Being Slapped

I read an interesting newspaper article about Slapps and consumer participation (Venting Online, Consumers Can Find Themselves in Court). It describes the case of 21-year old student who was sued by a local company, because he wrote negative critics about them online, more exactly, he established Facebook group against this company. Company filed a defamation suit against him claiming the site was hurting business and seeking $750,000 in damages. He won in court and become local and Facebook star. But for me the wider context is important. How this can happen in the age of free speech especially on internet?

Slapp is strategic lawsuit against public partnerships or participation and is mostly used by companies or like author is writing:

"The label has traditionally referred to meritless defamation suits filed by businesses or government officials against citizens who speak out against them. The plaintiffs are not necessarily expecting to succeed — most do not — but rather to intimidate critics who are inclined to back down when faced with the prospect of a long, expensive court battle."

Many states in America has even anti-Slapp laws and these are very useful today because of the internet. As it seems internet is not so much free-speech place after all, especially Twitter and Facebook, where companies can find themselves with no problem. But it is somehow frightening that individuals or customers can not speak their mind and share their experiences. But on the other hand, some companies are making their own pages just to hear opinion from customers. There are even some anti-Slapp projects and lay firms (http://www.casp.net/), but still, how did come so far, that now companies can sue costumers for bad critics.

We believe that on the internet we have absolute freedom of speech, because we are anonymous and we think that nobody can track us. Well it is not that simple. Even if we reveal our identity for credibility or better weight of our opinion, it is a good chance when we criticize something that we will end up on court. Maybe this is very extreme, but I believe that cases like author is mentioning in article are a good proof have far can freedom of speech goes. Although it is interesting that on internet there is so much surveillance and control from the side of the commercial players and no from the institutions (well to much control in the case of terrorism and too little in the case of other crimes). But what do you think, should be internet more protected from being Slapped or should be freedom on both sides?

Anti-Facebook part II

Last time I wrote about QuitFacebookDay. I also found another anti Facebook site, which is not so radical but it is still against Facebook and is concerned about privacy settings. This site is Facebook Protest and is making the 6th June day of the protest. As they are writing:

"On June 6th we are asking those who disagree with the changes Facebook has made to its “privacy” policies to commit to not logging in or interacting with Facebook in any way. Be sure to log out of Facebook in all of your browsers no later than the evening of June 5th. On the 6th, be sure to not use Facebook connect or click any “Like” buttons: basically refrain from ALL Facebook related activity."

This action is connected to Zuckerberg's statement that he does not believe in privacy. He is explaining this with the changed perception of privacy and continues to change privacy terms. On Facebook Protest site visitors can also found a lot of useful articles about changing privacy conditions. Like the one on Wired.com, which is writing about Facebook colonization of web:

"It’s an ambitious attempt to rewrite the web as a socially linked network. But many see Facebook’s move as trying to colonize the rest of the web, and keep all this valuable information in its data silos, in order to become a force on the web that rivals Google."

I think that this is very important point, because Facebook is no longer just the identity site. It has become so much more not just for users but also for companies and after all researchers. It is social phenomenon and now is trying to go beyond itself. For example you already can share articles or Youtube videos on Facebook and if really "like" button will be on anything from blog entries to T-shirts in web stores, then the main question should be asked. Did perception of people's privacy changed so much that they not realize and does not care what information they share? And will Facebook ever be unpopular?

Recording to more and more concerned articles, bloggers, Twitter users, anti-Facebook sites and all in all Facebook groups, Facebook owners should be concerned too. Yes, perception of privacy has changed but this does not mean that privacy should not be respected and exploited. It should be even more secured and people should be warned where and in what kind their personal information can be used.

Anti-Facebook part I

I believe almost everyone who reads this blog has Facebook account. But did anybody tried to delete it? It is not that simple as it looks on the first sight. Well, you can delete your account but this is not the first choice that Facebook is suggesting. Firstly you can just deactivate account and that means that everything that you put on Facebook will stay there and it will be accessible for almost everyone. And because of this kind of concerns about privacy I found anti-Facebook group.

