A Non-Convincing Virtual Reality

Ray Kurzweil’s chapter “..and bodies” explores the “virtual reality” permitted by nanotechnology, but most of his predictions, similar to Freud’s psychoanalysis theory, frightens me and traps me in their circulars argument that my fear and withdraw further proves their correctness. Of course I am not a scientist, and Kurzweil seems to involve in many cutting-edge researches in artificial intelligence and virtual reality even until now (according to the recent Time article about Singularity). However what I interrogate is that he resides his argument on an assumption that virtual reality is desired and beneficial to all human beings, and that such technology will not interact with our social structure.

In the section of “the sensual machine” he illustrates how nanotechnology and virtual reality will allow people to design and experience almost all kind of sexuality. The problem of his vision, in my opinion, is not that it deviants from the ethic of sex, but that it confines the topic to sex without putting it in the context of the human society. This problem prevails everywhere throughout the chapter. No matter it is the capability in physical or mental e experience, virtual technology is very individual-oriented, and it can and only can exist and function exclusively for one person. If that becomes the truth, in the first place it will require us to question the structure of a capitalist society where everyone works off their specialty and consumes their desire. If most desire, according to Kurzweil, can be well-satisfied by a set of virtual reality, then will we need to work or continue consume at all?

However the discourse of capitalism is still circulated in his book which out being questioned: in the section “virtual bodies,” the author mentions that a competition can happen within software companies because users are able to choose and change the world they want to live. If the evolution of human race happens because of virtual reality advancement, why our social structure and ideology won’t? Therefore I am not convinced by Ray Kurzweil’s picture of our future with virtual reality and nanotechnology.

Slavoj Zizek said it best

I never got into the Matrix series, I can remember seeing the movie but I would fail a trivia question concerning the concepts (or message) behind the movie. Reading The Matrix, or, the two sides of perversion, I come to realize that my lack of understanding may be attributed to the ambiguities of details in the movie. Zizek points out several flaws in the "little things" that matters. The Matrix suggest that the world humans perceive as reality is actually not reality but a dimension control by a being that is not of the reality. Virtual reality pretty much plays God and puppet masters on those unaware. "The One" is the diamond in a rough that realizes whats going on and have the power to rise above imprisonment impose by the controlling being. Our reality is structured for us.

Its hard for me to agree or think "what if" when reflecting on the movie because the movie in itself contradicts. If there is a being that controls reality with infinite structuring power, how is it that people like "The One" are developed? If the being has full control, why would it create people or beings that could possibly overpower? I agree that there are real beings behind virtual reality but I do not agree that those beings are autonomous from the rest of society. Zizek provided a quote from the Matrix itself claiming that the world was suppose to be a perfect but failed because "no one would accept the program"but that controdicts Morpheus' account which compares the VR to being "born in bondage." This is confusing to me because one suggest Democracy while the other suggest Slavery. 

The Reality of Sci-Fi

There is much discussion on the future implications of technology and where it is heading. Nanotechnology, or more simply the manipulation of matter on an atomic level, may literally allow us to change the world around us. How is this possible? Researchers have discovered that by rearranging the molecular building blocks of objects it is possible to create and transform an object into another object in the matter of a split second. In Ray Kurzweil’s “…And Bodies,” he discusses the possible advantages of nanotechnology to transform the physical property of objects as well as the possibility of transforming the physical world into virtual reality through nanotechnology and neural implant technologies. Kurzweil mentions one proposal of nanotechnology that gives us the capabilities of virtual reality and the abilities to switch from our kitchen to our bedroom in a blink of an eye. I could not imagine a world where any of this is possible nor do I know if I am fully convinced that humans could manipulate the laws of physics to accomplish such transforming powers.

However, there are many advocates of nanotechnology that are sure of its future implication. Dr. Michio Kaku, host of “Sci Fi Science” and physicist, predicts within the next 50 years, around 2050, nanotechnology will let us change the world around us by rearranging an object’s property with a couple of keystrokes. In a CNN article Kaku claims, “By midcentury, programmable matter starts to open up. You’ll simply write a software program, and you can literally change a chair into a table.” Dr. Michio Kaku is on the same side of the debate as Ray Kurzweil. Not knowing much about the reliability or the possible negative concerns, I am not sure where I stand on the future of nanotechnology.

