Facebook Disease

Recently, there has been a significant increase in the number of users of online social networking sites. What are the reasons for such an increase? In addition to using such websites as a method of socialization, people also use them to express either their true personalities or, in many cases, idealized versions of themselves.

I believe that the most unique element of online networking websites is the ability to “take a break” from reality, allowing individuals to hide themselves behind their computer monitors and exhibit idealized versions of themselves. Having used Facebook for the last two years, I have noticed people using increasingly cheesy language toward each other in their commenting and wall-writing habits, pretending to be excessively friendly with each other. Such a tendency is scarcely seen in “real-life” society. In many situations, individuals hide their tense relationships with polite, friendly behavior on Facebook.

When updating profile pictures, individuals often use the opportunity to show off. People often use Photoshop to improve their appearances in pictures, perhaps by clearing acne, adding a tan to their skin tone or whitening their smiles! Is superficiality the true meaning of social networking?

I do not oppose the idea of idealizing one’s public image, as it actually helps individuals to construct their personalities. However, I believe that these online habits further encourage people to live dualistic lives. Such a phenomenon could potentially inhibit the healthy growth of society. Can you think of the many differences between our real-life relationships and those with our Facebook friends? Do we really have over 100 friends in real life with whom to share our feelings, experiences and emotions?

By being aware of the disadvantages of online networking, we could further enjoy more its benefits. As an American writer once said, “Let us not look back in anger or forward in fear, but around in awareness.”

Online Technology—A Solution to Separation Anxiety?

In his book, “You Are Not a Gadget,” Lanier argues about the similarities between human neoteny and technology. Human beings require attention, socialization, networking and the sharing of their experiences and feeling; technology provides such opportunities to many people. Social networks and blogs allow people to obtain extensive attention from other individuals. Therefore, one of the most beneficial effects of Internet use is the ability to minimize experiences of separation anxiety.


“Young people announce every detail of their lives on services like Twitter and Facebook, not to show off, but to avoid the closed door at bedtime, the empty room [and] the screaming vacuum of an isolated mind,” Lanier said.

Considering my personal experience with Facebook, I have to admit that I am totally agree with him. I share my feelings and emotional status with my Facebook friends in order to receive attention, yet strangely, I become poignant whenever I don’t receive any comments (which indicate support) on my emotional status. I use Facebook as a tool to fill my loneliness.

Despite the utility of such an online networking service, I remain unsure as to whether or not such a tool is an effective method of resolving separation anxiety. I mean, really, are a few comments on a social networking site (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and MySpace) truly capable of emotionally satisfying an individual?

In 2009, I read a story about a Korean pop star, Jay Park, regarding the incorrect interpretation of a comment he made on MySpace. A Korean publication had misinterpreted his comment, and, as a result, he was immersed in a frenzy that was so controversial, he decided to leave his band—2PM—to return to Seattle. After he left, his media image quickly changed as the press and the public discovered the misinterpretation of his comment. He swiftly gained sympathy and support internationally, resulting in silent protests in many countries. His album soon became one of the most popular topics on social media sites, such as Twitter.

I believe that there is a big difference between who you think you are and who you really are, as a user of online social networks. Therefore, whatever attention or support you receive online is not truly intended for you. Thus, to a certain extent, it can be argued that such attention cannot be reasonably considered as support. When you are sitting in an empty room and begin to feel lonely, your Facebook friends may temporarily entertain you, causing you envision an escape from your isolation and anxiety. However, in truth, you would remain in that empty room, with nobody beside you.

Thinking Twice About Social Networking Websites

People have established varying relationships with technology. Some rely on it for the purposes of financial gain, while others use it for social networking and Internet dating. There are many people who would prefer to seek love on the Internet, rather than conducting a search in real life (by which method they would have a better chance of interacting with people).

Imagine this: I am sitting in a classroom, sending text messages to my Facebook friends and writing on their walls. By doing this, I am not interacting with and paying more attention to the students around me, and, as a result, I am not befriending new people. In my opinion, the Internet does not fill the gap between people—instead, it simply enlarges the distance between to a greater degree.

I have more than one hundred people on my list of friends on Facebook, but in the real world, there are less than five people with whom I regularly hang out. Although there are people who regularly interact with me on Facebook, many of them ignore me in real life, which is quite odd. I suppose the new culture is developing new methods of social and physiological interaction, which might not be very beneficial to human beings.

In reference to the idea of Internet dating, I believe that individuals who engage in such behavior exhibit weakness—they choose to hide behind monitors while expressing their feelings and chatting with anonymous people (who are generally oblivious to the legitimacy, physical status and psychological status of the individuals with whom they speak).

