The shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the 19 other people injured or killed on Jan 8, 2011, is being reported with many references to the role of social media, in terms of what motivated the tragedy and people's reactions to it. Find one of these references (include a link) and analyze, evaluate and apply what you feel are relevant concepts from at least four of the six required Session 1 readings to the role of social media in this story. You may post links to more than one news story to illustrate concepts from different readings if you like, but be sure your post is substantive enough to demonstrate your understanding of the relevant concepts from the papers you cite. Conclude by providing a brief definition of social computing, and comment on its potential power as a motivating force for positive and negative social phenomena.
Link 1:
Link 2:
Link 3:
http://blastmagazine.com/2011/01/08/rep-gabrielle-giffords-shot-social-media-erupts/
Browsing news of the shooting that happened one week ago, I didn’t realize its relationship with the social computing in the beginning, but the three links above inspired me with some details of this tragedy.
First I have to say, it surprised me when I saw that even the congresswoman was twittering her activities. It is amazing how technology influences our daily lives in a good way – more convenient and more stylish. However, as the mouse scrolling down, questions and concerns are also emerging. We know that from the report in Link 1, authorities are locating information from the suspect’s account at Facebook and YouTube, where hints of his motives could be found. Luckily, these traces of his can be tracked, but what about his traces or records that are not open to the public? Can researchers get access to information that is password-protected? In this case, maybe yes, because Jared Lee Loughner is already arrested as a suspect. But what if we are just worrying about someone being a dangerous person, do researches, or even police officers have the right to access his private information? Just like what is mentioned in the article Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship, these kinds of problems concerning privacy still need to be researched in this field.[i]
Another question is, if a third party is surveiling a suspect, or any dangerous person, will it be necessary and legal to surveil his “friends”, or the ones who “tag” him or “follow” him as well? At least for pessimist, these people might be “dangerous” too.
Anyway, I do agree that the activity of social computing is an extension of our daily social lives, so people’s behavior in real life can be reflected by his digital thinking to some extent, and there should be attentions paid to these SNSs, especially when it concerns public crisis. But how to balance between social security and personal privacy would be a main issue, and another problem is whenever there is a person being observed or analyzed, how to avoid fake or blur information.
The other two reports above prove another trend, which is how social computing “change the ways of how news is spreading” nowadays, while revealing both positive and negative implications.
Positively, news is spreading faster, “minutes after the shooting happened”; more targeting: via text message, tweeter, or any SNSs that go straight to people who are interested (or who had subscribed). Also, other than spreading news on tweeter and digging the suspect from his activities of social computing, there is this another one form involved in this event in a worthy way: blogging. As quoting from Blogging as social activity, or would you let 900 million people read your dairy? There is a kind of “Object-oriented activity in blogging” that “Update others on activities and whereabouts”[ii]. Http://tucsonunited.tumblr.com/ gives us this example by making it a place for people to mourn online, while the same kind of action is taking place on Facebook.
Negatively, though news or comments are spreading fast on SNSs, correctness and accuracy of the information may not appear perfectly. From the report in Link 2, these kinds of imperfection are demonstrated through examples like: message of the congresswoman been dead and the misspelling of the suspect’s name. Even though these mistakes won’t cause serious consequences as long as long they are readdressed immediately, anther type of motion would be capturing more attentions.
This type of motion includes “Special interest groups, whether hate groups, political action committees”[iii] whom might take advantages from spreading out information that is either incorrect or bias. Like the people being reported in Link 3 who seems not big fans of Palin. In other words, that is to say without authority sources, everything spreading through SNSs can be doubtful. And in my opinion, being doubtful isn’t the worst; what’s more dangerous is to trust blindly. In Online Databases-Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall? The author made an example of buyer-seller relationship, but there are other kinds of relationship that should be more aware of this kind of negative implication, which comes from information spreaded by non-authority sources through the SNSs. Furthermore, information from these non-authority sources might be cited by “trustworthy old media” and cause a profound impact.
By and large, this social computing activity that based on the technology of Web 2.0 application is undeniable spreading. Since every single person or community is able to generate content, we are living in a “participatory culture”, which calls for obligation and responsibility, like any society or culture will claim for. In Beer and Burrow’s article[iv], an instance was made of the relationship between the students, staffs and teachers, while in our case is the relationship between citizens (or public) and officials. But no matter what kind of pattern it is, the people who are enjoying the benefit from social computing should all face the same question “concerning the future of surveillance, trust and privacy in a Web 2.0 enabled consumer society.” I will prefer to believe that so far as the negative implications can be eliminated, social computing can work as the glue to bring people together in a vaster, faster and more systematic and classified way. But until now, the side effects from this glue still exist, i.e. lacking authority, mistaken of accuracy, taken advantages of for vandalism by some individuals or communities, and violation of privacy. It is even imaginable that illegal activities are taking place just now using SNSs as an instrument.
At last, I came out a short definition that might need to be improved: Social computing is an activity of socialing in a virtual environment based on the technology of Web 2.0 (at least now), and calls for the social order with its own adaptation.
Reference:
I like your inclusion of "social order" within the definition of Social Computing. That is a concept that I missed, but it is very clear from the Dibbell article. Social Computing isn't just about participating in an online setting - it requires following a set of standards that has been determined by the community. Each community has their own "rules" - often not explicitly listed, but understood by the users and deviations are punished. Sometimes the punishment is just being ignored or ostracized by others, and other times like we read it means banishment from the community. Thanks for including that!