Technology

After reading the two articles assigned, I continue to be blown away by the advances in technology. The ...And Bodies article touches on the extreme strides technology has helped overcome in the medical world and how we can change the body cell by cell, with The Matrix article seems far fetched, but seems more relate-able as time goes on. An idea that seems to connect to The Matrix is the idea of having one power house company when it comes to technology. As of now, I believe that this company could be Google. They have the ability to keep extensive records of online usage and continue to add applications to their websites to try and get all internet users to go through them as a search engine. One new introduction made by google is a facial recognition app. The website says that this application would allow a user to snap a picture of a person's face and have their personal information come up. Google has said that they are trying to be careful dealing with people's private information, and you would have to agree to let google release your information. One good thing about this seemingly dangerous app is that there is no release date set. With all the privacy concerns that this brings up, viewers have began to post comments on the article such as, "Oh, they'll let us opt out? How generous of google. Why is it every time a private company does creepy stuff like this for $, it is OUR responsibility to opt out rather than their obligation to convince us we should opt in?" -Nocode42

The Matrix

After reading Zizek's article and his arguments about the Maxtrix and this other world that has been constructed I am convinced that the idea of another world is a waste of time. Furthermore, I believe the attractiveness for some people comes from this idea that there is another world out there. As Zizek pointed out, there have been many examples throughout the 20th century of this other dimension. What usefulness is it for us? Perhaps entertainment but I get a headache thinking about it. This idea of what is real is ridiculous waste of time. I would agree that the Matrix crew was probably inspired by other writers and new technological developments, but maybe they listened to Timothy Leary when he was talking about tuning out. Leary was on acid a lot of the time and it isn't to far fetched to think that some of these people coming up with this stuff were drinking a little too much of the magic coolaid. I found it interesting that this author used Sigmund Freud. Really? I would almost argue that Zizek is reading way too much into the Matrix, but like the saying goes "everyone is a critic." I thought his review was interesting. http://www.mediacircus.net/matrix.html

Accepting Conspiracy Theories

In Zizekon, “The Matrix” he often speaks about popular movies where an alternative reality is being played within another reality; movies like the Truman Show and The Matrix are some movies he talks about, but other movies he missed are A Beautiful Mind, Inception, Shutter Island, Donnie Darko, Momento and many more. These movies are widely talked about because of their confusing nature. Often, Audiences walk away in shock and reviewing the clues of the movie to try and understand it. These movies revolve around a conspiracy theory, and Zizekon says that “we are not to be accepted as "fact" - however, one should also not reduce them to the phenomenon of modern mass hysteria.” A conspiracy theory consists of fantasy and paranoia, and Zizekon talks about “The Big Other” which is basically what is beyond what we don’t know. We have so many theories for this as well and this is why religion is so popular, even through science has proven it wrong. However, predictions through scientific fact have been incorrect. “We are again and again compelled to decide, although we are well aware that we are in no position to decide, that our decision will be arbitrary.” Therefore, the Real is confusing and we might not really know what that real is. In the Internet world, we can create a world that is virtual reality. Some might say it isn’t real, but we should accept it rather than dismiss it. This could potentially be our future.

...And Bodies

While reading Slavoj Zizek's chapter seven entitled "And bodies," I thought it was a little farfetched. As I read I would roll my eyes at the crazy thoguht of techonology advances he was thinking our bodies could make. As I kept reading I realized I was infact wrong. As he describes how far we have come with prosthetic body parts, implants to numerous parts of our bodies, pace makers for hearts, and other technological phenomenons our bodies have gone through, I started to buy in to this article.
The part that I thought was the most bizare was one of the last paragraphs called "The God Spot." I thought it was weird how he said machines would do the same as we do; go to virtual houses of worship and prayer. This was a little weird becuase I just picture a machine like in the movie I-Robot. I feel like they could not think for themselves. I also think it is crazy how these computers or machines will be smarter than the humans who made them. We are the ones who put all the work in to thinking of these ideas, but the computers are the ones who are more intelligent than us. To actually deep think that really blows my mind. As a side note, if you have never seen the movie "I-Robot" or the movie "The Island" I suggest you see them both because they fit in perfectly with this article. Robots made from humans who develop their own thoughts and feelings, things robots and machines aren't supposed to have.
The article I found connects the movie "I-Robot" to real life. It tells how our own technological future can be our own demise. By creating these machines to control our world, we might indeed lose control over them someday.

