Google+ hit the ground running (Entry 3)

A screenshot of my Google+ profile. Which I admittedly haven't been using much. It's such a hassle to maintain more than one social networking account. I don't even bother much nowadays. It would make sense to maintain a Facebook and a LinkedIn account, and have your LinkedIn handle all your work contacts and Facebook your social contacts, or in that sense have different social networking accounts handle different aspects of your life. If you can maintain that for a considerable amount of time, then you either have a lot of discipline or a lot of time on your hands.

Anyways, one of the things that surprised me about Google+ was how fast it got up and running as compared to other social networking sites. Facebook, for example, took years and slow expansion from Harvard, to other Ivy League schools, Oxford, and finally to the public. Google+, within days of opening, exploded with memberships. Even though initial membership and beta testing was on an invite-only basis (which I got, and it feels so exclusive :D), there was a point during beta testing when unlimited inviting was open during this period and Google was so swamped with requests that they had to shut that service down within a day.

Another thing that surprised me was how, as Google+ started to grow in popularity, that Facebook was starting to copy it. I noticed it when the updated Facebook included setting who sees your individual posts, which was something that Google+ did first. Another thing was how Facebook was changing the way we organized our friends such that it resembled Google+'s Circles.And here I was thinking that Google+ was just a white, ad-free, Farmville-free version of Facebook.

It only goes to show how threatened Facebook is by Google+. The thing is, how long can either survive? They both seem rather popular, but in the end, they might wind up being stuck in a stalemate of popularity with loyalists on both sides. Like Coke and Pepsi, or Windows and Mac, or the iPhone and the Blackberry.

Oh wait, I think the iPhone is winning that one. Epicly winning. I don't hear of iPhone users converting to the BB.

Anyway, in the end, I think my Google+ account is just going to end up collecting dust while I continue to update my Facebook account. Unless Anonymous really does shut down Facebook.

So which is going to win? Or rather, which are you rooting for?


Let me know in the comments section down below!

You DON'T have Facebook?! (Entry 2)

One common occurrence in my experience as president of SIM Muay Thai is how I will tell members to check the SIM Muay Thai Facebook group for updates and news, and there will be one or two awkward hands (if at all) raised and people declaring "I don't have Facebook." It will be at that point where I'll be thinking of how to proceed from here, because I would not have anticipated that. I keep thinking to myself that this will be an isolated case, but sure enough, with another batch of new trainees, the same issue will come up again and catch me off guard.

Then again, I wonder why this issue seems so foreign to me. With 750 registered Facebook accounts and nearly 7 billion people, we're bound to run in to a few people without an account. The thing is, because of the relatively tech-savvy community we live in, where even my 11-year-old cousin has Facebook (although she shouldn't, plus it's affecting her grades), we assume that the people who don't have Facebook or Twitter are the older generation, Laggards, people who live in rural areas and third-world populations.

Turns out, however, that there are some among us who are still up to date with technology in the general sense (modern cellphones, televisions, laptops, etc) and yet do not use social networking. These are the people who still remember what life was like before Friendster and Myspace and know that humanity can survive without social networking. It is not as essential as email, and most of these people see social networking as a waste of time.

They have a valid concern. Unregulated social networking usage in the workplace has burned up many a man-hour, and social interactions online through Facebook are seen by most as a superficial version of actual interaction. Quoting a comedian I once heard (I think it was Lee Evans): "There was a time where looking at other people's vacation photos was considered a punishment!"

However, I find that using social networking to codify and organize our social interactions really helps. This is especially true in creating events and group pages, because it really facilitates the organizing and the communication process.

It's just those damn Farmville updates that flood my news feed that annoy me.


Let me know in the comments section down below!

