Social Media vlog

I tried using imovie, it's a bit choppy, but here ya go!

Politics Today

New new media has changed the way campaigns are run today. Candidates now have the ability to target specific segments through a number of different media instead of just using mass communication. They can target a large segment of the population with Facebook, Twitter, they can blog about their campaign experience and upload YouTube videos to keep their voters entertained and informed. Instead of spending a large sum of money on a spot on a major TV news outlet, they can create a speech from the comfort of their home, or on the road even, and upload it to YouTube. They can tape interviews with voters at different locations to answer questions in a less formal environment and give a down to earth appeal.

But, new new media can also be very damaging to a campaign. If some unknown truth about the candidate is revealed, it will spread like wildfire throughout the Internet. This would call for serious damage control both through the use of social media as well as conventional mass media. So, I see new new media as being extremely helpful for the public in terms of election. Not only do we have the potential to feel significantly more connected to our candidates, but there is also an ease with which the majority of society can learn about past scandals if they happen to come up during the election period (or after).

However, we must always be careful not to believe anything too quickly and always check stories against other sources. Although the truth has the ability to spread rapidly across the Internet, so do lies.

Obama and Digital Media for his 2008 Campaign

Everything Has Its Downfall

Along with everything in life, there are negative things that come along with each positive. Our advancement in technology, specifically in new new media, can be linked to several negative aspects but I think this is only what you make of it. Yes, we have all heard cyberstalking and the Craigs List Killer, but this only happens when someone posts personal information to people they are not friends with. You have to be aware of what you put on the internet for this reason and these new sites such as FourSquare make this very easy for someone to follow another person. While frequent status updates on Twitter can keep others updated on your life, it can also let them know where you are physically at all times. This is only possible by the decisions that you make as an individual. These new new media sources are helpful in many ways, but these sites should not be abused. They should be used in the right way and hopefully bring enjoyment to you, making communication to others easier from day to day.

Digg What?

Prior to reading this chapter in New New Media, I had only briefly heard people mention the website Digg. I had no idea what it was or how it worked, because quite frankly, I didn't need to. After reading the chapter and investigating a little bit, I found Digg to be quite interesting, to the point that I actually got my own Digg account. It proved to be a useful way to browse headlines and see what's new and find some interesting articles to read.

Digg is a user generated content site where people post headlines and links, and other people can either 'Digg' it and vote it up or 'Bury' it and vote it down depending on whether they like it or not. Their is no 'friending' like you can on Facebook, however like Twitter you can become a 'Fan' of someone and follow them. Also like Twitter if the person who you are following decides to become a fan of you too and follow you back, you can send messages, called 'Shouts' to each other, another Twitter like concept. You can also provide a small profile with your name, picture, location, and description of yourself as Digg is still nonetheless a social site. You can also add links to your other social sites or websites that you my have too. Digg can also be connected with you Facebook, Twitter and Google accounts as well.

Digg proved to be much more of a help than I thought it would be at first glance. It offers a constant news stream that is more than just a monotony of song lyric statuses on Facebook, or Charlie Sheen's latest Tweet, if offers more relevant and useful information to the world around us.

Is Burial in Digg's Future?

Prior to reading New New Media, I did not know about Digg either. I do not know anybody that uses Digg, but I do think that the concept is pretty cool. I think that, contrary to a regular newspaper, it gives the people the power to decide what stories are most important to them. I think that this website is a sort of shortcut. It is one general place to go to learn about different topics, news, issues among many different categories with ease. I definitely think that our society values ease and speed these days so I think Digg is a great place for this. However, now that news websites are starting to incorporate videos and links to other pages, I wonder how different Digg actually is from a normal newspaper website.

I don't know if I just missed the Digg era, but it is interesting to think about why Digg didn't catch on and become as popular as other sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Is it saying something about our society? Do we care more about being social, looking at people's profiles and finding out what our "friends" are doing, more than we care about real events and news that is occurring? I would like to think that this is not true, but judging from the popularity of Facebook and Twitter over Digg, I think that it actually may be a possibility.