Becoming Cyborgs

Kevin Warwick's article Cyborg 1.0 was an interesting one to say the least. Throughout the entire article I found myself gasping in amazement at a man who was so interested and desired to be one with his computer and to usher in a new age where computer technology and cybernetics create almost a new species of human that is integrated with machine and animal characteristics. Recording feelings, emotions, and movements could be possible and a whole new array of medical and social possibilities would arise. I am interested to find out what happened with his first experiments and what experiments he is doing on himself today, as I recently read in an article he plans to attach is brain to a computer in hopes that he can "think himself onto the internet." I have heard he is continuing his quest to become a cyborg.

This article made me somewhat nervous and uneasy about his desired future, and to think of a world without learning and language. When he went on to tell an almost utopian vision of the future that he sees through cybernetics in which people didn't speak or interact in a way we see normally, I thought that it would be horrible. I also didn't like his desire to access other peoples thoughts and allow others to access his own thoughts. Honestly there are a lot of thoughts people have everyday that nobody wants to hear and nobody wants heard. It also made me question whether it was right to completely stop learning after being a baby or toddler when you could be successfully hooked up to your computer. When he envisioned math students using their heads as calculators and answering questions from searching their brain on the internet instead of internalizing information and valuing learning, I thought that was a scary future. No matter what my opinions are on Warwick and his experiments, they could definitely be revolutionary and change the world and the future of the technology we use. His experiments and his ideas definitely make for an interesting read and thoughts, and I'm interested in seeing where his experiments could take the world.

The Big Other

In Slavoj Zizek’s article on The Matrix, he talks about the “Big Other” a lot like we have done in class so far this semester. Zizek states “the “Big Other” determines what counts as normal and accepted truth, what is the horizon of meaning in a given society” and “the “Big Other” pulls the strings, doesn’t speak, he “is spoken” by the symbolic structure.” We have talked about how the “Big Other” refers to God or a higher power, and in my opinion Zizek is saying the same thing. God has a plan for every person on this earth and he “pulls the strings” as Zizek says. Human beings make their own choices on a daily basis, but the “Big Other” has a strong influence on us even if we do not know it. According to Zizek, the “Big Other” does not speak to us, but this could be a strong topic for debate. God is not physically present with us in our everyday lives and cannot sit down and have a long conversation with us, but religious people and even non-religious people can have conversations with the “Big Other” when they are going through a hard time and they need His advice. I think Zizek is trying to say the “Big Other” is not physically present with us in our lives, but I think he could have mentioned the point I made above.

Zizek goes on to say that “the subject never fully dominates the effects of his acts, i.e. on account of which the final outcome of his activity is always something else with regard to what he aimed at or anticipated.” In my opinion, Zizek is saying the “Big Other” has a plan for everyone and wants all of us to be good people who make wise decisions, but human beings have the freedom to do what they want and make whatever choice seems right in the heat of the moment. God always wants the best for us, but free choice is a great privilege to have even though we take advantage of it at certain points in our lives.

Is Watson the New Generation?

In his chapter ...And Bodies, Ray Kurzweil writes about the developing technologies that one day might become a part of or take over our bodies and our minds. Kurzweil makes a claim that "our human-created computational technology will ultimately exceed the capacity of natural computation" because "electronic circuits are already millions times faster than human neural circuits". This notion relates to IBM's Watson, the computer who most likely beat his human competitors on Jeopardy! because of his speed at finding the answers.

However, the next question is: What is IBM going to do with Watson, now that he has proven himself to be on par, or even more advanced than a human brain? IBM has stated that Watson can be useful in many areas, including Medical and Health Services, Financial and Economic Analysis and Government.

However, as Kurzweil put it, these computational technologies are "human-created", which leaves them at the discrepancy of the humans that build them. We have all seen the fictional and dramatized versions of this scenario, such as SkyNet in the Terminator, where the technology actually outgrows the humans and begins to take control. Although there is no denying that these technologies are important to our society and will bring in huge benefits for us, I don't think it will ever reach the point of them getting out of hand and destroying the human race. At some point, the technology can only do so much as what the human has programmed it to do. Take for example Watson, he only knew the answers because there was preprogrammed information in his system, and sometimes he even got the answer wrong. Watson could not have won Jeopardy without this programmed info or without the practice games he took to help configure his information.

