting.  People are able to act together in a unified matter because of the new age of social media.  The people not included in the mob are unaware of what is about to occur and what point is trying to be put across until the smart mob's plan is already into motion.  Smart mobs are making flash mobs possible. This collaborative dance effort is a positive example of what a smart mob can achieve because of online possibilities. 

Dealing with Cyber Bullying Offline

             With new social networks, came a new type of bullying.  Kids and teenagers are not only bullied at school, but now in social networks as well.  Drama started in the classroom carries over to the digital world after schools hours because that is the new hang out for kids.  According to Marwick and Boyd, “drama is used to describe a host of activities and practices ranging from gossip, flirting, arguing, and joking to more serious issues of jealousy, ostracization, and name-calling” (2).  Drama is the word teens use to differentiate from the adult defined term bullying and is thought of as less childish (18).  In addition, a teen admitting they’re involved with drama is a lot less personal and embarrassing than saying they are being bullied.  Due to the seriousness of cyber bullying and its potential catastrophic effects, like suicide, it is an issue our society that must deal with immediately.  Organizations have been trying to influence policies and legal changes in order to prevent cyber bulling and it's effects.  In similar attempts to get students thinking about these issues, the movie Cyberbully, was premiered on ABC Family.  The movie trailer is posted below. 

       ABC Family-Cyberbully

             In this film, Cyber bullying destroys Taylor Hillridge’s life.  Her profile is hacked and nasty rumors are spread all over school.  She feels all alone and helpless when her digital life corrupts her in-school social life.  As her character develops, we discover that when she handles the “drama” in a positive way by seeking help from her mother, she takes charge of her life again. 

            The movie exemplifies how realistically online conflict can carry over to school.  Taylor could not find a break in being bullied because it followed her in school and out.  Even though she was being bullied through rumors and other lies, the trailer narrator does not use the term bullied, but uses drama.  This term is a unique strategy to reach out to a high school audience.  This film’s attempt to teach teens and kids more about how much cyber bullying can affect a person’s life seems to have been a success.  As the narrator said it is about “finding your strength and taking a stand against digital drama” (time stamp :43).  The film also emphasizes the necessity to ask for help when it is needed because there are others who care.  Overall, I personally think this movie was an easy, entertaining way to spread the word, educate teens about the seriousness of online bullying activity, and how to deal with it.  This video puts me at slight ease because there are attempts being made to encourage the younger generation to use the Internet social media wisely.  

People of Walmart Have Rights Too

            Siva Vaidhyanathan argues that although the Google service is easy and convenient, there are a considerable amount of disadvantages for the Web users.  Google affects users habits, opinions, and judgment because of the way the information is presented and ranked on the site (p. 2).  It also affects the use and distribution of users personal information. “Google makes its money by using our profiles to present us with advertisements keyed to words we search” (p. 83).  Our personal information is then targeted back at us through advertisements so they can promote items to users most likely to buy. This means that our information is being spread to others (including businesses) without our immediate consent.  Unfortunately this could open potentially shameful information or pictures.  Information that we did not even consent to may be shown to the public, our parents, friends, or teachers.  It is through the Internets spreadability and the ease of finding things through Google that creates a feeding ground for information.  Take the site People of Walmart for instance.

            Individuals who are shopping at Walmart are taking photos of other people there and posting them online.  The pictures are bizarre and what most people would consider, humorous.  They are usually depictions of what people wear or of abnormal behavior.  Most often it appears the individuals shopping do not know people are taking their photo.  Already we have a break in privacy because people have no say where this photo will go.  The pictures taken can either be distributed to Google specifically, or to any other website.  At the site listed above, there is a submission tab to upload such photos to the Internet. 

            As Siva Vaidhyanathan states, this is an infridgement of privacy because the individual has no control over information shared or their reputation of self (p. 93).  Also, because the Internet is such a vast source, anyone can identify someone they know, especially because their faces are not even blurred out.  These shameful images can change what the person’s parents, employers, or friends think.  The five major privacy interfaces begin to take a much larger role because survellience of that photo increases.  In addition because information is constantly being spread to different sites, the removal process of a photo can because quite daunting.  This may result in embarrassing photos continuing to circulate the Web and be seen by all.  Sadly, with “Walmart victims,” they may not even be aware they are on the Internet until someone they know stumbles upon it.  If you ask me, that is the scariest part.

A WORLD FULL OF CAMERAS

            The Challenge of an Open Society by David Brin argues that there are two types of cities that are bound to happen with in the next 20 years.  Both of these cities include tiny cameras over viewing everywhere in town.  However, the primary difference between these two places is who has the authority to view the videotapes, police or citizens?  The advantage from these cameras is that street crime has nearly vanished.  Although this is a great benefit for all of the citizens, it forces them to give up their privacy.  Privacy is about self-possession, autonomy, and integrity (Garfinkel, p. 323).  People who live in these types of cities can no longer regulate what they wish others to see.  Their lives will be watched whenever they go outside of their house.  The lack of control is a breach in human desire. 

So the question now becomes, which is more important, privacy or safety?  According to Jean Thomas, the homeowner victim, safety is the most important.  She and her husband set up a video home surveillance system to protect their house from yet another burglary.  The following YouTube video shows how she caught the robbers.

Florida woman watches house being robbed via internet. (1 minute: 29 seconds)

            As seen in the video, Jean Thomas was at work and logged onto her house’s live video camera feed to find her house being robbed.  She saw live two men breaking in and going through different rooms seeking valuable items.  As soon as she saw the men she called 911 to have police dispatched. “The video allowed her and the police to act swiftly” (1:11).  Soon after her call, the officers showed up and caught the robbers.  Because of this live video camera, Jean did not miss her Wii, new flat screen television, or a safe full of expensive items. 

