Soundscape

The Power of Smart Mobs

When looking back at international history, we will often see incidents of citizens overthrowing their dictating and authoritarian government. And still today we see this happening where citizens band together to stir up some powerful political action. However, the difference between then and now is the means of instigating the political action.

In Howard Rheingold's article, "Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution", he saw a future of people using mobile technology to cause political uproar and make a difference in the lives of many. This future he anticipated started to unfold before his eyes in 2000 and this future is now the society we live in today, almost thirteen years later. Rheingold defines smart mobs as people "who are able to act in concert even if they don't know each other, cooperate in ways never before possible because they carry devices that possess both communication and computing capabilities" (xi). Smart mobs are ad hoc organizations, meaning they meet on the fly. They are a decentralized organizational structure that is self-regulated and lack a hierarchy. These characteristics of smart mobs are what make them so powerful -- no one can see them coming.

One prime example of a smart mob was the Kony 2012 campaign promoted by the Invisible Children group. This group sought to bring awareness to the activities of Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army in Central Africa. Joseph Kony went around Central African towns kidnapping children to join his children army. Any child who tried to escape would be killed and the children in his army forcefully participated in the kidnapping and killing of others. To promote this awareness, the group created this video:

The video was uploaded to YouTube and the Invisible Children homepage with the intention to not only promote awareness of the Central African atrocity, but to inform the world of a global plan. Invisible Children planned a day in 2012 where people would attack the night posting KONY2012 flyers and stickers all over the world and they informed the world of this plan via this video.

This was the smart mob; those who participated in the KONY2012 campaign that one midnight in 2012. They were an ad hoc organization who were informed of the event with the use of the Internet. They could also document the event using their mobile technology to either record or take pictures. This ad hoc organizational structure sought to make a difference in the world by promoting awareness all around the world and make a difference in the international political arena.

Outrageous Parental Reactions to Cyberbullying

I'm sure we can all think back to a time when we were the victim of bullying. Bullying commonly takes place on the school grounds where the popular student either verbally or physically pick on the not-so-popular students. However, in this day and age, bullying has taken a new form. It no longer stays at school, but now extends to social media websites. This changes the scheme of bullying in the sense that there is a much larger audience to encourage, condone, or simply witness the bullying. The bullies can hide behind a screen and thus be more vicious in their verbal attacks. A relative issue is the reactions that some parents take when they find out that their child is being bullied.

In Danah Boyd's article "The Drama! Teen Conflict, Gossip, and Bullying in Networked Publics", she defines bullying as involving unwanted, negative actions, an imbalance of power or strength, and a pattern of behavior repeated over time (7). An article posted by ABC online news titled "Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen's Suicide" clearly emulates this definition of bullying. A 13-year-old girl named Megan committed suicide after being verbally bullied by her former friend's mother. The mother created a fake MySpace account in the name of "Josh Evans" and started an online relationship with Megan only to call her a slut, say she might as well kill herself, and break up with her in the end on the opinion that she is mean to her friends. The mother's intention was to teach Megan a lesson in defense of her own daughter but ended in Megan's suicide. The obvious issue here is the mother's reaction to her belief that Megan was mean to her daughter at one point in time.

ABC news also covered the story of a similar incident in the case of inappropriate parent action. Mother Debbie Piscitella intervenes when her daughter, McKenna, becomes the victim of Facebook cyberbulling. McKenna posted a photo on Facebook that received unwanted, cruel comments by another boy. The comments hurt McKenna so much that she had considered hurting herself just like in Megan's case. One day when the mother and daughter were at the mall, they ran into the boy who was bullying McKenna and Debbie started cussing him out as a way to tell him to stop bullying his daughter. When he said that he did not have to stop and he would not stop, she choked him.


It is outrageous the steps a mother will take to defend their child when it comes to bullying. Danah Boyd suggests that parenting today seems to require absolute belief that you're child is the best child ever and many parents think that their child can do no wrong and, thus, are unable to hear critiques of their own children. And that it is this belief that causes the parents to go to outrageous measures to defend their child, like Debbie did when she choked the bully. It is time for parents to take a step back and ask themselves if it is their job to get involved in bullying. And if they believe they must do something about the situation, reasonable and thought-out measures must be taken rather than instinctive, knee-jerk reactions out of anger.