Virtual versus Real: An Ongoing Negotiation

In Slavoj Zizek’s The Matrix, or, the two sides of perversion, he illustrates the meaning of reality. The film, The Matrix is a film that portrays a false reality as one that has been created by machines to mask humans from their subservient, slave-like states. Zizek states that the two aspects of perversion are the reduction of reality to a virtual domain regulated by arbitrary rules versus the reduction of the subject (humans) to an instrumentalized passivity. In this way there is a constant negotiation of “reality” and just what implications the real world has that a virtual world does not.

As mankind inches closer to developing artificial intelligence we are faced with similar questions. New machines that are able to make informed decisions and act on them have been seen in the most recent Jeopardy competition where two contestants took on a computer. This seems to be a battle between the intelligent capabilities of man versus machine more than anything else. For a computer that has one primary function to match up against a human that has many more would seem unfair, humans just cannot be programmed the way computers very easily are. However, Leslie G. Valiant, a professor at Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences has received the Turing Award for his work with machines that can mimic the human thinking process, such as the IBM computer that won the Jeopardy competition. Valiant is currently working on increasing the likeness of computer thought and human thought.

Posted by: Mike Anderson

Cyber movies illustrates backlash to Cyborg 1.0

I was a bit confused when I began reading Kevin Warwick's, Cyborg 1.0. I could never grasp the concepts behind movies such as: The Matrix and The Terminator. I understood the plot of the stories but the futuristic predictions suggested by the movies about cyber world went over my head. The article introduces an interesting perspective of a doctor who has a silicon chip placed in his arm for experimental and personal reasons. The chip empowered Warwick to open a door at the sound of his voice through transmitted waves sent from a voice box operated by the computer. 


The experiment was conducted in 1998 which explained the trend of robotic movies in the early to mid-2000's. Cinema intrigues viewers by allowing them to place themselves into the plot of fictional characters facing "what if this happened to you" situations. Two movies, Bicentennial Man and I, Robot, came to mind while reading this article. It is movies like those that makes me a bit nervous about the marriage of human and computers. 


The article opens with a quote from Warwick, "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate." Its  fascinating to see a human being who aspires to become one with his computer. I will not pretend like I understand why someone would want to do such a thing but it remains fascinating, something it should just be. I think its cool for scientist to have the ability to perform procedures  done by Warwick and his team of researchers and cyber experts but I think its something that should just stay in the lab. The movie Bicentennial Man, shows the struggle of a Robot that wants to be recognized as a human being. In the movie, Congress argued against the transformation by suggesting the social problems it would create. They foreshadow a world of jealousy of the longevity of the lifespan a computer turned human would have over humans. I agree with this being a social issue that could lead to a revolution or civil rights movement of Robots. 


Many communication theorist suggest that computer's are manufactured as platform for communication. Cyber-Attraction: The Emergence of Computer-Mediated Communication in the Development of Interpersonal Relationships by Fabrizia MANTOVANI introduces an analysis of cyber attraction and interpersonal communication. It may be true that computer are highly utilized for communication it still fails to compensate or explain how robots will acquire human emotional characteristics.  The ability to communicate is a product of the brain. If a robot, with human intelligence learns the depths of his capability but lacks emotions. The movie I, Robot illustrates what could possibly happen when Robots become apart of society. How would we keep them under control? Knowledge is of the mind, emotions is of the heart, Robots have one but not the other. It could be a bad combination for the survival of the human race.

Cyborg 1.0

When I first started reading the article from Kevin Warwick, “Plan to be One with his Computer” I really thought it was a hoax. The idea of becoming like a super human/computer seemed way too science fiction for me, and felt like I was reading a premise from an 1980's Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. I read on and as he detailed his plan to start a new experiment with the second implant, and eventually inviting his willing, but apprehensive wife Irena along with him on his quest to become the first cyborg, it began to hit me that this was actually for real. He detailed very concisely all of the possibilities that this kind of technology could do for medicinal purposes, and this was perhaps the most beneficial in pursuing a venture of this magnitude. The thought of curing cancer is one that we all can relate to, and everyone knows someone close to them that has been affected by this, and certainly anyone would be willing to try anything in order to find a cure.

