http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15844230
This article, posted on the BBC news technology page, really highlights how many people in the world can now be defined as a 'facebook user' and how this fact means you are now able to think of anyone other person in the world and you are only ever 3.74 degrees away from being there 'friend' in the social networking haven. This article really highlights the influence Facebook is able to have because such a huge proportion of the world are amongst its now in its rank. This fact worth knowing alone to put things into the wider context when looking at the ethical issues social networks bring up.
Sunday, 27 November 2011
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
At last some good press.
http://windmillnetworking.com/2011/11/07/social-media-catalyst-social-change/
This a really interesting blog post which highlights some of the major events of the past decade in which social media has acted as a catalyst for social change. Particularly interesting is the paragraph written on the use of Twitter and Youtube in promoting the relief appeal in the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake of 2011. It is nice to read something about the positives social media can achieve in using one medium to reach billions of people and bring about social and political change. Things like this can easily forgotten when so many thousands of negative news articles are posted on line every day. I also strongly agree with the closing line of this blog: 'Social media will go on reinventing itself into a faster, smarter and sleeker mode of communication that will continue to build virtual bridges everywhere - and help societies deal with challenges in new and more communal ways" They say the world is the smallest its ever been, this has definitely been helped by social media. It seems its onwards and upwards. Where will it end? For the time being, who knows.
This a really interesting blog post which highlights some of the major events of the past decade in which social media has acted as a catalyst for social change. Particularly interesting is the paragraph written on the use of Twitter and Youtube in promoting the relief appeal in the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake of 2011. It is nice to read something about the positives social media can achieve in using one medium to reach billions of people and bring about social and political change. Things like this can easily forgotten when so many thousands of negative news articles are posted on line every day. I also strongly agree with the closing line of this blog: 'Social media will go on reinventing itself into a faster, smarter and sleeker mode of communication that will continue to build virtual bridges everywhere - and help societies deal with challenges in new and more communal ways" They say the world is the smallest its ever been, this has definitely been helped by social media. It seems its onwards and upwards. Where will it end? For the time being, who knows.
Tuesday, 15 November 2011
Get out your candles Facebook, there's about to be a blackout.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/08/two-thirds-support-social-media-blackout
This article I feel is talking about the most crucial argument relating to social networking and the internet in general at this time, should it have some form of censorship or should it remain something that is completely free of government laws. This article uses the recent England riots as an example of why there is a need for authority to step in and make a 'blackout' at times of civil unrest, and it is not just the authority themselves who think this as the article states ' Three-quarters (of people polled) agreed that governments should have open access to data on social network users in order to prevent co-ordinated crime.' This is a crucial issue because despite the blame the government is putting on social media such as Facebook and the BBM network for orchestrating the riots they are also using it for their gains in the justice system to bring people to account for their actions and that wouldn't have been possible without the use of the social networks in the first.
Of course freedom of expression campaigners greatly oppose the actions, stating in the article: "These kinds of actions would weaken the UK's position against authoritarian regimes who censor Internet access. As we live more of our lives online, people should be conscious of the amount of power they're potentially handing over to government." Both our powerful arguments. Morozov in 'The net delusion' (Morozov,2011) argues that: 'The way forward is to acknowledge that the the public pressure to regulate the web is growing and that not all of the growing regulation should be resisted because the Internet is the sacred cow of the libertarian movement. He goes on to say we should: 'invest ones energy into seeking broad public agreement on what acceptable, transparent. just and democratic procedures by which such regulation is to occur should look like'
So if Morozov is right the debate people should be having is not whether there should be censorship and control over the Internet. (this is inevitable if we don't want to see such violence we saw in the summer where social networking undoubtedly played a part.) It is what and how much is appropriate. Our society isn't giving up on Freedom of speech just yet.
