This week in Digital Cultures, we looked closely at Google, and how its effected what people know about us. Our teacher said that she wanted to scare us to the point where we think about what we search on the internet, but I was not scared. The question of this blog post is in the title; is Google evil?
In the articles from the book, Googlization of Everything, the author talked about how Google stores everything we search and every website we visit. Google uses this information to help to predict what we are going to search the next time we use Google Search, but it also uses this information to provide adds for us. Google does not sell this information to other companies, but agrees to put up another companies add if we search something that relates to that add in some way. The author also spoke about the privacy settings Google has a default, which is no privacy at all. He also warns us that if google defaulted and was bought out, they would warn us, but probably not give us a chance to delete all the data Google has collected on us.
I don't fully understand why we should be so scared that information about what we like is held by a corporation like Google. So what if they know I search about nerdy stuff or shoes or what clothes I wear? That kind of stuff only means that I won't be so pissed off the advertising I see around the internet instead of seeing advertising that doesn't mean anything to me. And yes, for some people, who maybe look up porn a lot or something like that might not want that shown, but thats who they are. These corporations are not likely to hold this information over us, like we have heard of the porn industry doing. This is because this information is really just for advertising, and that is how these corporations make money. So whats the worse that could happen? Good advertising.. thats very scary...
My point is that we should not be too afraid of what information we share with google. The information we give to Google is not overly secret anyway, and I am sure if any close friends already know the kind of stuff you would search on Google.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Pirates and Piracy (oh my!)
This week in Digital Cultures we focused on Pirates and Piracy of music and movies. Many of the articles we read argued that piracy was wrong because it is a form of stealing. In this blog, I want to focus on piracy of movies, as it is something I have done before and will do again.
In an article by Jack Valenti, we are told that only one out of ten movies make money (after all the money spent to make the movie) in the movie theatre, and the only way they can make that money is by consumers buying them as CDs. When I read this statement from Valenti, I laughed.. a lot. Of those ten movies, which is the one that I am going to download? The one that made all that money in the movie theatre. The other movies are most likely B rated movies or simply bad movies that people do not want to watch. Plus I wonder, just as we learned with the music industry, where that money is actually going. Producers and actors are contracted for movies, so who is getting that money? Probably just the film industry, and if you ask me they already have enough money as it is.
Another interesting point I realized is that none of the articles we read mentioned iTunes, which makes me think they were written before iTunes became popular. iTunes as completely changed the way people go about getting their music and DVDs. I am much more willing to pay $3 to rent a movie on itunes than pay $40 to buy it. iTunes has given people a cheap way to get good quality music off the internet without doing something illegal.
The point I am trying to make here is that because of iTunes there are a lot less people illegally downloading music off the internet. The only downside is that iTunes does not provide high quality movies. I can go onto piratebay.com and get Avatar in full HD for free, while iTunes provides it in 460p HD, which is the lowest quality HD possible. What I usually do is rent a movie off iTunes, and if I like it enough that I want it, I will download it illegally. So I am still supporting the creators of the movie but I also get a copy for myself in a higher quality that would probably cost about $60 in DVD form.
Piracy is not a form of stealing, it is a way to share the content that we enjoy and we want others to enjoy as well.
In an article by Jack Valenti, we are told that only one out of ten movies make money (after all the money spent to make the movie) in the movie theatre, and the only way they can make that money is by consumers buying them as CDs. When I read this statement from Valenti, I laughed.. a lot. Of those ten movies, which is the one that I am going to download? The one that made all that money in the movie theatre. The other movies are most likely B rated movies or simply bad movies that people do not want to watch. Plus I wonder, just as we learned with the music industry, where that money is actually going. Producers and actors are contracted for movies, so who is getting that money? Probably just the film industry, and if you ask me they already have enough money as it is.
Another interesting point I realized is that none of the articles we read mentioned iTunes, which makes me think they were written before iTunes became popular. iTunes as completely changed the way people go about getting their music and DVDs. I am much more willing to pay $3 to rent a movie on itunes than pay $40 to buy it. iTunes has given people a cheap way to get good quality music off the internet without doing something illegal.
The point I am trying to make here is that because of iTunes there are a lot less people illegally downloading music off the internet. The only downside is that iTunes does not provide high quality movies. I can go onto piratebay.com and get Avatar in full HD for free, while iTunes provides it in 460p HD, which is the lowest quality HD possible. What I usually do is rent a movie off iTunes, and if I like it enough that I want it, I will download it illegally. So I am still supporting the creators of the movie but I also get a copy for myself in a higher quality that would probably cost about $60 in DVD form.
Piracy is not a form of stealing, it is a way to share the content that we enjoy and we want others to enjoy as well.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Flickr
For our Flickr project, my group chose to do an 'above the influence' article at Lawrence university. We wanted to show a student being invited to a party and what the consequences of drinking and smoking are. We showed this by telling two stories: the first is what would happen if the student partied hard and the second showed what would happen if he chose not to. In the first story we tried to make it clear that the student drank a lot and smoked and that because of this he did not have a good night as he threw up and woke up in the bushes missing class. In the second story we show him choosing not to drink or smoke and instead of throwing up he helps a friend who is feeling sick and wakes up in his bed on time. The slideshow can be seen here.