The only issue I have with all of these possibilities, is the issue of people all becoming robotic cyborgs who only communicate with others telepathically therefore making the act of speaking obsolete. I fear that we as humans would be no more, and simply would be drones walking around with no actual human emotion. All of the emotions that we would feel are artificial, and that is something that I do not want to experience personally. Although I read that Warwick has developed a robot with an actual living brain, and that it performs more human than computer, it is all still too much to take in. This futuristic look at the way we could possibly be living side by side as human cyborg's sounds exciting especially after taking in a realistic science fiction movie, but when it comes down to it, I am not ready to put in an implant so I silently communicate with others in the room without making a sound.

Cyborg 1.0: A New Reality?

I thought Kevin Warwick’s “Plan to be One with His Computer” was very interesting and had a futuristic notion. The idea of surgically inserting a computer chip in a human is reminiscent of the themes in the Terminator movies. When reading Warwick’s Cyborg 1.0, I couldn’t help but thinking about all the possible things that could go wrong with his experiment. Although his experiment holds shock value, I feel today’s technological society is merely one innovation away from installing computer chips into everyday citizens. Warwick discusses how the placement of the computer chip between two humans will result in sharing emotions and thoughts (and possibly a new range of emotions) simultaneously without speaking. He envisions a day when this is a common occurrence among society and people will never have to speak to one another. I feel that people are slowly succumbing to this silent fate Warwick refers to throughout the text. The rapid growth and popularity of text messaging, online instant messaging, email, and Facebook and other social media sites have effected how people interact with each other. Many people prefer to text or write a Facebook wall post instead of making the verbal effort to call someone. I feel this is becoming more prevalent in younger generations. I can remember (although it is weird to think about) when I didn’t have text messaging or even a cell phone. Today, kids are getting cell phones with text messaging plans-and I’ve seen the negative results first hand. When I babysat upper elementary and middle-school age children, I noticed there social skills and manners were different than from what I was exposed to growing up. I often wonder if there has always been a disconnect between generations or if what I’m witnessing is a noticeable and unhealthy change. Is technology taking us too far? However, this is just one side of an issue that holds thousands. There are many potential positive outcomes of Warwick’s research such as medical advancements and an increased knowledge about the interworkings of the brain. Most technological advancements are developed to make our lives easier-the evolution of the computer to a portable laptop or the development of smart-phones, with internet, iPod, and phone capabilities. Recently, a company has taken cell phone touch technology one step further-eliminating the use for fingers altogether. A German company, iDent Technology, has developed a cell phone capable of answering phone calls by detecting different motions of the phone and the type of grip on the phone. This innovation reminded me of Warwick’s description of when he first installed the computer chip in his arms and doors would “magically” open for him. Perhaps Warwick’s notion of the future is slowly coming to a reality.

Cyborg life: Do the positives outweigh the negatives?

The idea of humans transforming into cyborg’s is just beyond crazy to me… but after reading Kevin Warwick’s “Plan to be One with his Computer” I can see that there are some benefits to this. Benefits such as the possibility of a blind or deaf person to see or hear using infrared technology would be remarkable. You can actually see real live people that have found implanted technology such as this to be helpful in article on techradar.com. People that have lost an ear, an eye, or a finger have used this technology to help them get back some of what they have lost. At first, I was wondering why in the world someone would want to attach a chip to their brain when nothing was even wrong with them, but I guess if Kevin Warwick is crazy enough to try it, then it can only help the less fortunate.

The only thing I see wrong with this technology is if every person begins using it, we all become cyborg’s, and don’t even have to talk to each other to communicate. First off, we would all lose interpersonal skills which could lead to a variety of other issues. And secondly, there are just some thoughts that I don’t share with people and with using this technology a person would know everything going through my mind. Let’s face it, if we told our friends everything that we really thought about them just how many friends do you think we’d actually have? Or if you were going for a job interview and a thought about your past weekend that wasn’t so “professional” went through your head, interviews would get a little tricky. I think that this technology, if put in the right hands could benefit society, but put in the wrong hands and we’re all doomed for a life of quiet, friendless, jobless, cyborg misery.

