I’ve always thought the idea of the internet being dangerous for children and teens a little ridiculous. Of course the internet has A LOT of bad things, but I think most teens these days are fully capable of being responsible online. They grew up with the internet and are experts at using it! David Pogue, in his article “How Dangerous is the Internet?” in the NY Times (read it here), agrees. He states that he was told to write an article about the danger of the internet, and when he did his editor was disappointed because it wasn’t “sensational.” He recalls a moment when his son saw a naked version of The Incredibles and how he decided not to make it a big deal (as other parents have..usually freaking out and making it a big deal). With regards to teens and sex/porn/nudity..they see a lot of it in regular shows! Every show nowadays usually has some sort of sex scene, so teens probably don’t think twice about it when they see it online. I don’t think there is a worry regarding meeting strangers online. Like I’ve said before, my sister has met a lot of fellow One Directions fans on twitter. She knows about stranger danger and the negatives of the internet. When meeting someone on twitter, she usually talks (tweets) to them often and slowly become friends on different social media platforms. Before meeting them she usually skypes them, too! And she never goes by herself. There are so many different strategies to use while on the internet. There are far more dangerous things than meeting a creep on the internet. I think we should all remember that young people these days are really intelligent and savvy with the internet. Of course parents should always look after their kids but there are limitations.

I clicked play on the video and immediately opened up two tabs on my browser as the audio played through. One to check the midterm description for this class and one for email. In the first 18 seconds the guy in the video as if speaking to me, dares us to “not open a new tab and let this play in the back ground”, but to sit still and simply watch the video. I clicked back on the tab and quickly scrubbed forward to see if there would be something interesting happen in the little thumbnail but there wasn’t, just his face. So I let the video play. He continues to challenge us to simply watch the video! I hear vibration sound and check my phone, nothing, it was the video. At one point it even freezes for 10 seconds and I checked to make sure the video was working or loaded. That too was part of it. And like that I realized I’m a part of the game and he’s playing me like a puppet.

Our reading this week on Moral Panic tended to emphasis the physical dangers and treats of predators and bullies. But I think another panic that adults have is the concern for immediate gratification and shortening attention span. This is something I have felt about children, however this video made me realize I’m just as guilty. The time-saving tools that we have adopted to make our lives more efficient, are little tricks like checking the progress bar thumbnails on a youtube video for interesting clips, or opening a new tab and simply listening to the video. These same tips I believe are also adopted on social media as a filter and way to validate of certain people and profiles we encounter.

“re-gain control of the one truly un-renewable resource in life, your time.”

But in that same desire we are getting lost. Overall, as a generation we feel that our time is precious and little tricks to squeeze the most into our day is mind-numbingly habitual. But it gets to the point where a 10 second freeze in a video creates stress, because it seems out of our control. I think another very real Moral Panic is the struggle to enjoy the little things in life.

This week I read two articles about how women are harassed on the internet. “High Tech or High Risk: Moral Panics about Girls Online,” by Justine Cassell and Meg Cramer, reminded me of some other articles I’ve read about women and technology and how in the early developments of each technology, from the typewriter to the telephone women’s involvement was stigmatized and their desires such as being able to use the telephone for communication were dismissed as foolish and stupid ideas. In Boyd’s work she mentions that moral panics come with each technological shift, from Victorian romance novels, to comic books to Elvis (112). Cassell and Meg Cramer state that “Because the telegraph was supposed to radically improve business, the effort it took to send every letter of a message was deemed worthwhile to expend only when the message held military or commercial importance, realms that were at that time controlled and dominated by men,” and so women discussing life at home was considered “frivolous (59).” I think the idea of seeing women’s ideas as frivolous is still happening today especially with the hate and discrimination they get, when people don’t understand or like what someone is saying, they try and dismiss it; “when people become famous, they are often objectified, discussed and ridiculed with little consideration for who they are as people” (Boyd, 149). And so women who have a fan base, whether they are actual celebrities or just regular people, such as journalists, often have to deal with aggression more so than men.