ReplyDeleteYour posting mentioned an interesting point—the distinction between privacy and social security. It has always been debated. The debate happens in the workplace, in addition to the virtual world. Some companies screen their employees’ emails and MSN. If the “key” words are found in their emails and MSN conversations, they will be punished in certain ways. The policy implies that each employee should be responsible for their own words. They will be punished if they do harm to the company. However, the policy also triggers debates on whether it is appropriate to inspect personal letters and conversations. Our virtual world is facing the same problem now. Certain social websites hire people to monitor the opinions expressed online. Those improper opinions will be removed as soon as they are found out. Some countries also have telecommunication police to do surveillance and arrest people who violate the censorship. Some opinions which are password-protected or expressed by pseudonym are also accessible if the judicial authority requires it. A couple years ago, a woman criticized her friend in a social network site with a pseudonym. Her friend was very angry when seeing those personal remarks, so she accused the person in pseudonym. After the prosecutor asked the social network site to offer personal information of the person in pseudonym, the accuser found out it was her friend who did the personal remarks to her. However, the defender was upset because she thought the website should not leak her personal information to others without her permission, let alone it claimed to protect users’ privacy. She believed that the website was misleading and she was the victim.
ReplyDeleteIs the social network site misleading? Has the person in pseudonym already had the intention to criticize her friend before learning the website’s protection for privacy? Before answering these questions, we probably need to think about the line between social security and personal privacy first.
I think you're making a really good point in saying that the new culture of social media calls for responsibility from all those who are part of it. the We 2.0 environment affords us to have an extension of our lives online, and just like real life rules and obligations have to be observed for it to be a safe and enjoyable culture. AT the same time I do think it would be hard if not impossible for any outside power, such as the government, ISP companies or anyone, to censor social networking. It is the broad spectrum of opinions and expressions that make social media so popular and useful, and one just has to be aware that not everything one finds on the internet should be taken as fact or truths. The the rules and responsibilities should lie with the users, just like Dibbel describes in his article when the users of the MUDD discussed how to deal with virtual violence. I do't think there's a practical way in which law enforcement or other agencies can actually be aware of everything that's said in the blogosphere and other social networking places, and thereby catch offenders, but this should be a job of the online community.
ReplyDeleteLike in this case, the attacker sent out warning signs through youtube videos and through his Facebook, and maybe that should have made his "friends" or followers take notice. Of course it's hard to tell who may just be blowing of steam and who might go on a shooting rampage, but I still think that as users and participants in social media we have to be aware and responsible for our own expressions, as well as take action when we come across something so wrong and against the rules both virtual and real. Even if it means reporting another user to those who run the community, or in serious cases, to the actual authorities. Even though the growth of online communities had made it impossible for let's say all Facebook users to get together and discuss the community rules or laws such ind Dibbel's MUDD, we should all be aware of the fact that, just as in real life, actions (and expressions) can have consequences, and if there is a sense of something bad or wrong happening, it's better to be safe than sorry and not simply look away and let things happen.
"But what if we are just worrying about someone being a dangerous person, do researchers, or even police officers have the right to access his private information?"
ReplyDeleteYes, that is something I also want to investigate! It is probably a pretty exciting (or headache-inducing, whichever way you look at it) time to be in the field of digital privacy law. I like the metaphor you use describe the negative consequences of social computing: "side effects."
One of the points you mentioned that few others did is the fact that Rep. Giffords tweeted herself. Social media affords the illusion of proximity and direct contact with public figures, and has definitely led to a rethinking of what the word 'friend' means. One is more likely to react negatively to a friend's neglect than a stranger's, and this too may have played a role in the tragedy.
ReplyDelete"But what if we are just worrying about someone being a dangerous person, do researchers or even police officers have the right to access his private information?"
ReplyDeleteThis question is very interesting and brings to mind internet censorship and intellectual freedom. I feel more and more that violence in the virtual world is getting worse and the government should control it, or at least there should be new technologies to prevent people from creating fake identities. Also, I don’t think censoring is completely impossible, as shown by the Chinese government restricting people from posting political opinions against it and blocking access to websites such as YouTube.
Hi, Song, it also reminds me of Chinese government's action of online supervision when it comes to the question of violence control in the virtual world. At the same time, as Bug mentioned above, there is also a way of scanning inappropriate "keyword" on online public forum working now in China. But although effective on some level, these ways can cause so many inconvenience to normal users, and might even violate the right on free speech to some extent.
ReplyDeleteSo, I agree with you that the degree of violence is increasing, but I don't think there is a simply way to resolve the this problem, at least now.
Julia, I might be to pessimistic, but relying only on users' conscientiousness and responsibility doesn't seem that stable.
ReplyDeleteFor one reason, the users' reports are random, for another reason, even if the users are accountable, because people are intend to not paying attention to strangers online, some important information still can be missed out.
Yes, Rich, thanks for pointing it out that the function of tagging anyone online as "friend" is possible might be a trigger in this whole story. But from the bright side, I think it is also a good way for the public figures to use this as a method to close the gap between themselves and the public, and sometimes advertise themselves.
ReplyDeleteYour points regarding both the speed and accuracy (or lack thereof) of information disseminated on the internet align with my own thinking on the subject. This may be somewhat of a tangent, but I think that because of the potential for news spread via Twitter, Facebook and the like to be inaccurate or incomplete, it's very important for us to 'slow down' and review breaking news that we are receiving from these sites in a more critical manner.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your first post!