Facebook & The 'Self': Deceptive or Positive?

In Tales of Facebook, author Daniel Miller claims that one of the unique characteristics of Facebook is that it plays an important role in transforming one’s self and self-consciousness. He mentions the example of when others post comments on photographs of a person online one must create a new self-consciousness about one’s looks. Miller further believes that Facebook is crucial in giving us an understanding and sense of who we and who we ought to be.

Daniel Miller’s work relates to a recent article that I came across on CNN’s website titled: Facebook Helps Your Self-Esteem. The article presents a new study that suggests, “spending time with the ‘online you’ – the one with hundreds of friends, witty status updates, and all the unflattering photos untagged – might help your self-esteem.” Since we get to pick and choose how we present ourselves to others, Facebook can show us a positive version of ourselves and therefore boost our self-esteem. Both of the readings examine how our ‘self’—whether it is our consciousness or esteem – is positively impacted by Facebook’s ability to present to other’s a favorable image of ourselves. I would be interested to hear further from those that disagree with this claim.

Former Social Networking Giant Crumbling

Today in class the discussion of our reading and the presentation on the future of Facebook, and inevitably someone brought up MySpace and how it has fizzled out in its use with people. After class got out I saw an article online about MySpace and the headline read that they lose over 10 millions users every month now, and that number is certainly growing as time goes on and on. The article says that as recently as last year lost $100 million dollars in the first quarter and the News Corp, the company that owns MySpace, says that a major investment would have to be put down in order for them to get back into the social network race with rival, Facebook. However, chief executive Mike Jones admitted last November that “MySpace is a not a social network anymore. It is now a social entertainment destination.” They know they cannot win in the battle of people's number social networking site, and thus will look to grow on the one thing that has been most successful which is MySpace Music, where aspiring artists post free streaming of their songs and live videos of them on the road as a way to reach out to potential new fans. I recently heard a radio interview with a local Iowa City band, and at the end of the interview they were asked to plug their social media addresses, and they brought up Facebook and YouTube first, and then one of the interviewers asked if they still had a MySpace. The band laughed before they responded with a "Yes, but we don't really check that anymore," and said that Facebook was the best way to find information and content on their band.

So using this example, I would gather to say that at this point, MySpace knows that they are a sinking ship, and has lost to Facebook in the social networking arena, and that their main plan is to build off of MySpace Music, but it does not look terribly likely that this will save them. I'm sure the executives are aware of their lack of social capital, and have heard many examples like the one I talked about before. In my estimation the music route is just a way to put on a brave face, and at least say that they have a plan going forward, even though they know in another 3-5 years MySpace will be a 2 minute segment on a nostalgic pop culture show on VH1. I understand the idea that they should stand tall in this situation, but sometimes it is better to just face the music, admit defeat, and cut your losses.

Researching Before Investing

The readings from this week made me think a lot about my personal experience with using technologies such as facebook to get partial and sometimes complete information about things. I use my newsfeed to tell me what I need to further research that is important and pertinent in my life and my friends lives. I also have been able to try to get a feel for people and the relationships I have with people through their online performed identity. When Daniel Miller used terms that sounded so close to business analysis such as researching people before investing in relationships, and researching people's online personas before extending friendship it really made me think about the organizations I have been a part of in college and the reliance that facebook gets. Being part of the greek community over the years I have definitely noticed a reliance on facebook and social networking. Being a former recruitment chair of a greek organization on campus I feel that I am not alone in saying facebook was utilized and was helpful for all aspects of recruitment. The University already provides greek organizations every year with a list of all eligible and interested incoming freshmen to the university along with their hometowns, high schools, GPA, ACT/SAT scores, and even phone numbers, so information about incoming and prospective members are already simple. Facebook however allows for an environment in which all of these people are together and easily sent messages to where you don't have to specifically worry about area or location you can reach all students interested in greek life at Iowa as a freshmen. Facebook was utilized and allows recruitment chairs as well as others to create groups and messages to reach out to students and organize recruitment events as well as parties. It also becomes a part of the process when deciding which students to extend "bids" or invitations to join chapters. The university already provides us with an academic background and a list of activities participated in, but facebook allows us to "creep" on their social lives to see if they are fit, and see how they interacted with people socially, and to bring up any red flags or green lights. Facebook over the years that I have been active within my organization has been a useful and effective tool for creating higher efficiency and wasting less time on people that we don't want as members. It has allowed us to get an inside view on personal lives and become the "third party" monitors that our demographic often is afraid of and views in a negative light.

