[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.

Graduating from Facebook to LinkedIn

This could be the best week of articles thus far. If there is one thing that any college student reads, it is the article "Networking for students, a step-by-step guide". It gives so many helpful recommendations to the college student about what to say and do to better improve their networking skills. The best part of the article is where it states:

"A final note: it’s not FaceBook...
In some respects, college students are already pros at networking – at least casual, social networking. It’s critical, however, to shift into a professional networking mode when your career is the issue at hand."

Though Facebook can be used for networking, this makes a lot of sense because there are so many things that college students usually do not want their employer to be able to see. While it is easiest to just remove a lot of those things, the program LinkedIn is excellent. Not only does it allow one to view their network/people one is connected to, but it allows him/her/it to find more professional people in the same/related field, and make recommendations. The article "It's Not Just Who You Know"
does a good job of explaining this. Other companies include Jigsaw and Ziggs. Of all the articles that I have seen, LinkedIn seems to be the most mentioned, which is important since it is about who you know and the larger these services are, the chance of making new business contacts is increased.

In the article "Fifteen Uses of Professional Profiles within the Enterprise", the obvious advice is good because it mentions how one should use it to show off work.

These programs/services are also good for finding professors to brown-nose them for an A or to figure out what classes to take.

Especially for me, going into the music/movie industry, the quality of work almost falling behind connections, it appears as if I will have to fall victim that that annoying adage, "it's not what you know but who you know" while I invest in these networking programs heavily.

YAY! NOW we are ALL Celebrities

Why is Kevin Federline...excuse me, K-Fed, so famous? Simple: paparazzi. Their infectuous disease is everywhere. Now, that disease has been transferred to MySpace, Facebook, and more or less in general: the Internet. In case I didn't care enough about what Jessica Simpson did in her free time, now I can worry about what I do in my spare time. I have to worry about the internet paparazzi coming back to haunt me down the road. How many people have pictures of illicit drug use? Underage drinking? Anything else that could haunt your career? Either way you are/can be front page news.

And yet, why use Facebook? Why use MySpace? I don't know but i do both. They are almost social norms and necessary, otherwise you are an outcast. We joke amongst my friends that we cannot be friends in real life unless we are friends on Facebook. Yet, I don't want the whole world knowing what I'm doing...or do I? No, I tell myself, I don't. I HATE all of those magazines that are meant to create gossip yet have a high profit margin. Reality check: WHO CARES WHAT CELEBRITIES DO IN THEIR FREE TIME? I DON'T! Guess what? They slip up and make mistakes too!

So, naturally humans have created programs to clean up profiles. One, for instance, is called Reputation Defender. There is a fee associated with the service. While the service sounds nice, Uncle Mike can save you money while not using it (though you do lose the benefits of social networking): DELETE YOUR PROFILE! DELETE YOUR SCREEN NAME! LIVE UNDER A ROCK! I guess I'll just have to learn to live with the fact that my life is always on the line. So much for running for President.

Blogging and social networking are just proof though that your online reputation supercedes your actual reputation. GREAAAAAAT. JUST what I needed.

Fat, lazy people win...basically...

After reading the selected articles/chapter for this blog entry -- dealing with social capital and informal networks -- I started to think of all my interactions where these networks have helped. The article titled "The People Who Make Organizations Go-Or Stop" starts with "It's not what you know, it's who you know." (Cross and Prusak, 5) This is extremely true seeing as how websites such as Myspace or Facebook have created more informal networks. Through those networks, while doing homework, I have been able see people who were in the same class as me and could give assistance. That way I could pull up the equivalent to an address book entry vcard. Yet, there was a paradox created because according to managers of many companies in 2002, they believed that these kinds of networks hindered productivity. The reality of this is that we have all found means of procrastination on these websites, or through instant messaging clients (talking to those part of informal networks). The look of some people's Facebook, Myspace or blogging pages are nauseating with the amount of trash that they have on their page (i.e. -- Facebook recently opening up their API to allow 3rd party applications).

It is evident that the means of communication are improving, from wall drawings and a series of grunts, to speech, etc. and eventually on to telegraph, telephone, cellular phone, instant messaging, voice over Internet protocol (VOIP) and whatever the future holds. While I do love listening to those who complain (and I usually laugh to myself) that the usage of the Internet (especially older generations) and the advance of technology destroys social capital. Whereas once I could go and visit someone, I can now not move while we video chat. The advance of technology is the main components of the Laws of Reed, Metcalfe, Sarnoff, and Moore, and uses math to explain the value/worth of networks and their growth potential. (Rheingold, 56-61) Issues arise, at least in my mind, in only a few places: first, we are breeding a fatter generation. Why should I move to visit a friend, co-worker, etc. when I can sit and video chat? Additionally, it makes outsourcing easier which supports capitalistic markets and globalization, but can hinder work forces/the economies on a micro level. All of this forms to really forge a new relationship which we can go ahead and call "Mike's Law": as technology increases (see the previous Laws), social capital decreases. Fat, lazy people win...basically.

Then again, through studies I have found that, as helped proven by the award-winning documentary "Some Kind Of Monster", that collective thought brought on by informal networks does increase quality... To counter my own thought though, Metallica's "St. Anger" album, the product of collective engineering, was NOT great...but that was mainly due to lack of solos and the way the microphones were used to record the drums...

Cross, Rob, and Laurence Prusak. "The People Who Make Organiztions Go-Or Stop." Harvard Business Review June 2002: 5-12.

Cross, Rob, Stephen P. Borgatti, and Andrew Parker. "Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social Network Analysis to Support Strategic Collaboration." California Management Review 44, 2(2002): 25-46

Rheingold, Howard. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. 1st. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books, 2002