A friend of mine once began an Internet relationship with an individual who resided in France. Without even seeing him, she fell in love with him and decided to travel to his country to finally visit him. However, she shockingly discovered the fact that he was 27 years older than her, which was a fact that he had hidden from her.

I believe that people should become fully aware of the potential disadvantages of Internet dating and social networking. They should not allow the Internet to overwhelm and control their lives; people

need to try to develop their personal relationships, especially in places like schools and places of work, where real people actually exist. After all, technology is supposed to be accessible for the human pleasure, not dissatisfaction.

Dualism

What is the difference between a digital object and a physical object? Sometimes, a digital object seems to be more real and of better quality than a physical object, although you can never actually touch it. Basically, we are talking about a “real” object that cannot actually be touched. Is that really possible? According to physics, it may not. However, the new culture of technology has made it possible.


Having expanded the idea into a broader perspective, we are entering into a phase of reality in which two versions of anything can exist. Jaron Lanier refers to it as “the dreaded path of dualism.” One version is associated with the more mechanistic or deterministic side, while the other is characterized by digitalization (or, using Lanier’s term, “computationalism”).

I do not object to dualism if it yields the option of choice to people. However, with the new culture, the digital versions of most things often force people toward using it. For instance, a few years ago, paper, books, notebooks, pens, chalk and blackboards were the essentials tools of learning. However, with the new culture and expansion of the Internet, students are now forced to buy not only a PC, but a personal laptop, as well (which is now referred to as a “notebook”). These days, without having a laptop and access to the Internet, a student cannot sufficiently follow his/her education. All the lecture notes are online, many assignments require the use of computers and teachers no longer accept handwritten work. As a result, a new wave of distance education is becoming more popular—a student no longer needs to physically attend school in order to obtain educational credits. It is obvious that the new culture is systematically changing the culture of education. The dualism won’t allow people to contradict the standards of this new culture after it has expanded its root and been sufficiently adapted to. It is becoming a strong, dominant force. I feel its danger because of its powerful effect on contemporary society.

According to the words of Lanier, with regards to computationalism, the world can be understood as a computational process; its inhabitants are sub-processes. In my opinion, however, that’s not the definition of a real world to me. I believe that a real world is characterized by its inhabitants, who interact and live with each other on the basis of their own feelings and emotions. This is a luxury that computers have never had.



http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad93.symb.anal.net.searle.html

"Why Just me?!"

So, how can we fill the gap between the new culture and old media without hurting one another?

Ted Nelson’s idea of “hypermedia” may confront the phenomenon of free file sharing; in his opinion, instead of copying digital media, we should effectively keep only one copy of each cultural expression and pay the author or a musician with an affordable amount whenever it is accessed.

In my opinion, the idea might sound good, but actually, I don’t see a practical way in which a transition from open copying to paid access would succeed. As people become accustomed to free downloads of music and movies, it takes more time to change the culture.

Also, as Lanier said, In this situation, we need some sort of universal or governmental law to support. Moreover, there should be a general acceptance of a social contract that is not easy to reach anyways. First of all, there are many people who are highly in favour of free file sharing and downloading, especially among the younger generations. Although these groups seem to understand the consequences of their act, they nonetheless refrain from changing their behavior, saying, “Why just me?” The number of people who participate in free downloading and file sharing is very vast, so no one wants to start the initiatives. Secondly, if they truly begin to understand and care about the impact of their actions upon art and the economy, and they get ready to make some schemes, how would they be able to participate in a social contract?

Another issue for the idea of “hypermedia” argues that we should first reach the point of copy-protection technology, allowing copy prohibitions to be achieved automatically. The argument makes sense to me because, when something won’t be available to use for free, there will not be any worries about its protection from free use. It would be much easier than providing a service for free, and subsequently trying to discourage people from using it without charge.

In my opinion, “hypermedia” is more like a charming work of fiction —it is far away from actually occurring. Nonetheless, the phenomena help us to seriously consider the disadvantages of new culture, which help us with more handy ideas to fulfill the best possible way to connect the new culture with old media. In another words, “hypermedia” can be considered as an initiative to lead us toward more practical methods of dealing with the new culture.

Music free downloading, who damage the most?

File sharing via the Internet plays a primary role in the destruction of the music industry. It especially affects the marginalized artists who, despite having a substantial fan base, are not widely renowned.

Recently, I’ve carefully followed the news about my favorite music artist (a Persian singer). Due to the detrimental effects of file sharing, he has been forced to obtain a second job for the sake of his survival. According to him, extensive downloads of his songs make it very difficult to endure such a competitive career in the music industry.