The first one is QuitFacebookDay and they have almost 8000 Committed Facebook Quitters. On May 31st they will all quit Facebook and the main reasons for doing so are concerns about privacy and uses of personal data. They also believe that Facebook can be addictive as they write:

"Quitting Facebook isn't easy. Facebook is engaging, enjoyable and quite frankly, addictive. Quitting something like Facebook is like quitting smoking. It's hard to stay on the wagon long enough to actually change your habits. Having peer support helps, but the way to quit Facebook is not to start a group on Facebook about leaving Facebook."

Well I can agree with some of their statements and articles they are citing (very interesting are the instructions for permanently deleting your Facebook account: http://www.wikihow.com/Permanently-Delete-a-Facebook-Account), but comparing use of Facebook to smoking is just funny. I believe that it is not fair to be so technological deterministic and say it is all Facebook fault. People should be aware that web is open and public space. These are the characteristics that make web so unique and useful. Like every user can access almost every information (from news to government data) it is logical that this kind of exploitation will also be from the other side. And it is naive to think that it is just Facebook who uses personal information for advertisers and companies. Every time we open web browser our personal data, our search words and information about us are stored somewhere and can be used.

However Facebook is open network and should have some respect to their users. Users are those who are keeping Facebook so popular and favored between advertisers. And if Facebook will loose its users because of changing privacy rules, there will be no more Facebook. This is what Zuckenberg and others should think about and also take in account when they are changing conditions of use they should think about users and their wishes. Will you quit Facebook on 31st May?

Where is MySpace?

MySpace is American social networking site which has a quite a long history. It was launched in 2003 under the patronage of internet marketing company eUniverse (today's Intermix Media). Firstly it was virtual storage page and after some years it became social networking site. In 2005 MySpace was bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and after that, some design changes, separate subsites (like MySpace for UK or China version of MySpace) and launch of Facebook made MySpace no more page for music and networking but it has become advertising paradise and Facebook's-wanna-be-twin. Why for advertisers? "Through its Web site and affiliated ad networks, MySpace is second only to Yahoo! in its capacity to collect data about its users and thus in its ability to use behavioral targeting to select the ads each visitor sees." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpace)

Well internet is constantly changing but why did MySpace become so old and unpopular? Some years ago MySpace was a place to be, all the celebrities and music artist were on MySpace, but today majority of them went to Twitter or Facebook. But are Twitter and Facebook phenomenon the main reasons for the decline of MySpace? (for comparison of numbers of unique visitors check this very useful site for all of you who are interested in social networking sites -> http://siteanalytics.compete.com/myspace.com+facebook.com+twitter.com/)

Some possible MySpace flaws can be:
- complicated use of all the aplications and features of site (the KISS rule - Keep It Simple Stupid), it wants to be too much like Facebook,
- it does not have any third party program helpers, like Twitter or Facebook have (like applications or companies fan pages),
- it is also more imaginary and people are less willingly to share their real identity on MySpace than on the Facebook,
- poor spam and junk protection, too much advertisements,
- not so clean-looking design like Facebook,
- it has no option for non-stop communicating like chating,
- celebrities moved to Twitter, independent bands stayed on MySpace (privacy rights).

And this are just some of potential causes. Do you agree with them or do you think that it is not all about the technical changes but the reality that primar MySpace users got old. And do you think that Facebook could have the same destiny?

And when I was searching for information about MySpace I found this very useful Wikipedia site of all of social networking sites. Useful and interesting :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites

Searching for love in 21st century

Online dating has become a part of searching for partner in every-day life. Some statistics says that in 2006 18% of all users of internet in Europe have visited online dating site. And this is about 38,2 million users. (http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1010) And in UK every month 7 million singles visited a dating site in 2009. This is a 27% increase of the year 2008. (you can find more statistics about internet dating for all over the world here) So online dating is a fast growing industry which has become approved and normal way of meeting new people.