Blind Faith in Google

In the world we live in today, we are all about convenience. We want things cheap, fast, and easy. We don't go to McDonalds because their food is high-quality -- we go because they make their food fast and it is cheap. We live in an impatient society. We get frustrated when a video takes more than five seconds to buffer. Similarly, we go insane when our internet is not working as fast as it normally does. We want everything handed to us immediately and easily.

Google makes this happen. It "seems to offer us everything so cheaply, easily, and quickly. But nothing truly meaningful is cheap, easy or quick" as said by Siva Vaidhyanathan in his book titled "The Googlization of Everything" (4). One of the dangers Vaidhyanathan introduces in his book is the fact that because of Google's immediate benefits to us, we are completely dependent on it and have uncritical faith in the most popular internet search engine. So much so that Google thus crowds out other alternatives to finding answers and "may cause us to miss opportunities to do things better" (6). Think about it. Whenever we need information, we immediately think to Google it. You see, Google is so widely used that it's meaning has expanded from a noun to a verb: to Google. We no longer seek other alternatives to retrieving answers or information.

I, myself, am a prototypical example. One such alternative to Google is the library. The library is the place of knowledge, of information. The library is where one goes to find information. Or at least before Google became popular. If I ever step in the library, it is to do homework in an quiet and suitable environment. Not once have I gone to the campus library to find information on a topic for class or anything else for that matter. If I am curious about a topic or need to do research, I "Google" it. You know why? Because I am dependent on Google. I have faith that Google will find me exactly what I need. I have this uncritical faith in Google because it rarely fails me. It has so much information, that I find it impossible to not find something relative to what I am looking for.

And this is one Vaidhyanathan's major concerns -- that we, as a society, will stop looking for other alternatives and become so dependent and loyal to Google that it will make us blind to anything else. Google will continue to have this power over us to the extent that even when Google does something immoral like invade our privacy, we will overlook it. And it is already happening because of our blind faith in this increasingly powerful and popular search engine.

Privacy or Convenience?

Right now I am sitting at my desk, alone in my dorm room, typing this blog post. But in the back of my mind, I feel that I may not be alone. I am using the Lawrence wireless network, so there could be the chance that an administrator of Lawrence University is seeing what I am doing online.

More and more situations like these where privacy is compromised when using technology appear in today's society. Simson Garfinkel writes an intriguing article titled, "Privacy and the New Technology: What They Do Know Can Hurt You" addresses the issue of compromising privacy with new technology. Garfinkel states the reality that we as a society are trading our privacy for convenience. That "in order to enjoy the benefits of modern society, we must necessarily relinquish some degree of privacy" (324). Think about it. Technology makes everything more convenient for us. We are able to turn on our laptops and shop without even leaving our seat. We are able to pick up our cell phones, make a call or send a text, and communicate with someone without having to see them face-to-face. We are able to go online and listen to Taylor Swift's new album without having to go to the store and buy it ourselves. But at the same time, we are giving up part of our privacy. Just by going online, advertisers are able to see where we go and target their advertising in that way. Furthermore, joining social media sites allows us to put our personal information on the web for all to see. Or even by joining websites and creating passwords, this information stays in the database for people to discover. There is always a way for people, like hackers, to discover your information.

France 24, an international news channel, reported the issues of privacy with Google's mapping application in their article titled, "Watching Yourself... Google's Watching You." With Google street view, you are able to explore places around the world through 360-degree, panoramic, and street-level imagery. Now, these images are taken by Google's crew and civilians are often captured in these shots and many people are not okay with this invasion of privacy. For starters, it is unsettling to know that an image of you is available for anyone to see on the web. But more than that, this means that you could be caught doing something you would rather the public does not witness. Cheating on your significant other, for example, or sunbathing topless. Anything that exposes you against your own will. You can see how this is a big issue as addressed by Garfinkel.