Thinking about all of this as a whole often scares me, and I realize that if my friends and I in my organization have used social network monitoring in order to grow our "business" and organization, companies are probably always doing the same to us. It makes me wonder if prospective jobs will try to weed out employees and gain information on myself and others through social networking and it also makes me ponder the question on whether they should be using facebook as research on people to make their own recruitment and employment processes easier and more efficiently run.

Facebook and Fun

The conclusion of Daniel Miller's "Tales From Facebook" explore numerous aspects that Facebook has in the present socialization of Facebook users. The conclusion explores many ways in which Facebook is transforming the understanding people have of socializing and creating an identity among groups of friends. Miller discusses the conflicting ideas of the creation of self on Facebook, discussing whether or not the "truer" person is the Facebook version or the real life person. This was interesting to read because most would assume the real you is the one in person, but some argue that the way someone manifests their Facebook page is a truer understanding of their person.

This could be easier to understand by remembering that Facebook is, generally, a place where people that know each other in real life already go to socialize. There is already some establishment of persona before Facebook interaction begins. In a way, Facebook can be a place for a greater understanding of a person, but not the sole resource for creating an understanding of somebody. This could help explain why many people feel depressed after going on Facebook. We have an understanding of somebody, then we go on Facebook and see this amplified and deepened, and often we feel inadequate in comparison. This is especially harder on those in high school where the acceptance and relations to peers is greatest. This could also, perhaps, lead to people trying to emulate a persona on Facebook that many of their friends will likely be able to see through. That fact, though, creates yet another dynamic for how people understand each other.

Facebook is obviously not the only, and maybe not the greatest, way in which people create and understand social relationships, but it is becoming a ever greater one. Facebook is a way in which many people represent themselves to the world and their peers, how they want to be viewed. Whether or not we believe what is put forth, we are allowed a greater understanding of a person to contribute to what we have already established about them.

How Facebook Profits Like a News Organization, and a Research Tool

I just discovered this article about how the author thinks that Facebook is the biggest news organization. He argues that Facebook is a platform for “hyper-local” news. You and your friends’ status updates are the primary “news articles”in that platform. His idea resonates with Daniel Miller’s discovery that Facebook reinforces the users’ connection to his/her private network. While news such as “my kid caught a cold” may not have much value to everyone, it can mean a lot when your friends see this and offers help or comforts.

Therefore the profit model of Facebook resembles what it is in traditional news organization, but even better.

Because of its hyper-local characteristic, Facebook attracts advertisers with precise target audience. At the same time, Facebook’s advertisement has “another novelty — only a small amount of space devoted to ads, …but magnetic news content and a limited supply of highly desirable space is a recipe for printing money.”

Another emerging trend of all social media leverage is their potential in marketing research. At the recent Advertising Research Foundation's Re:Think 2011 conference in New York, P&G’s global consumer and market knowledge officer Joan Lewis gives a direct attack on the traditional survey research, saying “We need to be methodology agnostic.” This comment rises because of their increasing attention paid to marketing researches devoting to social media. The buzzes there, though lack of “representation” compared to traditional survey research, may give the company more insight then the survey research. At the same time, less people are willing to take surveys now that they can speak out loud about what they think of a product on social media sites. No wonder that Coca-Cola has cut its ad spend by 6.6% and invest more in social media.

My resonation with "Tales from Facebook"