I found this article about some changes being made at Digg: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-20045598-2.html

dirt to digg

Digg is an online index for all news published on the web. It is a combination of stumble, facebook, and twitter. The user on Digg can search for information or news articles that pertain to their interests. Digg selects articles that fit your interests automatically. Digg also allows the user to have "friends" just like you would on facebook or twitter. Digg shows common interests between you and your friends and connects articles that interest both of you.

Personally I don't think Digg is all that useful unless you are using it for your job or school work. I just don't see how being connected to people for what news articles I'm interested in is really that big of a deal. I think that although it is an interesting idea, I just don't ever see myself using this website regularly. Digg flat out isn't facebook or twitter. It's purpose isn't to connect people for social reasons but to connect people based on what news articles they like. That being said, I just don't think this type of new new media is life changing or worth my time. Google is an easier and more popular web search that finds interesting articles as well and I just don't see Digg ever surpassing that.

Follow Me If Your Lost

I was on the fence about creating a Twitter,
but I have found it very useful for following artists,
and Professor Strate would like us to have one
so feel free to follow me if you want at :

http://twitter.com/#!/dizzysparkles

Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see

I want to ask you to help me correct an inaccuracy out here on the net, an inaccuracy that amounts to an injustice.  Here’s the story:

Neil Postman wrote, “Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.”  This is the first sentence that opens his book, The Disappearance of Childhood, which was originally published in 1982 by Delacorte Press.

 

I can remember being a young doctoral student in the old media ecology program at NYU, I was just 22 when I started there in 1980, and seeing Neil writing the book with a black felt tip pen on yellow legal pads.

Neil Postman wrote “Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see” as the first sentence of the Introduction to that book, appearing on p. xi.  Here, take a look:

 The Disappearance of Childhood  was the second of Postman's major works providing a critical analysis of television's influence on culture.  It was preceded by Teaching as a Conserving Activity, and followed by Amusing Ourselves to Death.  And if you find Postman's media ecology scholarship at all interesting and valuable, and especially if you've read Amusing Ourselves to Death and you haven't read The Disappearance of Childhood, then you will find The Disappearance of Childhood to be a delightful companion piece, a well-crafted extended essay, and important work of cultural criticism.

Postman begins by writing that “children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see,” because he was writing about communication, which involves the sending of messages through a channel to a receiver.  In the case of messages sent to the future, the receiver may be unknown to us, but the basic idea still applies.  This view originates in the post-war era with the Shannon-Weaver Model:

 The Shannon-Weaver Model was modified by communication theorist David Berlo circa 1960:

But the important point is that Postman was writing about communication, and thinking about children, and childhood, in terms of communication.  The idea that children are our legacy, a way of projecting something of ourselves into the future, is a time-honored, traditional notion.  But thinking of children as messages, as part of the process of  communication, is a relatively new orientation.  

And as any good media ecology scholar knows, in 1964 Marshall McLuhan declared that "the medium is the message," by which he meant (among other things) that the messages we send are influenced in significant ways by the medium that we use to create and send them   And The Disappearance of Childhood is all about how children as messages are influenced by the media that they use, and that we use to prepare our children to carry on for us in the future.  And it is about how childhood is a message that is influenced by the medium that we use to create it. 

Yes, create it, because childhood is a cultural construct (albeit one based on an underlying biological reality), a message we send to ourselves about biological and social reproduction.  In print culture, children came to be seen as special and innocent, and in need of extended protection as they were cloistered away in schools, while television culture has returned us in some ways to a view of childhood that does not allow for much distinction between children and adults, hence the title The Disappearance of Childhood (which also signals the disappearance of adulthood).

But you really have to read the book to get Postman's argument.  And I only provide this cursory summary to underline the fact that Postman's quote, “children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see,” with its particular emphasis on children and communication, originated out of a very specific set of circumstances, and its meaning is quite clear in that context.  But it also has a wonderfully poetic quality, evocative and compelling, and works quite well standing alone.  Some might even be fooled into thinking it is some kind of ancient proverb, despite its clearly contemporary sensibility.

“Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see” is Neil Postman's most famous quote.  So what's the problem, you might ask?  And I'm glad you did.  The problem is that when you Google the quote nowadays, you get something like this:

How did this come to be, you might ask?  And I'm glad you did.  You see, this John W. Whitehead wrote a book entitled, ironically enough, The Stealing of America.

And this book was published in 1983, a year after The Disappearance of Childhood.  Just to be clear, here's the copyright page from Whitehead's book:

And here's the copyright page from Postman's book:

And just to dispel any lingering doubts, here is p. 68 of Whitehead's book, where he specifically cites Postman:

The Disappearance of Childhood also is included in the list of references that appear at the end of the book.  

So, are you ready now?  Ok, here is how Postman's quote appears in Whitehead's book, starting on the bottom of p. 116 and continuing on to p. 117:

Ah ha, you may be saying!  Caught red-handed! Well, the problem is that the circles that Whitehead travels in, and the readership that he picks up, is quite different from those associated with Postman.  So who knew?  It would have been quite the coincidence to come across it back in the 80s, or even the 90s.  But, the quote being so poetic and memorable, it got picked up from Whitehead's book, and reproduced all over the place with the wrong attribution.  It appears in some baby book, which probably amplified the error significantly.

Who is this guy, anyway, you might ask?  Well, you can read about him on this page from the Rutherford Institute website:  About John W. Whitehead.   And you can read about the Rutherford Institute on their Wikipedia entry:  Rutherford Institute.  

Not that it matters much.  I am writing this, and asking for your help, not to cast blame or level accusations.  Postman was certainly the easygoing, forgiving sort of person who would not have made a big issue out of this.  But speaking for those of us who honor his memory, and who believe in credit where credit is due, we would like to set the record straight.

The problem is that it is very hard to set the record straight on the web.  It is very hard to get the content of websites changed.  You can send a message, but it may be that the site is no longer active, or no longer actively supervised, or it may be that the individuals associated with the site just don't want to be bothered, or just don't care.  Believe me, attempts have been made, and met with no success.

But, the main thing to do when dealing with problems like this is to accentuate the positive (see my previous post, Digital Damage Control).  So, I am asking you to help to get the word out on the web, anyway that you can.

 Please feel free to repost all or part of this entry on your own blog or site or elsewhere on the web.  Or write your own post about this situation, using any part of this post that you care to, it is entirely open and available for copying and revising.

If you do post this or a similar message anywhere else, let me know, and I will add an acknowledgment and link at the end of this post.

And/or, please link to this post.

And/or, spread the word and the link via Twitter, Facebook, and other social media.  If you tweet, Neil Postman wrote, “Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see,” that will be less than 50 characters, so you can add, please retweet, include a link to this post or another one, and/or note that we want to remedy an injustice.

 I ask that you please help me to get this particular message out there, get more positive posts and listings out there, and at least we can start to set the record straight.

Neil Postman did not live to see this time of Google and social media, but today, March 8th, 2011, is the 80th anniversary of his birth, and if he were still with us, he would joke about how what we are doing here is launching Operation Childhood, and probably ask if there wasn't some better way for us to spend our time, like reading a good book.  But deep down, he would be very much appreciative of the messages that we now can send on his behalf.  

So I ask you to be a living message now, and for the future.

 

Twitter: Secret Shows =)

Every weekend, after I get out of work on Friday, I head back from Grand Central to the Bronx to get ready for whatever show I may be going to that weekend.

Traditionally, you buy tickets for a show and know in advance when and where you are going. With the new wave of electronic/dubstep DJ's becoming popular, the ways of going to shows have been changing.