We may made need to make an important decision if we want our privacy secured. That could involve no more putting our personal information on social media webpages, no more online shopping, or maybe even stop paying with credit cards since our personal information is being entered into a database with each swipe. But this world we live in has made everything so much more convenient for us. We just need to ask ourselves if it's worth the privacy risk.

Stealing: Not Always A Bad Thing...

Your friend just exposed you to Young the Giant, an American indie rock band you've never heard before. You listen to their music and you love it. You convince yourself that you need to have your own personal copy of their music. So you go to your local music store and grab their newest CD and walk out without paying for it. Wait, that doesn't sound right. You wouldn't do that (I hope...). Instead, you go home to your personal computer and download it online. But isn't that stealing too? Well, there are two sides to that argument.

John Biggs addresses this issue of piracy, the unauthorized use or copying of another's work, in his article "Avast, Me Hearties: How The Pirate Bay Changed The Way We Steal." The Pirate Bay is one of the most popular torrent sites. It is database where one can find millions of torrent files. It is essentially a search engine pointing you to a selection of links directing you to sources where you can download songs, TV shows, movies... you name it. Oh, and for no payment. Sounds appealing, right? Well, The Pirate Bay has gotten much criticism because these files often point to pirated content. However, Biggs argues that "general 'free' piracy [is] a valuable tool, even an asset, in getting the word out" (3).

Now let me direct your attention to an article by Arstechnica. The article basically states that copyright holders are getting YouTube uploaders in trouble for using copyrighted content in their videos without permission. Now, these YouTube uploaders are able to reject that dispute. Why might they reject it one might ask? It could be because they genuinely do not believe that they have stolen the content. But, I believe it is for the same reason that Biggs poses. These individuals who upload videos on YouTube that contain copyrighted content are getting the word out about such content. YouTube has become a domain where people discover new music, movies, and information every day. I personally can attest to this. When I am on YouTube watching a video, often times I may like the music used in the video, search the lyrics, and find the title and artist of the song. That right there is doing a favor to content producers by helping educate the public on their content and "get the word out."

This ultimately leads to popularity of the copyrighted content (potentially international attention like Psy's song and video "Gangnam Style" gained) and thus more people may purchase such content. Instead of copyright holders focusing on the aspect of "stealing", they ought to focus more on the positive effects of this content sharing.

Convergence and The Relationship Between Media Producers and Consumers

Let's say you have a favorite show on television that you live and die by. You schedule your days around this show. But, much to your dismay, you have a prior, weekly commitment every time your show is on air. What are you going to do? An easy question to answer if you have access to the internet: you go online to watch the episode(s) you missed. As media outlets expand, we no longer solely rely on newspapers, the radio, or even television to gain access to the information we want and the shows we want to watch. Henry Jenkins addresses this reality he calls "convergence" in his book titled Convergence Culture. In the introduction, he defines convergence as "the flow of content across multiple media platforms" (2). Now that media is uploaded online, media companies are required to rethink what it means to consume media and, furthermore, must accept the fact that if they want to remain relevant and popular to the public, they need to adapt to these technological expansions.

Take most TV personalities. They have expanded their medium of media (I know, difficult to say). The Ellen DeGeneres Show is not solely visible on TV anymore. She acknowledged that her audience is not only in front of their TV screens at home, but they are now online. For this reason, she adopted her own twitter where she not only tweets random happenings and thoughts during the day, but also interacts with her followers. She also has her own YouTube channel where there are uploaded snippets of her shows as well as additional footage. New and old media are colliding. Media producer and media consumer are now interacting.
Ellen has even brought YouTube users and "stars" on her show, thus representing the increasing interaction between media producer and media consumer. Ellen brought two little girls from YouTube on her show who performed the song Super Bass by Nicki Minaj.





Due to the impact of media companies expanding the potential markets across difference popular platforms, Ellen is appealing to a wider audience and allowing for this interaction between media producer and media consumer. This convergence is highly important if Ellen wants to remain in business and connect with her audience. Some of these media companies or successful franchises "originate on television, on the big screen, some as books, and some as games, but each extend outward from it's originating medium to influence many other sites of cultural production" (19).