Interwhuuuut? (Entry 1)

The other day, I was in the school gym and Under One Roof was on the TV. It was the episode that Ronnie acquired a computer and was charging people to use it, eventually running a mini-cybercafe in his kitchen. For the life of me, I can't remember when this aired, but I reckon it was before 2000. That aside, what struck me was the look of wonder and astonishment that everyone had on their faces when they first laid their eyes on a personal computer with Internet access, the wide-eyes "Is that a computer?" look. You'd never get that look nowadays, and it's taken for granted that every computer that we encounter has Internet access.

Everett Rogers' theory of diffusion of innovations talks about the five groups of people that adopt new innovations and technologies in different stages: Innovators, Ealy Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority and Laggards. Laggards are usually the most pessimistic, conservative bunch of people who are usually resistant to change, especially new technologies. Yet, we can clearly see that the Internet is being used by even then. It has become as staple to us as mobile phones or newspapers, and just like those things, there are the very small minority of people who still don't want to bother with it.

I guess some of these people have no use for it, like senior citizens (although some do use the Internet). Some don't use it because of their lifestyle, like the Amish. And some people refuse to use it because they don't want to become enslaved and restricted by technology. That's where we come in and say that not using technology, inclusive of and especially the Internet, is the thing that actually enslaves us because it restricts our possibilities and opportunities in a tech-savvy world.

However, do these people have a point? Are we too dependent on technology and computers, not just individuals, but societies and governments? The 2007 movie Live Free or Die Hard suggests the scenario of a "fire sale", in which computer hackers attack a country's economy, transportation, communications and government, thereby effectively crippling the nation. All this is stated as plausible because all of these systems depend on connections and records that fully utilize technology and the Internet. It's a rather scary concept, everything around you just suddenly ceasing to work.

Let's consider that on a smaller scale: what if Facebook, our beloved social networking site, suddenly and permanently shut down? That is a concept that seems to be very real, considering this message from the hacker group Anonymous:




Quite freaky, to say the least. How does that make you feel?


Let me know in the comments section down below!

Up and running again!

Good news: this blog is operational again!

This blog used to be for my COM 101 blog assignment, but I've repurposed it for my COM 125 assignment. Posts from now on will be centered around the theme of the module: Introduction to the Internet. You would think that the Internet didn't need an introduction, but you'd be surprised.

This is just a foreword post of sorts. My first official COM 125 post is coming up soon! Stay tuned!

Amerika, ist wunderbar! (Week 7)

I just love it when my musical influences can actually be put to practical use. Last semester, during Sociology 101 finals, I gaffed at the question asking how many Americans are in prison. I couldn't remember the answer from my text, so I started singing The Prison Song by System Of A Down in my head to get the answer. Then comes this line from the song: "Nearly two million Americans are incarcerated in the prison system of the US". I wrote that down, and after the paper I confirmed that answer in my text. SOAD gave me an A!

Anyway, while the topic of cultural imperialism came up in class, this song came up in my head: Amerika by Rammstein. It sings of the effects and influence of Americanization. Such an awesome song!



The song is in German, yeah. So here are the English lyrics:

We're all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.

When I'm dancing, I want to lead,
even if you all are spinning alone,
let's exercise a little control.
I'll show you how it's done right.
We form a nice round (circle),
freedom is playing on all the fiddles,
music is coming out of the White House,
and near Paris stands Mickey Mouse.

We're all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.

I know steps that are very useful,
and I'll protect you from missteps,
and anyone who doesn't want to dance in the end,
just doesn't know that he has to dance!
We form a nice round (circle),
I'll show you the right direction,
to Africa goes Santa Claus,
and near Paris stands Mickey Mouse.

We're all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.
We're all living in America,
Coca-Cola, Wonderbra,
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.

This is not a love song,
this is not a love song.
I don't sing my mother tongue,
No, this is not a love song.

We're all living in America,
Amerika is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.
We're all living in America,
Coca-Cola, sometimes WAR,
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.

---

In any case, the music video says it all. So damn cool!