Many times there will be a DJ playing somewhere, and the special guests won't be announced until a few hours before the show. Then people rush to Webster Hall to see whatever act was just announced. Sometimes these announcements of shows and guests are not officially announced through the venue, so social media plays a great part. If you don't know the right person, see the right tweet, or get the right text message from a secret source, you miss out on a lot of good unannounced shows! This is my greatest use of Twitter.

What happened to Myspace?

Myspace is definitely a thing of the past. It is rarely used nowadays because of sites like facebook and twitter. From what I remember myspace was a premature version of facebook. It had some similar features but facebook seemed to have taken them further and develop the site a little more. When myspace was the big thing it was similar to facebook in that people's lives revolved around it. Kids would spend hours upon hours on it and when they weren't on, they were talking about it. Some people treat facebook the same way today. Myspace was a huge hit until facebook allowed those without college email addresses to sign up. Then it seemed that everyone switched over and myspace was no longer.

Looking back myspace seems like more of a forum for music, than any other social networking site. When we all had profiles, there was a feature that allowed you to post a song directly on your profile page. It seems like even now, when other sites have taken over for social networking purposes, myspace still sort of serves a music purpose. I remember last year the show Glee held a contest to try to find a new character and the auditions were held through myspace. People had to log on to vote for who they wanted to be chosen. Many bands still use myspace to try to get discovered. Although youtube seems to almost be taking over in this realm.

I personally deleted my profile after I switched to facebook, but my roommate and I went on her page last night and we discovered that myspace is now entirely different. It seems to have taken over a similar format to facebook and also twitter in some aspects. However, I think that their efforts to rebrand myspace may just be a little too late. People are too engaged in these other sites to even remember that myspace exists. The downfall of myspace makes me wonder if that was a unique thing to happen to myspace or if it will eventually happen to the more popular sites of today.

MYSPAAAACCCCEEEE

Remember the MySpace kid? Click at your own risk. Warning: foul language NSFW.

Anyway, I think besides the sheer hilariousness of the video, a statement made by one of the older brother's friends were nothing less than prophetic. "Wait till you see this when you're a senior in high school and MySpace doesn't even exist anymore!"

This video was uploaded in 2008. Assuming the kid was about 12 at the time, he should be 15 or 16 by now... That would make him a sophomore probably. MySpace as a social media site has been left in the dust of Facebook. MySpace is now hanging out with Friendster and Multiply as they bitterly watch Facebook and Twitter rule cyber space. What are Friendster and Multiply you ask? Exactly.

It's tough to comprehend how quickly technology evolves. MySpace saw its best days around 2005-2008 until Facebook finally overtook it. MySpace is still a great place for artists to post their music, but Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Soundcloud can take care of that as well. I wasn't even aware that MySpace was rebranded as "My___ - Social Entertainment." Good stuff I guess, but we're probably seeing its final desperate breaths. News Corp spent too much money on this monstrosity to let it go too easily.

What's fascinating is wondering how much longer Facebook has before it burns out or fades away. Is there any significant advancement in social media to even challenge it? MySpace spent about 3-4 years as a huge digital superpower. Let's say Facebook is probably at year 2 of it becoming a worldwide phenomenon. Will the next 2-3 years bare a worthy challenger and possible replacement to Facebook, or will Facebook roll with the punches better than Myspace?

It's just crazy to me how fast these profound elements of our media come and go now. Didn't it take several hundred years between the printing press and radio? A few decades between radio and TV and TV and the internet? Now the internet seems to be a wild west of opportunities in the media. I guess we are too deeply engrained in the whole thing to decide whether the rapid evolution of media now is exciting or frightening.

To tweet or not to tweet

I don't know if it's just me but it seems like Twitter has sort of skipped over our generation. The only people I hear talking about the latest tweets made on Twitter are my 11 year-old brother and various celebrities ranging from in their mid 20's to 50's. The majority of people my age, including myself, hardly even know how to use the new social networking phenomenon, let alone know what it's actual purpose is.