“I earned more money from my annual concert tours than I did from selling my albums,” he said. “True fans never download their artists’ songs for free. During my 15-year career, I`ve noticed that fans are always out there, but the search for “true fans” is a challenge.”

According to Lanier, in his book You Are Not a Gadget, there are approximately 26,000 musicians in existence. Would it be feasible for each of them to find 1,000 true fans at the very least? Even if it were possible, how long would be too long to wait for this to occur?

“The people who are perhaps the most screwed by open culture are the middle classes of intellectual and culture creation,” said Lanier.

As I mentioned in the previous blog — which discussed the journalism profession —file sharing significantly harms the music industry, as well as the profession itself. If our highest quality artists cannot survive this phenomenon, we will be left with poor-quality music. Optimistically, after a generation or two without professional musicians, a new habit may emerge, bringing good music back. However, on realistic and practical terms, as Lanier suggests, it would be better to design a handful of aggregator websites that collect and provide the music of most music artists. After all, considering the new changes to the use of the Internet, musicians should start to think about new ways to get paid.



http://totallyfuzzy.blogspot.com/

http://music-download-review.toptenreviews.com/

“A Citizen’s Gadget”

With regards to technology, some might consider the Internet to be a helpful medium for creating new job opportunities for people. According to The Technology Review, Microsoft currently employs about 135,000 employees worldwide; Google operates its business with more than 20,000 staff members internationally. Do these job opportunities necessarily help the economy’s growth? In my opinion, the new culture of technology already is and will become more destructive, rather than being beneficial to individuals. It has already harmed print and music industries and will soon damage businesses like cinemas and gaming companies.


As Lanier suggests in his book You are not a Gadget, the rapid influx of free music and video downloads has a negative influence upon the sphere of economics. Moreover, the culture of free “downloading,” regardless of the type of file, harms the value of the efforts that have been made toward their production. Therefore, the new culture not only damages certain industries, but it also discourages professionals from producing quality creations.

For instance, if a credential director cannot receive earnings equal to what he spends during the production of his movie (due to free downloads of his movie from the Internet), he would be unable to continue producing his next movie without detracting from its quality. As a result of this phenomenon, many professions are fading, and thus causing the replacement of quality creations with those that are done by ordinary people. A good example of this problem is exemplified by the battle between professional journalism and citizen journalism. As the Internet offers a multimedia environment, the phenomena of citizen journalism and blogging are growing rapidly. Nonetheless, citizen journalism is not an expert method of news reporting: the legitimacy of sources and style of news writing are very weak in citizen journalism. In other words, those who can write are not necessarily “writers.” Nonetheless, all the blogs and news articles on the Internet are damaging the value of true journalism and economically breaking the industry.

Indeed, the new culture of technology will not only have a more negative impact on economy, but it will also further influence the criteria of professional careers and businesses. Imagine living in a society that revolves around citizen journalists, citizen photographers, citizen movie makers, citizen engineers and nurses who utilize computer programming solely in their work. That day may not be too far ahead.

http://www.technologyreview.com/

http://www.purelogic.info/anti-technology.html

“Knowledge Is Power,” but only when we have it in our own minds – not on floppy disks.

There’s a popular idea that the information in all the world’s printed books could eventually become available on the Internet, which seems increasingly plausible every day. The digital culture encourages people to access information easier, faster and usually with no cost incurred, in comparison to print books.


Regarding my own experience with writing a research paper, the Internet will be my primary tool for obtaining information. It allows me to reach different sources and compare diverse points of view very quickly. However, the credibility of online sources is a controversial issue. Although there are certainly reliable sources on the Internet, there is an enormous amount of unreliable information. Nonetheless, the accuracy of the information derived from such unknown sources is always questionable.

Another problem with the idea of converting the entire world’s books into one Internet book is copyrighted material. The vast amount of information available online can be used by anyone, and thus, due to the uncertainty of sources, it will be tough to regulate who uses this information and the purposes for which they do so. Plagiarism becomes feasible to achieve with the Internet; unfortunately, the recognition of this act is almost impossible. Consequently, a severe problem is posed for academia.

With the easy availability of information on the Internet, people can also lose their tendency to learn. I personally know a number of postgraduate students in Literature and Social Science that are not familiar with the MLA writing style. Despite the fact that their discipline requires them to use this style of formatting, their argument is that their computers, as a citation machine, will do the work for them. But what would happen if we woke up one day and discovered that our computers, in addition to the Internet, simply ceased to function?