From an early age women are taught to fear predators online. But when girls are online they look use the internet for a to look at a wider variety of content and this gives them “metaphoric mobility” which can alarm parents because they lose complete control (Cassell,70). All in all, “the number of young women who have been preyed on by strangers has decreased, both in the online and offline world” (Cassell, 70). Flirtation and sexual harassment online tends to come from people their own age and only 4% of solicitation happened by people over 25 (112).
What I find telling is that even when these girls mature and become successful and use the internet to have a public presence for their career or just for fun, women are still encouraged to leave. The Internet and social media platforms have become a stage where people can listen to anyone, and through harassment and threats, people can encourage someone to “get off the stage.” In “Why Women aren’t Welcome on the Internet” Amanda Hess explains that being in a position of power or simply just voicing ones opinion as a woman can get you into a lot of trouble and that can be draining and time consuming, especially when you have to call the police and go over all the death and rape threats you’ve received. An idea in that article I found interesting was as distinction Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman draws between “tourists” and “vagabonds” in the modern economy:

“Privileged tourists move about the world “on purpose,” to seek “new experience” as “the joys of the familiar wear off.” Disempowered vagabonds relocate because they have to, pushed and pulled through mean streets where they could never hope to settle down. On the Internet, men are tourists and women are vagabonds.” People who threaten to attack women, are usually anonymous and often act like they own the place and feel like they have a right to be there, such as one computer programmer who “enjoys riling people up” and is “infamous for posting creepy photographs of underage women and creating or moderating subcommunities on the site with names like “chokeabitch” and “rapebait.””
I think it’s important that young girls be encouraged you understand technology so they can influence the way it grows and changes in the years to come and so we can all be tourist and welcomed on the internet.

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170

http://time.com/3305466/male-female-harassment-online/

Last Saturday, I hiked up to the Hollywood sign with a group of friends. At the top, with the view of the sign as well as most of Los Angeles in sight, my friend Herman asked me, “What did people use to do at the top of hikes before cameras?” At first, I thought he asked what people did before camera-phones (probably since I have been thinking about the “selfie” so much due to this class). When I realized he just meant cameras in general, I said “just look, I guess…” Why don’t people do that anymore? Why are people not merely satisfied with just looking at the view in that moment? Instead most people feel the need to document it with taking a picture, especially with themselves in it.

This reminds me of the case study we read this week on the “infamous Auschwitz selfie.” I remember when social networking got all stirred up about it, but I kinda just turned away because even the thought of “selfie” and “concentration camp” is quite appalling. After reading the article about why the girl did it, my opinion has not really changed at all, although it does provide some insight why exactly people feel the need to take pictures, and now selfies, at famous monuments or at the top of a hike. Her intentions for the selfie were for self-documentation and as a remembrance for her father. As the writer of the article stated, these intentions do not authorize her actions as “okay.” Her selfie still, as the writer put it, minimizes what happened there into an inappropriate “personal narrative,” which reminds me of Elie Wiesel’s critique of Schindler’s List as kitsch.

When thinking back about the hike on Saturday and how nearly everyone was taking a picture of others or a selfie, I can see that it is a way of saying “I did it,” but why does that need to be shared in the “super public” that Danah Boyd coined? Why is there a need to celebrate when so many other people have accomplished the same fact? Obviously, it is more appropriate than taking a selfie at a concentration camp, but there remains a sense of minimizing in the act.

In this weeks’ reading, danah boyd attempts to define the new concept of “super publics.” In her argument, she discusses how digital media has “screwed with the notion of public, removing traditional situationism that connects strangers.” The notion of a “public act”—which is defined as “one that is visible to an audience of strangers, connected by exposure to that act (a.k.a. a public)” and is explicitly limited in scope—has transformed into a larger audience of strangers because of the internet.

That being said, I saw this as true, as there has been a recent trend at my internship where celebrities announce pregnancies and other exciting news in a new way. The traditional way of announcing them via news outlets, magazines, and other traditional ways of media has been replaced with announcements via Instagram. Justin Timberlake was the last one I encountered this week, where it was revealed that he and wife? Jessica Biel announced that they’re expecting via his Instagram account (although the media had already long speculated Jessica’s pregnancy due to numerous photos purporting a new “bump”).