Popularity of internet and new technologies on the market of partnerships and marital status has several social causes. There are changes in intimate relationships and private sphere like for example reduced social regulation of intimate life and sexuality, there is also transformation of intimacy, phenomena of pure relationship and plastic sexuality. Also changes in labor sphere have consequences on changed setting for singles. There is less free time because of the more and more working hours so single people do not have time for "traditional" meeting of potential partners. Also process of individualization and demands of reflexive project on the self, globalization and other changes have impact on more and more used online dating. sites And this kind of dating can have several positive sides but it also involves taking risks.

Some would say that internet and computer mediated communication is successful in dating because there are reduced nonverbal cues so the real personality is more important than the looks. And in this kind other factors which are important for relationship come in foreground like affinity, contact, reciprocal self-disclosure and emotional intimacy. In that way people are also liberated of social roles of gender so personality has more impact on meeting the "right" person. But trust is still the main factor of successful search and if we believe statistics (58% of Europeans have been victims of online dating dishonesty. Italians at 72%, Germans at 58%, French and British at 55%, and Dutch at 48%) online dating sites are not anymore the new environment in which "true love" can be found. Singles who use dating sites, 33% form a relationship, 33% do not, and 33% give up on dating online.

So online searching for love is not so perfect like some authors (Ellison, Heino and Gibbs 2006; Hardey 2004; Ben-Ze'ev 2004) are suggesting. But like the latter author is underlining, this kind of searching for partner has other consequences like social integration and social contacts. And in this way people can satisfy inner human need and this is free communication. So like almost every act on internet is in the direction of communication also searching for love is just the satisfaction of social integration.

Sources:
- Ben-Ze’ev, Aaron. 2004. Flirting on and offline. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 10 (1): 24-42.
- Ellison, Nicole B., Rebecca D. Heino in Jennifer L.Gibbs. 2006a. Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (2): 415-441.
- Hardey, Michael. 2004. Mediated relationships: Authenticity and the possibility of romance. Information, Communication & Society 7 (2): 207-222.

Internet killed the CD?

We all know that music industry is (by their opinion) in trouble especially with the rise of the internet. They have money loss and as RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is writing, these losses are not small.

"One credible analysis by the Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers' earnings, and a loss of $422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes." (Source: http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php)

Surveys in all major markets prove that internet is a major factor for the fall in world music sales, down 7% in 2003, and down 14% in three years. Yes, internet has a great influence on music industry. At beginning music industry did not know what to do. But then finally they acted and move their bussiness to internet. So we got albums online and we could just download them.

And so is today. A small number of artists have still old fashioned CD's. Well CDs have become collection pieces. A lot of people buy CD just when their favourite artist release it. All other people download albums. And this downloading is not every time legal. Why is internet music piracy so popular? Some say that because it's cheaper. Some that is less time consuming (you do not even have to leave home). Some say that is positive because with this kind of music listening you can widen your music taste. It can be treated positive. But could we say that the negative point about music sharing on internet is "murder" of CDs?

I think that internet has brought to us democratization of music. Now every band, group or artist can record themselves and put their songs to Youtube. So the music is no longer reserved just for those who have some acquaintance in music industry. In that way music industry is also loosing it's main role in connecting music to money. Music has become more important. But back to the question if internet killed the CD. In my opinion internet has made CD a boutique product. It is more valued (on symbolic level) and has more exclusive role. And like video did not kill the radio star, also internet will not killed CD and video stars. Even more. On internet video and presentation of artist is even more important. And what do you think? Will internet kill the CD or not?

Cloud computing

For new post I wanted to write something about privacy on internet. But when I was searching for material I run into this website: Privacy Rights. Although is American it has some really interesting documents on privacy in new media context. When I was checking their website I run to really interesting concept. Cloud computing.