The basic gist that I've gathered over the past year or so is that you can compose short "tweets" about what you are doing, where you are, who you're with etc. at the present moment to other "tweeple" that are following you. An example from none other than the Twitter queen herself, Kim Kardashian:

Pure glam! So fun! RT @JasonBinn Wow. #Oscars! @JonathanCheban, @KimKardashian @iamjamiefoxxhttp://yfrog.com/h8vc1xpj

7:26 PM Feb 27th via TweetGenius
I can't even understand this past the first four words. It's crazy to see how Twitter has created an entirely new way for people to communicate with each other. I had to look up online what this short little tweet meant and not to my surprise, when I googled it, the first 3 pages of results were filled with countless websites outlining how to navigate and understand Twitter lingo (I didn't even bother going on to the fourth...)! I understand celebrities using Twitter as a means to keep in touch with their fans, but most tweets seem to be comprised of useless information that takes ten extra minutes just to decode. I now have a Twitter for this class but I don't think I will be tweeting anytime soon!
click here to see the plethora of online Twitter dictionaries.

I Flat Out Hate Twitter

I wish I could write a few sentences detailing the many benefits of such a seamless connectivity, as many of us will and should, but I really cannot. For me, Twitters deficiencies far outweigh the benefits, so much so that they are the only things I can think about. Don't believe me? Here are the current trending topics as of 1:30 p.m. this afternoon here in the heart of America: the internet.

#happy17thbdaybiebs , #isbetterthan , #guttbye , Jensen Ackles ,

Jane Russell , Ana Maria Braga , Justin Drew Bieber , Rubén González , FCAT , TAKS

I don't know whether to blame Youtube or Twitter for Justin Biebers career.

I randomly copy & pasted some tweets:

OMGTeenQuotez I think im afraid to be happy because whenever you do get too happy, something bad always happens

Very useful instruction for the maintenance of teen depression from media outlet OMGTeenQuotez.

Heres a strange one:

From 'The Social Network' to 'Citizen Kane', plenty of great movies have been losers at the Oscars.

Thats from Time Magazine, too. With so many advertisements, so to speak, for links to companies websites in the interest of their site traffic, it makes you wonder what you're really doing on Twitter. That Tweet is an advertisement for an article which has an advertisement, all of which are paid for with your eyeballs.

Is Twitter Really Necessary?

I do not see how Twitter is a truly necessary for anything other than distributing a shortened version of a mass text message. I got my own Twitter account just to see what it was like and I found it to be pretty close to pointless. You have 140 characters to tell the world anything you want whether it be how boring your homework is to what your plans are for the next hour of your life. I can do that exact same thing on Facebook, except there's no 140 character limit on my status. You can also have a small bio on your Twitter profile, up to 160 characters, so basically you have a text message to tell someone about yourself. If you can write a personal bio of yourself with less than 160 characters or one standard text message, you need to pick up some new hobbies there sport. On Twitter you can change the background of your Twitter page and such but that's about it when it comes to personalization outside of your 160 character bio, picture, where you are, and a link to another website of yours (maybe Facebook if you so desire). This may be the only useful thing about Twitter, it allows you to attach another website to your profile, like I did with my Facebook page, so you don't have to have such an elaborate profile on Twitter. However, what's the point of having a website with a short bio to point you to another website with a bio on it?

I don't see much point in Twitter because everything I can do on Twitter, I can do on Facebook better. I can have a better bio, more room to write statuses to announce to the world and so on. Twitter basically has just taken the status bar from Facebook, liquidated it and made it into a website. I see no use for this at all other than just having another way to shout out to the world on sentence at a time.

Twitter

I'm partial to the idea of having a twitter. To me, twitters are just 140 characters of useless information. I don't need to know that you're taking a bath or got a new pair of slippers. Yet, tweeting may be more relevant to someone for PR and business purposes. While many people continue to hate on Lebron, we can read his tweets of taking little Bronny to his first day of Kindergarten. How cute is that? Doesn't seem like such a bad guy after all, which works in his favor.

