[insert nails on the chalkboard sound] user generated content

Reading the article Death to User-Generated Content
struck a harmonious chord in my head. "IT'S PERFECT!" I thought to myself. In fact, those "junkies" are not like drug junkies, but high school junkies infesting Facebook and MySpace. Their form is so robotic and predictable: post a stupid photo, video, or some other kind of content and EXPECT a result with "LMAO! OMG no she didn't! ROFL!" It drives me insane. "Authentic media" sounds so much more interesting than "user generated content" (UGC). UGC sounds like a social faux pas and so "blah".

It is interesting even what Al Gore is trying to do with Current TV (though he needs someone who is better at coming up with names), allowing other users to (please forgive my phrasing) generate content. It is another step closer to reality television. He has nabbed an Emmy for it with his partner in the project, Joel Hyatt. Now, the only thing they are/are still missing: that tiny group called an audience. The problem is that it might not be with the actual programming itself, though it could be of poor quality; rather, it could be because of the association that many view as slimy with Al Gore at the helm (and Joel Hyatt). According to author Brian Stelter, in the article Al Gore's Other Cause: Current TV,

"Current is now available in 41 million U.S. households, and 11 million more in Britain and Ireland. Derek Baine, a media analyst with the research firm SNL Kagan, estimated the channel earned 11 cents a month for each subscriber, more than most other young cable channels."

Then again, maybe people would rather just get what they want for free from [insert nails on the chalkboard sound] user generated content and YouTube. Or it is Al Gore...

Effective Polarization

In an interview titled Expert Voices: How The Web Polarized Politics, between Debra D'Agostino and Gerry McGovern, Mr. McGovern brings up a genius point which often does not get much consideration:

"You're saying the Web can cause society to become more politically polarized than it already is?

It can. Think about it: They say 45 percent of Americans are democrats, 45 percent are republican, and 10 percent are independent. Can the Internet really undermine that polarization? It would be lovely to think it could. But more often then not, when democrats write blog entries, they are speaking to other democrats. I am curious to find how many hardcore republicans turned democrat as a result of the Web. I don't suspect there are many."

Thinking about that, consider the implications: everyone always mentions how they are trying to tap into resources such as Facebook and Myspace (among other social networking websites) to attract people to a certain product or service. Using streaming videos and other features of Web 2.0, companies are trying to further promote their products. The same is true about politics, but typically people are so involved into their parties that it separates society even farther. Sure, a Republican might go onto a Democrat's page for counterpoints, but with Web 2.0, it appears as if very few are actually being converted to the other party. On one hand, if a person is very solidified in a certain party, they will not budge (unless there is some catastrophic event), meaning that the main target audience of these pages are those people caught in the middle. But each party needs more voting members and supporters, so it also appears that with the multimedia, socially networked pages are targeting opponents. At the same time, they seem to get supporters of their own party excited for the campaign race. So who are they really targeting? Have these websites really lost their focus, especially with the usage of Web 2.0, rendering them ineffective? Surely, they bring all the latest news to the forefront of the page, but is it helping?

"Yet technology is so often heralded as a way to bring people together, to improve collaboration and make it easier to share views and opinions.

Tom Standage's book, The Victorian Internet, talks about how the telegraph was supposed to do just that. The big problem in the world had been the inability to communicate quickly over long distances. So along comes the telegraph, and it's supposed to bring about an era of peace and harmony. And what happened in the height of all that? World War I.

It's easy to get carried away with this Wired magazine view of "All You Need is Web 2.0," but in some ways the very technology that is meant to solve problems merely makes people more emotional—not more reasonable. We ultimately do a disservice to society by creating this euphoria about what technology can really deliver."

Alas, that seems to sum up the problem nicely.

Some examples of 2008 Presidential candidates include:

Bill Richardson
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Rudy Giuliani

YouTube Meets Social Networking....

Though posted 11 months ago, I thought that this was a humorous video about Facebook and social networking.

eHarmony Facebook Parody

Mr. Gladwell's Recruitment

The other day I was having a conversation with someone that reminded me of the readings for this week. The conversation went a little something like this:

Me: "You know, I sometimes don't know why I'm in college. I mean, I'm majoring in audio technology, but anyone could do that and most do not go to college. Sometimes I think I'm wasting a lot of money."
Other person: "Well just think of all the connections you are making and the ability you'll have to be recruited. That's what it is all about. Plus, you are learning a lot."

Though the last part of that statement is extremely true, I would be lying if I said the first thing that I thought of was NOT my last blog entry (Graduating From Facebook To LinkedIn). My other thought went towards, as described in the article The Power Of Weak Ties, was about UVa's Malcolm Gladwell. More specifically, it was in regards to The Tipping Point, which points out how people are connected to each other. People are either mavens or connectors. According to the Wikipedia entry about The Tipping Point, the following is true:

"Connectors are those with wide social circles. They are the "hubs" of the human social network and are responsible for the small world phenomenon. Mavens are knowledgeable people. While most consumers wouldn't know if a product were priced above the market rate by, say, ten per cent, mavens would."

The result is that through mavens and connectors, one can understand how the concept of six degrees of separation is played out. One of the results is American University's Information Technology 333 (Social Networking) course. Another deals with job recruitment. As the article The Power Of Weak Ties points out, referrals are the reason most jobs are acquired. Is this fair? I don't know, ask Colleen. One thing is for sure: keep Facebook, Myspace, (etc.) and your blog void of anything you would NOT want your [potential] boss to see. That is outlined in the article Blog Is The New Resume. Companies are always talking about how social networking and blogs could become the new method for recruitment (see Using Social Networking To Fill The Talent Acquisition Pipeline).

Thinking over the conversation I had with my friend the other day, I guess it is truer than I thought; we DO go to college/university to get not only more education but really the connections. People at that education point can most likely teach themselves much of the material, but they connections are harder to come by.