"In general terms, it’s the idea that your computer’s applications run somewhere on the “cloud”, that is to say, on someone else’s server accessed via the Internet. Instead of running program applications or storing data on your own computer, these functions are performed at remote servers which are connected to your computer through the Internet or other connections." (source: http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs18-cyb.htm#cloudcomputing)

For every day use cloud computing is very handy and for business companies is really money and time saver. For example very known cloud computing service is Gmail or Picassa from Google. But the main question for me is in this context risk of this kind of services for regular user. When the user puts their data on cloud site he or she does not have anymore control on this data. The security of data fall on to cloud provider. Some examples what can happen with your data (everything from: http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs18-cyb.htm#cloudcomputing):

"Government investigators or civil litigants trying to subpoena information could approach the hosting company without informing the data's owners. The hosting company generally does not have the same motivation as the user to defend against disclosure of the information."

"Some companies could even willingly share sensitive data with marketing firms. So there is a privacy risk in putting your data in someone else's hands. Obviously, the safest approach is to maintain your data under your own control."

And the main problem here is that technology is so much more ahead then the law. This problem has two relevant things to think about. First is the ease with which we use computers and internet. So cloud computing can be rally the good guy. But on the other hand what about our data? How we can secure them and why we are not worried about them. In my opinion today cloud computing is somewhere between good and bad. I think that really is a good guy but only if users know how to use it and be aware of it's rights.

What do you think? Is cloud computing the bad or the good guy?

Power of Facebook: user vs. profile

Few days ago I watched an episode of Southpark. It was interesting, because it was about Facebook and obsession with number of friends (you can watch episode here). But the question mentioned there give me a lot to think about: Who is more powerful on Facebook? The user or the profile?

As we know, Facebook is currently number one in social network sites. And the question is, does the profile on Facebook say who you really are in real life. On that topic I found an interesting article from Sonia Livingstone: "Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression". It is about the presentation of teenagers on Facebook and how they present themselves who they are. She is writing:

"While younger teenagers relish the opportunities to recreate continuously a highly-decorated, stylistically-elaborate identity, older teenagers favour a plain aesthetic that foregrounds their links to others, thus expressing a notion of identity lived through authentic relationships."

This is very interesting point because through interviews she did, she discovered that for example older teenagers prefer Facebook to Myspace, because the first is more "sophisticated" and they feel more grown up. They can really show who they are through various profile information but they also admit that this kind of identity is shaped by peers.

Another interesting discovery was that teenagers, no matter how many Facebook friends they have (here we are talking about hundreds of friends), they still can separate those friends so they realise which of them are real one and which of them are just "virtual" living on Facebook. So for conclusion, answer on question of power user versus profile is not so easy. Users have power to manage their profiles but this is actually done under the pressure of self-representation. So in the battle user vs. profile, the score is indecisive.



Source: Livingstone, Sonia. 2008. Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media and Society 10 (3): 393-411. Available on: http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/393

Socialnomics

I was searching on internet articles about relationship between social networks and business, because I want to know, how social networks can be (and already are) used for marketing. So I came across this video on Youtube (it will take you 4 minutes for watching :)



Video is about Socialnomics, the word which is composed from two words: social + economics. And is describing that social media can make positive ROI (return of investment) and the payment is almost free. I think that social networks are good for different brands and are new channel for marketing. All the "big" companies are making the best of social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Netlog, Youtube etc (check this site about report of engagement of different US brands; currently the winner of engagement is Starbucks). But is this the future? Does that mean that all brands will have more and more precise campaigns for selling or does that mean that brands will finally become listening to consumers and adjusting to them?