Anyway, it's things like this that make us wonder if the Americanization of the world is a good thing. On one hand, America has given us McDonald's, Coca Cola, Hollywood, Nike, Levi's, all of which I'm sure most people are grateful for. America is a major investor in other countries including our own, and their expansive industries, coupled with the effects of globalisation, have brought a plethora of goods and services to almost every country in the world.

However, has their influence spread too far, such that local industries have suffered due to them? It seems possible; these days, majority of the youth would much rather go to a McDonald's or some other American fast food joint for lunch than a local coffee shop. Need I add the fact that Elvis and America popularised fast food in popular culture such that it grew from a fad to an essential part of life.

Their hold on the world is only growing steadily. Some countries are willing to submit to American imperialism in exchange for relief, money and such, but most countries would refuse to submit so openly, mainly due to the backlash from the population, who might see this as a deterioration of their culture. However, through the influence of American movies, music and popular culture, the masses have been unwittingly Americanized, and the subsequent growth of pro-American sentiments amongst the population is reflected in the governments' increased readiness to adopt certain aspects of American culture. Slowly, but surely.

America's growing influence has granted them a great deal of socioeconomic status perks, due to them benefiting from their companies' successes. Such money and power has made then the sole superpower in the world, with the ability to make decisions that even contradict the interests of the UN, as can be seen in the Iraq War. Such decisions have made many cuntries unhappy with America during the Bush Administration, and yet they cannot deny the importance of America's economic influence. It would seem in the end that we cannot live without the "wonders" America has given us, and have no choice but to munch on our Big Macs while enjoying the view of our diverse range of cultures falling one by one to American culture.

So: What are your views on Americanization? Is it a godsend, a scourge to the global community, or a necessary evil?

We say, you listen, end of story (Week 6)

We're all at Aakansha's house for Diwali watching Cartoon Network, and we're watching these Godawful cartoons (SUSHI superheroes?!) preaching about how lying is bad and stuff, and I get to thinking that this would be a good example of mass media to blog about. Turns out that at least two of us had the same idea after seeing that show, so now, I'm going to focus on something else.

The main thing about the mass media that I wanted to address is the powerful effects theories and the magic bullet model. The magic bullet model of mass media states that the media is all powerful and the audience is completely passive. That is to say that the public is merely a mindless, opinionless body that takes in anything that is fed to them, or that would be what this theory seems to imply. However, man's opinion is based on his socializing agents and the information available to him. One can be highly mature and postconventional in his way of thinking, but if the only information made available to him is a skewed view on society provided by biased sources, then he would adopt that viewpoint, being the only viewpoint available to him. Such a scenario is highly unlikely and rather rarely observed today, but in certain situations where there is only one channel of information, it is still possible.

Take for example the Vietnam War. Communication between the troops in Vietnam and the White House were severely limited and primarily controlled by the media and intelligence wings of the army, and their will was enacted by the radio stations they ran. This gave them the ability to control the information coming in, going out and circulating Vietnam, which gave them a lot of power. They were able to withold information from the States so as to not incite panic amongst the American public, and they could filter out the pessimistic reports from the military strategists and the politicians in the States so as to not demoralize the troops. To some extent, they could also control the dissemination of local info, as can be seen in this clip from the 1987 movie Good Morning, Vietnam.

Brief storyline synopsis so far: Adrian Cronauer (played by Robin Williams) is a USAF airman sent to Vietnam as a DJ for the army's radio station. He is instantly a hit amongst listeners, due to his over the top humour, spontaneous personality and rock and roll playlist, although his superios are highly annoyed as they consider his humour and song selection inappropriate. They also hound him regarding censorship, and do not allow him to report any news they receive until it has been approved, much to his annoyance. In the second part of the video, he witnesses a local bar get blown up by VC insurgents, and when he returns to the station, makes a move to report it but is ordered not to do so by his superiors.



Once again, another self posted clip, so hope YouTube does not pull it down.