Thank you EVERYONE for the Bday wishes! This year, I'm getting the GREATEST GIFT EVER. CAN'T WAIT. #BoyOrGirl #YouNeverKnow #WeDontEvenKnow #WeAreTakingBets

A post shared by Justin Timberlake (@justintimberlake) on Jan 31, 2015 at 3:29pm PST

I think it’s interesting that celebrities like JT are starting to utilized social media moreso than traditional forms of media for these types of stories. You can actually see a shift in the style of writing in these tabloids; they went from simply reporting news received from publicisits to now reporting news from what they see on the celebs social media. Now, tabloids are beginning to stretch even further to expose these celebrities’ secrets before they are revealed on social media. The digital sphere has changed the audience of celebrities from domestic magazine readers to now worldwide followers—somewhat parallel with boyd’s argument of a superpublic.

Superpublics are still a concept even boyd is hashing out, but I see the correlation in my world today.

I’m not the first person to mention  Kim Kardashian today, but when people think of selfies, hers is one of the first faces to come to mind. In 2014, Kim cropped her baby out of a selfie, giving her much negative attention. Many tabloid articles were born from the Insta-scandal. Fans commented that she was selfish, wanted the whole spotlight to herself. One even wrote Kim “is a slutty mom who don’t care for her child”.

In last week’s readings, Rettberg said that sharing selfies can be compared to reaching out to hug the viewer- the viewer is closer to the subject than the camera. Celebs use this as a way to bring fans closer to them, making it seem like they are completely open. The fan thinks they know everything relevant about the celebrities life. This is the very idea behind a “selfie nation”. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lot of celebrities keep their children from the public eye as much as possible, children being the one small thing they won’t share with the public. However, Kim recognizes the post 9/11 attitube mentioned by Boyd: “if you hide something, you’re a terrorist”. Therefore, she and Kanye West have been extremely open and forthcoming with pictures of and information about their baby. This way, they aren’t hastled, and they handle the media on their own terms. The baby-crop scandal is proof that as soon as Kim censored her life the slightest bit, fans couldn’t handle it.

I wonder how the selfie city project would differ if it was taken on by celebrities instead of normal people posting Insta-pics. It probably wouldn’t- aside from being a lot more manicured. I take a lot of selfies in bed when I wake up. I also take a lot on the toilet. In this way, I am inviting people into the very intimate moments in my life. I expand Boyd’s definition of the superpublic to include the fact that with selfies, all spaces are in the public sphere- even the most private places in the home. I also wanted to note what “public” is. Boyd touched on the fact that the notion of a public is highly subjective- and a public may include members that a speaker doesn’t realize her or she is addressing. The “public” is a metaphysical term- and it is a concept that would not exist is we did not have a word for it. People in this age have the luxury of choosing their own public. With “selfienation”, it is apparent that the technically connected have chosen to make our entire lives public. People in very different cities all over the world have very similar image plots, which even further proves that many boundaries and distinguishing factors between nations no longer exist.

dannah boyd adresses in her blog post about the term, “super publics”; the notion of a newly changed public world constructed as a biproduct of a digital social life and its push for a certain information flow. She gets to saying that this new public is an alteration from it’s previous meaning by the infusion of the digital sphere; a place where time has little affect on the present that changes every reload, and audience members are unknown. Everything is understood on a public platform, we are aware of the Internet nature, and it is not something that we fear but appreciate. I do not however take selfies very seriously, but more for comedic relief. Although, I am guilty of my few on fleek selfies that will just sit in my phone as a beauty reminder! This past weekend, one of my favorite beautiful diasters took part in a commercial which was meant to change the way data is consumed. Kim Kardarishian West gave a compelling reason as to why everyone should switch to T-mobile, which was to gaze upon her many selfies of course! Daily life is shifting, there is always more information to access, and unlimited space for expression, broadcasting, and its affect, exposure. I do not however think this a bad thing necessary. Our world suddenly is more aware of anothers gaze, forcing us to behave in a more appropiate manner, because you really dont know who is watching. Photos taken 55 years ago display only one side of life by only capturing celebratory moments, it is kind of an unfair vantage point to look back on situations. Photographs now are able to document everything, because of the convenience of the smartphone. I am wondering now how many other parts of our culture are shifting because of this digital life and this partnership with technology; what ideas and habits has technology instilled in our culture?