This article I feel is talking about the most crucial argument relating to social networking and the internet in general at this time, should it have some form of censorship or should it remain something that is completely free of government laws. This article uses the recent England riots as an example of why there is a need for authority to step in and make a 'blackout' at times of civil unrest, and it is not just the authority themselves who think this as the article states ' Three-quarters (of people polled) agreed that governments should have open access to data on social network users in order to prevent co-ordinated crime.' This is a crucial issue because despite the blame the government is putting on social media such as Facebook and the BBM network for orchestrating the riots they are also using it for their gains in the justice system to bring people to account for their actions and that wouldn't have been possible without the use of the social networks in the first.
Of course freedom of expression campaigners greatly oppose the actions, stating in the article: "These kinds of actions would weaken the UK's position against authoritarian regimes who censor Internet access. As we live more of our lives online, people should be conscious of the amount of power they're potentially handing over to government." Both our powerful arguments. Morozov in 'The net delusion' (Morozov,2011) argues that: 'The way forward is to acknowledge that the the public pressure to regulate the web is growing and that not all of the growing regulation should be resisted because the Internet is the sacred cow of the libertarian movement. He goes on to say we should: 'invest ones energy into seeking broad public agreement on what acceptable, transparent. just and democratic procedures by which such regulation is to occur should look like'
So if Morozov is right the debate people should be having is not whether there should be censorship and control over the Internet. (this is inevitable if we don't want to see such violence we saw in the summer where social networking undoubtedly played a part.) It is what and how much is appropriate. Our society isn't giving up on Freedom of speech just yet.
Sunday, 6 November 2011
Bullying goes digital.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8872242/Meera-Syal-calls-for-action-on-cyber-bullying.html
In recent years there have been many news stories about the growing issue of cyber bullying ranging in severity and even drastically with cases such as Megan Meier in the USA committing suicide due to cyber bullying she was recieving on a daily basis becoming so extreme. The actress Meera Syal has decided to bring this issue to light because her daughter has been affected by it and it is about time that more people in the spotlight talk about it because as the article states: 'Nearly one in five UK youngsters have been the victim of cyber bullying' It is clearly the rise in social networking websites such as Facebook, mentioned in this article which have been the cause of this, a place where young people often feel they can say anything and are untouchable and I believe the most important part of this story is when Meera says: "While I am a passionate defender of free speech I think the time has come to examine carefully when a freely expressed opinion turns into something akin to victimisation and trial by media." The point is, yes, people are entitled to there own opinion and say but when expressing that leads to teenagers taking such drastic measures as in the Meier case surely it is time for a crack down on these types of things on the Internet. The problem is that sites such as Facebook allows people to remain anonymous and that makes young people feel they won't be held accountable like they would if they were to say such things face to face. The question is though should it be left to public figures to speak out about this culture of bullying or should Facebook and other such sites be doing more to tackle the issue head on. Surely its the latter?
In recent years there have been many news stories about the growing issue of cyber bullying ranging in severity and even drastically with cases such as Megan Meier in the USA committing suicide due to cyber bullying she was recieving on a daily basis becoming so extreme. The actress Meera Syal has decided to bring this issue to light because her daughter has been affected by it and it is about time that more people in the spotlight talk about it because as the article states: 'Nearly one in five UK youngsters have been the victim of cyber bullying' It is clearly the rise in social networking websites such as Facebook, mentioned in this article which have been the cause of this, a place where young people often feel they can say anything and are untouchable and I believe the most important part of this story is when Meera says: "While I am a passionate defender of free speech I think the time has come to examine carefully when a freely expressed opinion turns into something akin to victimisation and trial by media." The point is, yes, people are entitled to there own opinion and say but when expressing that leads to teenagers taking such drastic measures as in the Meier case surely it is time for a crack down on these types of things on the Internet. The problem is that sites such as Facebook allows people to remain anonymous and that makes young people feel they won't be held accountable like they would if they were to say such things face to face. The question is though should it be left to public figures to speak out about this culture of bullying or should Facebook and other such sites be doing more to tackle the issue head on. Surely its the latter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)