             This is similar to King’s Lynn crime reduction discussed in The Challenge of an Open Society.  Similar to one of the cities Brin discusses, King’s Lynn installed video cameras in “trouble spots” in an attempt to reduce the crime rate.  King’s Lynn fall in crime rate followed in suit to the future cities.  The YouTube video I displayed furthers this argument because we can see a clear example of how beneficial cameras can be.  Although as Brin suggests, with this type of surveillance, comes intrusion.  If people are on camera they are constantly going to be scrutinized by viewers and held accountable.  As Brin argues in this article, people expect accountability from others but want privacy for themselves.  Applying this to the YouTube video, Jean Thomas could be putting herself in unknown danger by having her house under live surveillance.  Someone could hack into her website account and then watch her video feed while she is at home, compromising not only her privacy, but her and her husbands’ safety. 

With new technology, comes a new hacker

Police Raids Online

            As John Biggs argued in Avast, Me Hearties: How The Pirate Bay Changed The Way We Steal, The Pirate Bay is disappearing.  This is because the database of files is being hosted in an alternative way.  All torrent files are being moved off the site and are instead being placed on magnet links.  Torrent files are “files” that point to pirated content (p. 2).  Therefore, sites like Pirate Bay are no longer directly linking the consumer to the pirated content on their own site, but now becoming “the Google of content” and implicitly guiding the user (p. 4).  John Biggs ends his article stating, “We will never tame it.”  This suggests that no one will ever be able to control the pirated content and truly bring justice to the illicit sites and users.

            The following example is a news blog from torrentfreak.com that discusses what happens when PRQ police attempt to raid the file-sharing sites: PRQ Police Raid Takes Down Dozens of File-Sharing Sites.  PRQ is a Swedish Internet service provider and web hosting company.  This blog discusses how the PRQ police were searching for particular hardware of a copyright infringement.  In the process of their raid, they took down a number of streaming sites.  As of October 1, 2012 these file-sharing sites were all inaccessible, with an exception to Pirate Bay.  (Pirate Bay was having downtime, but it was due to power failure, not the raid). 

            This article further shows how illusive Pirate Bay is.  As Biggs states, it will never be tamed.  It will never be controlled because technically it is a guide to the torrent files and not a direct source.  Therefore, copyright infringements or intellectual property violations will not be found in the IP addresses of Pirate Bay.  Perhaps another reason the police do not raid Pirate Bay is because they are not targeting piracy in general, but the interconnectedness of private archives.  They are mostly confiscating files from the customers’ servers.  Consequently, sites that adopt loopholes, like Piracy Bay, will never be shut down permanently.

The Danger of Trusting an Amateur

            In The Cult of the Amateur: how today’s Internet is killing our culture, Andrew Keen discusses the Web 2.0 revolution and how the “noble amateur would democratize the dictatorship of expertise” (p. 35).  He defined amateur as someone lacking credentials or not making money in their field of interest.  Keen argues that this revolution has led to a cult of the amateur, where those who know the least ‘persecute’ those who know the most (p. 43).  Keen disagrees with Wales who states everyone should be given equal voice regardless of their reputations or qualifications.  Keen claims that content created by these amateurs threaten the very center of professional institutions.  He questions how we can trust such content when the writers are not held accountable for producing accurate or reliable information.

            This cartoon is set in a surgical unit at a hospital where the doctors seem clueless to how to operate.  The caption beneath the comic tells the nurse to go on the Internet and search what to do next.

            The comic verifies Keen’s argument that the Internet is full of amateurs and our society puts too much trust in their content online.  Because of this, we are replacing experts with amateurs, which reduce experts’ jobs and value.  This artist is also insinuating that not only have we replaced experts’ jobs online, but also replaced professionals’ jobs in ‘the real world.’  This can be quite problematic when we rely on professional assistance for a number of things, especially health.  We must not undervalue experts’ skills because the consequences may lead to a world full of amateurs who lack accountability. 

Does Facebook Cause Depression?

Sherry Turkle’s book, Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other, introduces the positives and negatives to our recent development of digital culture.  Now that connectivity to technology and social networking is the norm, it offers alternate ways for adolescents to experiment with identity (Turkle, p. 153).  Through sites like Facebook, adolescents can establish or alter their profile to fit who they either think they are or who they wish to portray.  As Turkle argues, this constant presentation of self on Facebook is a “particular source of stress because it is so important to high school social life” (p. 183).  She mentions that the web, instead of face-to-face interaction, is how teens are establishing sense of self and learning how to communicate.  This lack of face-to-face interaction can be seen as negative because online it is easier for people to ignore others feelings and not offer their full focus.  In addition, the constant need for approval and support can lead to a fragile personality (Turkle, 176). 

This news video reflects how ‘fragile personality’ and stress from Facebook can lead to much larger health effects, such as depression.

As Michelle Aycock, psychotherapist, states children question what is wrong with them when their own Facebook profile and activity does not match up to their peers (number of friends, number of likes) (time stamp 0:40).  Some teens will get negative feedback or comments on certain pictures they post and this can really cause self-esteem issues.  Teens also have misperceptions of their peers because others often share half-truths. 

          This video extends Sherry Turkle’s argument that Facebook causes stress in students due to the comparison of others’ profiles.  Especially because the teens need constant approval and their identity is not yet established, this could be very detrimental to their mental health.  Facebook does not cause depression, however, it is understood that Facebook can induce negative self-esteem, and that specifically, is linked to depression. 

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.