I have positive and also negative opinion about this kind of marketing. Positive about that kind of engagement is that consumers have more and more information about brands, they can also feel more connected with them and they have feeling that companies care about them. But I think that kind of marketing is not done for better selling (this is just old thinking) but for better recognition (we all know Starbucks don't we, but have many of us drink it?). Companies must be friendly with consumers and make new social network with them. And I think that they are doing this very successfully.

But my personal reserve is about personal data (people do not realize how many personal information give on internet and what others can do with them). Socialnomics can allow companies that they get data about consumers and they get this data free. If traditionally they had to pay to certain marketing research agency today they can collect (if they have resources) it on their own and free. And the most problematic thing here is, that consumers do not realize that.

But I feel that socialnomics is the future and can bring so many positive things not only to companies but also to consumers. And it would be interesting to know opinion about this kind of marketing from scientific point of view. So what do you think? Is socionomics positive or negative?

I am mayor of 4sq

Last week I found a new application (or I do not know how to name it) called Foursquare. It is "a cross between a friend-finder, a social city-guide and a game that rewards you for doing interesting things. We aim to build things to not only help you keep up with the places your friends go, but that encourage you to discover new places and challenge you to explore your neighborhood in new ways." It is mobile application and through mobile phone you are checking-in on different places. You can also write tips (like bacon in xy restaurant is very good) or can collect badges (you become mayor of certain place, when you check-in more then anyone). You also collect points (for which is not yet known how to use them in real world) and it is interesting that some companies (like coffee shops or restaurants) are offering for example free coffee for those who become mayors of this place. So this application can be personal or can be another tool for different companies for making promotion. Oh and did I mention it is also compatible with Twitter and Facebook?

Of course this kind of application raises many different questions. Mostly questions about privacy and personal data. Maybe for some people this kind of real-life/on-line game is intriguing and funny to play but for me is a whole leap for making our real lives more and more compatible with on-line. Why would you share information where are you with everyone (well with your friends but if you share this also on Facebook and Twitter this "friends" become more loose concept)? Location is very sensitive personal data and should not be shared with everyone. So I think that 4sq is just another application which is pushing the limits of our real life. And also it is interesting that concept of gaming which is traditionally connected with online world and identity is becoming more in more interwoven with real life. If we think that Second World was new and controversial, 4sq is even more because of our personal data and security.

What we have in common?

Like every medium also internet has large, unconnected audience and members are divided by space and time. So internet can be a very useful tool for maintaining existing relationships and also can be used for making new friendships. In both we use computer mediated communication (CMC) which is closely connected with virtual reality. So we can say that internet is connecting people in communities and that is what we call virtual communities. Very simple definition of virtual community is that it is consequence of CMC where communication flow between unknown people which has in common some similar interests, needs and wishes. So for one virtual community there must be just one thing that participants have in common. This can be anything, from hobbies (like photography), music or film to parenting, gender (like female or male virtual communities) or studying. But the main question is how virtual communities are really created in comparison with offline communities?

I will use some ideas from book (which is actually MA paper) Skupnost, identiteta in komunikacija v virtualnih skupnostih (in English this is Community, identity and communication in virtual communities) from Tadej Praprotnik (he is professor of communication and new media on Institutum Studiorum Humanitatis (ISH) – Ljubljana Graduate School of the Humanities). And I also recommend this book for all who are interested in virtual communities or wish to write paper about them. Unfortunately this book is not translated in English.

Author is suggesting that virtual communities have two features that are copied from offline culture to virtual. First is that virtual communities are never created as something new, because they are founded on basis of preliminary formulated communities. The main motive for participation is wish for belonging to group and this wish is same also in offline life. Second (and in my opinion very important) is that virtual identity is not as free as we all think (you know the famous "On the internet nobody knows you're a dog"). Virtual identity is shaped with values, biases and meanings from everyday offline life so this all have impact also on virtual life. So virtual communities are somehow just derivatives of ideological pre-virtual setting.