Reading David Miller's idea's on the evolution and relationship facebook have with users cause me to reflect on the impact it has had on me personally. There are several of the 15 thesis mentioned that I share commonalities. The first is: how facebook helps to make relationships. The idea presented was that it helps facilitate and expand relationships. I see this being true because people I encounter in class, parties, etc. who I'd like to keep in contact with, I would find or be found on facebook to continue the relationship that was formed during a, sometimes brief, encounter. In some cases, I more than like will never see that person face to face again but we will always see each other on facebook. I wouldn't consider facebook a "meta-friend" but it does have a feature called "notes" which gives people the opportunity to post personal thoughts in the form of a on-line journal; with this feature, you can also invite (tag) certain people letting them know you personally want to share with them. Facebook as a site of normativity and netiquette was also an interesting point made by Miller. I have notice that it is second nature to go on facebook. I have found myself on facebook after it taking awhile to register in my head that I was on there, in most cases when I had anticipated going online for something else. Facebook as the transformation of self and self-consciouness, I agree with several points in this thesis. I have seen many "hot or not" groups on facebook where a person have a picture and people comment under the picture rating them on their attractiveness. I have seen some harsh comment that could be damaging to the self-esteem of people. I also have noticed that I receive more friend request from males when I have a considerably attractive picture of myself as my profile picture. 

Relationships and Facebook

Relationships and friendships are no longer confined to, or defined by, one’s location. The parameters of communities aren’t the edges of towns, or the ends of neighborhoods anymore; but instead, the parameters of communities are countries, and continents. Through social networking and the Internet, the way in which we establish, develop, and maintain relationships has drastically changed.

When we were kids, if a friend moved to a different city it was, to an extent, a death sentence for the friendship. Now, when a friend moves, it’s far from a death sentence. Instead, it extends the reach of one’s own personal network. One of the main points addressed by Daniel Miller in Tales from Facebook is how Facebook has updated our ability to preserve relationships that would otherwise cease to be. “Its importance lies in its perceived and actual ability to reconstruct relationships, especially within families and with absent friends that had been gradually fading away due to the attrition of other aspects of modern life such as increasing mobility.” Facebook’s main ability is to connect people, and maintain those connections. Without engaging in consistent conversation, one can still stay up to date with friends through status updates, wall posts, and pictures.

While maintaining relationships is an essential part of Facebook, one of the driving forces behind why Facebook became so popular was the ability for people to display their relationships (and to a mildly unrelated extent, their thoughts, statuses, and pictures). In these clips from The Social Network, the idea of the “Relationship Status” is born. In this first clip, a friend of Mark Zuckerberg asks him about a girl in his class and whether or not she has a boyfriend, which puts the idea in Mark’s head. In the second clip, Mark essentially describes the social dynamics behind college, and more broadly, humanity. Are people having sex? Are people dating?

Part of the appeal of Facebook, and social media, is the ability to preserve relationships. But, more so than that, a major factor in the popularity of social networks is that it plays to our inherent curiosity about other people. “The evidence in this book suggests that the main impact of Facebook are on aspects of those relationships such as dating, feelings of isolation and boredom, gossip, maintaining long-distance relationships, sharing of news and other rather similar unremarkable activities.” The key words in this entire quote are unremarkable activities. So much of what takes place on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc, is unremarkable. Yet, our natural interest in other people causes us to believe that this activity is in fact remarkable and interesting. While Facebook has done wonders in our ability to develop and sustain relationships, at its core it’s pulled out the human characteristic of curiosity, and curiosity is what will ultimately keep people coming back to Facebook.

future of internet - Facebook

Daniel Millers Tales of Facebook is pretty fascinating as it opens a lot of eyes as well reveals many truths of Facebook and its impact on society. With Facebook already being the most popular site on the web, it continues to grow and expand. Although other companies may have more money and power, Facebook is in the driver seat to take over the internet. As Miller brings up, with its large audience of profiles and applications, consumers are looking for a single site where they are able to do everything on the computer, like stated, a “one stop shop.” A place for interaction, email, transaction ect. I agree with is and believe it would be easier and more efficient for users if everything is on Facebook. This article brings up an interesting point how people have shifted from just surfing the internet to just surfing and spending hours on Facebook. It’s not hard to imagine Facebook becoming the internet in the future, constructing one giant connected piece of social communication. Though something like this can be efficient, there will be sure to be consequences along with it. To think about the power Facebook will hold is a very scary thought. The top technology companies of Apple, Google Microsoft continue to compete and try to stay ahead of another in race to monopolize control of the technological world and it will be very interesting to see how it plays out. As much as they want to combine they want to have complete control of information on individuals for themselves. I foresee a heated competition one where many consequences arise as well as benefits. Here are some interesting facts proving why Facebook is gaining power to be the ultimate internet. Truth is, the future of internet may be Facebook.