Our dependency on computers is becoming terrifying. It is said that “knowledge is power,” but only when we have it in our own minds – not on floppy disks.

Another issue that I would like to raise regards the quality of the reading experience itself. I believe quality reading occurs when you are truly focused, which is best achieved by reading a book or article in print. You can underline essential information and take notes, which indicate the actual process of learning. To me, reading information online is more akin to “skimming” than it is to learning. Therefore, there is still a need for print books and journals, especially for people who actually respect the quality of the reading experience and particularly seek a professional source of information.

Nonetheless, we have to understand that the Internet and its easy access of information can actually encourage people to develop bad habits such as laziness, which could lead them to value quantity over quality. That’s a warning for today’s century.

The New Intelligent Species

With the increasing power of computers, imagine a new generation of intelligent species evolving on the earth just as human evolution has over the last 2.3 to 2.4 million years. However, in contrast, the new species would evolve to its full extent at a much greater pace, as technological progress is growing extremely fast.

As Ray Kurzweil suggests in his idea of Singularity, the whole universe will become a brain, I also predict the fast growth of technology where its empire dominates humans’ mind and eventually become antihuman.

“As we gradually learn to harness the optimal computing capacity of matter, our intelligence will spread through the universe at (or exceeding) the speed of light, eventually leading to a sublime, universe- wide awakening,” Kurzweil said.

But the question is how the evolution of computers, will affect humans. Are computers going to develop themselves into a superior source of knowledge? I believe that, humans will eventually become self destructive. They will lose their control over technology because they have become so dependent to it. For instance look at how technology shaped our lives today. The human’s mind has become so indolent with regard to so many things including calculation, the memorization of phone numbers or planning a trip with new technology, that includes the navigational system, GPS. And once you become dependent on something other than yourself, you participate in your own destruction.

Contrary to Jaron Lanier’s belief in his book, You Are not a Gadget, where he declares that “humans are real, but information is not”, I believe information is real too, because it has power. Information is alive and has affected all of our lives. It’s conscious because its effects have changed our entire life style. One case Lanier raised focuses on Wikipedia. He recalls this source as the “Oracle illusion” in which human authorship is stronger than net. True, but a point I would like to raise here concerns information access. In comparison with a human’s manuscript, Wikipedia is a much easier accessed source of information and therefore is more practical.

Therefore, I believe that eventually internet will reach a higher level than human brain and if the technologically fast pace isn’t controlled critically by humans, Singularity will happen.

"Welcome My Son, Welcome to the Machine"

It’s Friday night and all I have to do, instead of getting a new hair-cut, wearing makeup, and going out with friends, is simply change my Face book profile picture. This is 'thanks' to the digital revolution that’s increased enormously through the 21st century’s generations. As Jaron Lanier suggests in his book, you are not a gadget, people have become automatons, much like mobile robots that are controlled by technology. I am not against the new “open culture;” however, my argument is that instead of people becoming controllers of what they have innovated, they have turned into its slaves.

According to Suzanne Choney’s article, The dark side of digital 'love', within the new technology people no longer act as individuals and the nature of privacy is not what it used to be. "Technology has removed what I call the 'moral speed bumps'," she says. Before, when you went out to stalk somebody, or engaging in some other horrific act, you had to decide to go out that front door and do it, she adds. "But what technology has enabled you to do, is to sit in the privacy of your house and wreak havoc." Choney continues.

Losing our privacy has entailed different aspects which all imply to lose our identity. In other words, we are becoming a transparent society of record, one in which documentation of our past history, current identity, location, communication and physiological and psychological states are available to everyone. All of this was anticipated by Gary T. Marx in his Privacy and Technology piece back in 1999.

Looking at issue of privacy in a different way, illustrates how with the new culture we have become software’s prisoners. I suggest our privacy is our freedom when it comes to getting locked into software such as files, UNIX, or MIDI. As Lanier recalls, lock in makes us forget the lost freedom we had in the digital past, and should be resisted. For instance, Bradley Kuhn of the Software Freedom Law Center expresses his concern about the future of freedom in lock in software mobiles. “We are in a very precarious time with regard to the freedom of mobile devices. We currently have no truly Free Software operating system that does the job,” he says.

In conclusion, as the power of computers grows exponentially, domination of online culture over the traditional culture should being controlled by individuals. After all, humans are the creators of computers, not the other way around . As Pink Floyd sang- “Welcome my son, welcome to the machine” hint that although we live in a digital age and have been besieged with technology, we should use it as a gift without losing our identities in the process.

http://softwarecritics.info/
http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/privantt.html
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/35313591/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/technology/internet/13google.html