As can be seen in the clip, Cronauer is insistant on reporting the truth, as the media should. However, his superiors are more concerned about what efect the news will have on the public and the troops. At that point, the army is still operating under the euphemism of a "police action" in order to avoid admitting that they are actually going to war, as declaring such would cause panic and possibly drop troop morale. Thus, the media is actively controlling and witholding information for their own agenda.

This is where the magic bullet theory comes into play. By selectively choosing what to disclose to the public, amongside being the primary and perhaps only viable source of credible information, the media is effectively telling the public what to believe in the knowledge that they will just have to take in what they say as the truth. Media institutions that actively withold information from the public, as opposed to reporting everything from an unbiased point of view, obviously have their own agenda in moulding public opinion and perception to something analogous to their intentions and ideals.Additionally, when there is no transparency or opposing opinions, the media's biased view is the only view.

So today's question is: Is such control of information by the media justifiable? Should it disclose everything properly and potentially shake the public's view of the government, or should it disclose only what the public needs to hear while trusting themselves to maintain the illusion of peace?

Do it! (Week 5)

The concept of group communication, especially with regards to groupthink, kind of intrigues me. As defined by Irving Janis (1972), groupthink is a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

An example of this phenomenon, which basically says that people will blindly comform to a group's principles in order to stay in it, regardless of personal beliefs, can be seen in this clip, taken from the 1987 movie Full Metal Jacket.

Brief summary of the story so far: The first part of the film centres around a bunch on fresh recruits undergoing Marine training, sometime before the Vietnam War. Main focus is on two recruits: Pvt. "Pyle", who is an overweight, blundering and slightly off trainee who has gotten his fellow trainees in trouble more than once due to his inability to take command, and Pvt. "Joker", his buddy. The platoon has decided that they have had enough of Pyle getting them into trouble, and, led by Pvt. "Cowboy", give him a blanket party, something Joker is hesitant about.



Joker can be clearly seen here to be exhibiting groupthink, as he is hesitant on beating Pyle, but does so eventually under pressure from Cowboy. His is the only obvious example here, but when it comes to such an extreme action that won't sit well with some people, and considering that there are so many other nonviolent alternatives, seeing everyone else in the platoon joining in probably means that at least some of the others exhibit groupthink as well, although not so outwardly.

Looking at the symptoms of groupthink:

Illusion of invulnerability: the platoon believes strongly that they are better than Pyle that they feel justified in their actions.

Belief in the group's own morality: Joker makes the decision that his beliefs are not as important to him as those of everyone else as a collective, and so in the interest of being with the group, he forgoes his own hesitations.

Shared stereotypes: the platoon believes that Pyle, in a sense opposing the groups by not obeying orders, stereotype him as a deviant deserving the beating and fail to recognize that Pyle might be slower than normal (which can be clearly seen throughout the first half of the movie).

Collective rationalization: continuing a certain action despite contrary information. In this case, Joker obviously can see that Pyle is in pain, but because of groupthink, continues with the beating anyway.

Self-censorship: Joker, for a moment, wants to voice his disapproval, but instead chooses to keep quiet upon pressure from Cowboy.

Illusion of unanimity: the entire platoon is unanimous in their participation in the blanket party, despite at leasy one of them not agreeing with it. However, because everyone thinks that everyone is agreeable to it, the rest hop on board anyway.

Pressure on dissenters: nobody voices out their dissent here, but Joker comes close to doing so. Cowboy recognizes that Joker is hesitant and might refuse to take part, and pressues him into doing it.

Mind-guards: self-created protection from dissenting outside information. Here, in the isolated environment of Parris Island, where the Senior Drill Instructor is the law, his absence creates an atmosphere of lawlessness here, and thus they choose to carry out things as they see fit and ignore any rational argument.

However, is groupthink that powerful? By this argument, can it influence people to commit more henious acts, like murder, or is there a limit where a person draws the line?