To be honest I did not do a lot of preparation for the project, and neither did my group. None of us came ready with an idea and storyboard, instead we brainstormed when we met up, came up with an idea, and made a quick storyboard. One of the interesting aspects we used was making the slideshow in first person. Also using the blur in some of the photos to help this idea of the first person view really helped to bring the story along. All in all, the entire project was fun from start to finish and wasn't too hard to do.
I, however, have some issues with Flickr as I don't think it's trying to be what it really is. When I think of Flickr I equate it to scrap booking, and that is really what it is. Why use Flickr to tell a story from scratch when you can use video or animations? Flickr can be useful for sharing pictures taken on vacation, but that's scrap booking. I think if Flickr tried to be a scrap booking website it would be more well known but I think as it is now that Flickr is trying to be something it is not.
To be honest I did not do a lot of preparation for the project, and neither did my group. None of us came ready with an idea and storyboard, instead we brainstormed when we met up, came up with an idea, and made a quick storyboard. One of the interesting aspects we used was making the slideshow in first person. Also using the blur in some of the photos to help this idea of the first person view really helped to bring the story along. All in all, the entire project was fun from start to finish and wasn't too hard to do.
I, however, have some issues with Flickr as I don't think it's trying to be what it really is. When I think of Flickr I equate it to scrap booking, and that is really what it is. Why use Flickr to tell a story from scratch when you can use video or animations? Flickr can be useful for sharing pictures taken on vacation, but that's scrap booking. I think if Flickr tried to be a scrap booking website it would be more well known but I think as it is now that Flickr is trying to be something it is not.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Wikipedia
One of the main topics in class this week was Wikipedia. The question concerning wikipedia is how reliable the information is on the site. We read articles defending both sides: Shirky claiming it was great because people worked together to make the information correct as well as the grammar and other aspects. While Keen informed us that because it is not worked on by experts we cannot trust the information there. Keen argues that because a seven year old has as much authority as a scientist there is not a lot of validity in the information. Because we do not know who wrote the information, there is simply no way we can trust what we are reading. Shirky, however, argues that because so many people monitor wikipedia it is unlikely that any mistakes will last.
When I was in high school citing wikipedia was becoming a terrible thing to do. My teachers would often tell our class that we can not use wikipedia as a source. If we want to use wikipedia, scroll down to the bottom and use the sources the article cites because you might find something there. Basically, my school banned the use of wikipedia as a source. This is not uncommon; A New York Times article written in 2007 talks about how the history department banned citing wikipedia as a source when a significant number of students had misinformation for a quiz saying that the jesuits supported the shimabara rebellion. This information was wrong and when the teacher realized his students learned this information from wikipedia, he got it banned. This story is not uncommon with wikipedia, which is why it is not considered a creditable source in many schools throughout the country. I had an experience where I was looking up a type of fish and in the middle of the article someone had written poop. This shows that while there are people who inspect and look over wikipedia articles, they can not catch them all.
Wikipedia does, however, have some quality articles and it is true that people watch and inspect wikipedia for correctness and grammar. Wikipedia is a great place to start looking for basic information on a topic you do not know much about, but it is not a trusted source. I often look at wikipedia articles in my free time and I have learned a lot of good information, but I have also learned a lot of misinformation. So reading wikipedia is fine, especially for a basic knowledge, but it should not be considered a source encyclopedia to be used on research papers. The point is that both Shirky and Keen were correct: Wikipedia is a great website with lots of good information (this is what Shirky wrote) but it also is filled with misinformation (what Keen said) so it is important to remember this and take what you read on wikipedia with a grain of salt.
When I was in high school citing wikipedia was becoming a terrible thing to do. My teachers would often tell our class that we can not use wikipedia as a source. If we want to use wikipedia, scroll down to the bottom and use the sources the article cites because you might find something there. Basically, my school banned the use of wikipedia as a source. This is not uncommon; A New York Times article written in 2007 talks about how the history department banned citing wikipedia as a source when a significant number of students had misinformation for a quiz saying that the jesuits supported the shimabara rebellion. This information was wrong and when the teacher realized his students learned this information from wikipedia, he got it banned. This story is not uncommon with wikipedia, which is why it is not considered a creditable source in many schools throughout the country. I had an experience where I was looking up a type of fish and in the middle of the article someone had written poop. This shows that while there are people who inspect and look over wikipedia articles, they can not catch them all.
Wikipedia does, however, have some quality articles and it is true that people watch and inspect wikipedia for correctness and grammar. Wikipedia is a great place to start looking for basic information on a topic you do not know much about, but it is not a trusted source. I often look at wikipedia articles in my free time and I have learned a lot of good information, but I have also learned a lot of misinformation. So reading wikipedia is fine, especially for a basic knowledge, but it should not be considered a source encyclopedia to be used on research papers. The point is that both Shirky and Keen were correct: Wikipedia is a great website with lots of good information (this is what Shirky wrote) but it also is filled with misinformation (what Keen said) so it is important to remember this and take what you read on wikipedia with a grain of salt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)