But why are virtual communities so attractive, not only for users but also for researchers? In my opinion the main attraction is anonymity and lack of social pressure. People on internet can be what they are. They can be happy, shallow or even racist. If one community does not accept them, the other will or even they can make their own virtual community. Entrance in virtual community is so much easier then in real life, so much quicker and also even exit from it is possible. All you need is computer, interest and people. Commonalities can emerge later.

If you're not on Facebook then you don't exist?

Today I read an interesting article about Facebook (you can find it here and in Slovene here) which is called In the world of Facebook (well actually is interesting review of two books).

First the article is describing to-us-all known beginnings of Facebook in 2004 but what I didn't know and was new to me, is the exclusivity of it and starting elitism of it. Yes I knew that primary it was intended to Harvard students but I never thought off that kind of exclusivity the author is describing, that major attraction of the early Facebook came from its snob appeal and its high selectivity. Bourdieu was somehow right with his aesthetic gaze and class although I didn't think that also new technologies can become so stratificated and under that influence. Author is also comparing Facebook with Myspace, because the idea for both is somehow the same (social networking) so the question is, why is Facebook so special? Author is suggesting that Facebook was connected with education and higer class, when Myspace was connected with working class. Also pages of Myspace were more connected with popular culture and were more urban, while Facebook was more aesthetic and was like planned community in suburb.

Author is raising some interesting questions also regarding to privacy, politics, advertising and communication on Facebook. But for me most interesting is idea of "second internet" and Facebook connect function. It is somehow interesting and also intimidating that all your personal information and also all your clicks on internet are noted in huge database and you do not know who sees yours information and who is using and paying for them. This metaphor of "second internet" is really well-placed because all our data and information are in other "virtual world," which is not known to us. I think that debate around privacy on Facebook (and also internet) will be very relevant in future but users should know that like real communities also virtual communities has risk that everybody will know everything about you. Facebook is special in its functions and its consequences on every-day life, but the question remains, it is really indicator of our online existence.

If you're not in group of people in real life, that does not mean that you don't exist, but if you're not on Facebook that just mean that you can relatively safely use internet without being considered who has your information - and yes, you still exist. :)

About This Particular Blog And Some First Thoughts

Hello everybody!

This blog is one of assignments for course New Media & Society, which is taking place on Faculty of Social Science in Ljubljana, Slovenia (well just virtually, real lectures are taking place in the Netherlands). And first of all I should introduce myself. I am post graduate student on Communication Science - Communication, Media and Society program. I graduated last year in Media and Communication studies in Ljubljana and title of my diploma was Media representation of ethical consumerism.

In my four years of undergraduate study I had relatively large amount of courses, which were related to new technologies. I am personally very interested in new media, because I think that it has lot of consequences on our everyday life, from everyday processes like shopping to more delicate topics like democratization or public opinion.Regarding to this seminar I want to upgrade my existing knowledge and I also have plan to write my master degree regarding on new media.

I use some social networks sites like Facebook, I read some blogs (and now I also write one) and personally I try to follow novelties that are on internet. I am everyday surprised with new things that I discover regarding to technology or to changed life as consequence of internet. I also use online literature resources and social science databases like Sage or Ebscohost and I think that these are very handy for students.
Personally I am very interested in new consumer culture that has occurred and changed with spread of internet and online shopping. I would like to know what these changes are and what they brought to process of consuming. And I am also interested in virtual communities such as different forums in connection with consuming and if forums have influence on peoples’ consuming decisions and wishes. Topics that also intrigue me are those which are related to virtual identity. Do people really change their real identity for sake of being someone else on internet? Don Slater (author that wrote article about Social relationships and identity online and offline; also book about Consumer culture) is writing about disembodiment as a process where virtual identity divide from physical presence. So maybe is internet in field of identity fluidity next step of postmodern identity?

New technologies have a great impact on our life and it's not just technology the cause for society changes, but also consequence of them. And this blog will bring some critical writings about changes and about New media and society.

Thanks for reading!