I myself have been apart or taken selfies that in my opinion are worth all the shame I get for taking them. Most of these pictures are taken within the confines of snapchat, and are displayed only to a limited friend circle, which is 35 people tops. However, some of this pictures have been taken moved to another form of social media, most of these where only meant for my eyes, but they are too good not to share! The selfies in my photo library are obvious moments that should be documented.

 Selfie with some of my younger siblings. The front facing camera is great in moments where you are the only one with a phone! This one I did add a filter on so I could post it to Instagram.

Selfie with the gals! We were about to in the water but first, Snapchat! #Snorkool

Selfie at the hospital! What a night. Midnight trip to urgent care which turned surgical! This was meant to document this moment of destruction.

In Danah Boyd’s article she discusses and further clarifies the idea of the ‘Super Public’. For Danah, the super public is an entity that is defined as the unknown, or the public that extends beyond that of the immediately accessible public or audience. But as people become more familiar with the concept of the super public and aware of its existence, why do we continue to treat technology prior to us knowing of its presence. The infinitely larger audience, or super public, that commands the flow of content in the realm of the internet has forced the human-technology relationship into a strange place. I think its fair to say that people are overly affectionate and caring when it comes to their technological device. What I find so fascinating is that technology has immediately assumed the role of a diary of sorts. Its intimate relationship to the human is strange and a bit contradictory, as the structural nature of technological devices don’t necessarily support its intimate role, as things have naturally become more accessible and shareable. But when an individual shares data or information with a device, does the individual understand the device as representing a more personal grouping of people, a larger number of people, a public space, or an extremely private one. This perception of the iPhone (or whatever technological device it may be) dictates the information shared, it would also allow one to speculate as to whether people are becoming more or less extraverted with the advent of small technological devices, primarily used for social purposes. In taking a selfie, are one’s thoughts more outwardly focused, as they are more directed at the pure aesthetic of the photograph, instead of stimulating more critical thinking?

Just as a part of our political activist self has become more passive with the advent of the “like” button, one could also argue that our private persona is becoming more “public”. I guess this could come full circle and relate to the idea of technological determinism, in the fact that we now filter or edit ourselves for pre-determined and larger groupings of individuals. One could argue that this self-editing parallels that of which takes place in the real world, and to some degree it does, but it in no way can the internet provide such a spectrum of interaction. I think that Danah Boyd’s Super Public sheds light on the errors and fallacies present in our current understanding and relationship with technological devices and virtual communities. We all aren’t fully getting the Internet. But I guess our misunderstandings have generated a diverse range of content. Would a strong analytical understanding of the connective pathways of the digital world enlighten us to not make bad digital decisions? Would it make the internet more boring? Or would it become a place riddled with intentionality (which could be boring)?

People don’t like selfies and they’re making a serious stand against them.

I’ve been seeing an article circulate recently that lists places all over the world where selfies have been banned. Who would’ve thought it would come to this point and become such a problem? And you can actually get in serious trouble to the point where you get fined a ton of money!

Guaranteed, each location has legitimate reasons for the selfie ban. For example, being banned from taking a selfie in Pamplona, Spain amidst “Running of the Bulls” is completely understandable. Safety is obviously the main concern because, well, you could get killed! One man who took a selfie with a bull charging right behind him was fined $4,000 for the act. And Spain isn’t the only ones dropping large fines. Great Britain and South Korea are limiting people’s use of the “selfie stick”. Though Great Britain isn’t charging, they do ban selfie sticks in crowded areas and popular music venues. South Korea, on the other hand, is not afraid to charge you up to $30,000 and a possible three-year jail sentence for using unauthorized, Bluetooth selfie sticks. Are you afraid now? Because I am.

One of the most interesting locations for me that banned selfies for the holidays is La Garoupe Beach in France. The beach was designated as a “No Braggies Zone”, and holiday police officers patrolled the area stopping anyone who tried to take a selfie. When I did some further reading on this, I found out that in France, a selfie is synonymous to bragging. To them, if you take a selfie, it almost always means you have something to brag about and will most likely post it on social media to share with your friends. Long story short, the purpose of the “No Braggies Zone” is just that. Don’t brag to your friends, and do not make them hate you as you get your tanned on a white sandy beach while sipping margaritas. Basically, enjoy the moment… but keep it to yourself.