I think twitter is also in respect to developing one's career. One of my friends really wanted a job at a certain magazine company so he tweeted to their senior editor numerous times, eventually getting the opportunity to interview there. Having showed initiative and enthusiam for working at the magazine through tweeting and having a great interview, he was hired. I find it amazing what an influence twitter can have in accomplishing career goals.

However I am still on the fence about getting a twitter. I find some of my friends twitters quite amusing, while I find others extremely annoying and narcissistic. What would I even tweet about? Who would I follow? Actually, I would probably follow Aziz Ansari.

LeBron James Tweets His Son’s First Day Of School.

Tweet About Twitter

140 chars will show how useful a tweet is. They entertain and even contain news. Hence athletes, celebs and media post. Most is fluff tho.

I don't want to detract from the efficiency of the post by expounding on this much further except to say that I got the idea to do this out of sheer laziness. However, after trying it out once or twice, I realize I would've saved more time by just writing a novel. Tweeting is freaking difficult.

Not All Twits Can Tweet

Twitter is hard. No, that's not right. Twittering is hard. No. Using Twitter--Tweeting is hard. Never mind, just trying to figure out how to refer to the site is hard. Twitter, the site where people use a mere 140 characters to form messages, is home to the most simplistic forms of communication on the Internet. Ironically, in some ways it is the most difficult mode of communication to use.

Picking a user name is hard. Using Twitter.com/YourRealName is too boring. The trend of placing "Not" or "The Real" followed by one's name has quickly become cliche. Yes, The Real Shaq is indeed Shaq. Far and away the best user name on all of Twitter belongs to Full House star, Jodie Sweetin (@JodieTweetin). No, that is not debatable. It is fact.


Limited to 140 characters. You know how hard it is to strip down a sentence to the bear essentials? To trim a sentence of the fat that is grammar and all other writing conventions, just down to the absolute minimum needed for comprehension? As Levinson said in New New Media, simply saying "I'm bored" takes the flick of a finger, but trying to compose a message with any kind of thought-filled-statement takes 10 or 15 minutes, and I've found that to be true. Do I keep this apostrophe, remove this comma, and delete this word? If nothing else, Twitter shows us how we are all masters of the English language. To be able to change it around, chop it up, and still get a point across is an impressive feat, and testament to our decoding skills.



Poorly Organized. It is very difficult to find people. If you are searching for a person, the results yield a list of tweets which mention that person. The people results are separate, and often times make it difficult to discern which account is real (unless it is verified). Even more frustrating is having to sift through "following" and "followers." There is no efficient search like Facebook has once you start typing a friend's name and it fills in the rest. For you popular kids, thumbing through your 1,400 Facebook friends every time you wanted to find someone? Well you don't have to strain your imaginations because on Twitter this nightmare is a reality--and they aren't even in alphabetical order.


Who to follow? Twitter's user base is radically different than Facebook's. Chances are your friends don't have a Twitter account. So who do you follow? Celebrities? Well celebrity or not, I don't feel more complete knowing that Larry King is enjoying a beautiful day in Mexico City. Once a sizable number of people to follow has been established, there is no easy way to look through the Timeline to see "what's happening?" More often than not, the only visible Tweets are from the 2 people I follow who Tweet every 30 seconds.


Unlike Pownce you can't include images, music, or video in a Tweet. If you want to include an image you have to make a separate account--TwitPic. Even including a link requires the extra step of going to bit.ly. We don't want extra steps, we want everything to be integrated into one place, and for it to be easy. Trying to use Twitter has been an uphill battle. Micro-blogging may sound quick and easy, but so much of Twitter is such a challenge that needs to be made easier.

Follow me @idontgiveaDan.

If it's important, it'll be on Twitter

That's a joke my friends and I have. If something is important enough these days, you don't watch CNN or go to the BBC website... You definitely don't read the newspaper. Jokingly, although sadly half-meant, we think that is something is newsworthy, it will trend on Twitter.

While there are the usual nonsensical #hashtag trends as well as the occasional promoted topics, but for the most part, if it's one of the top trends on Twitter, it'll be the main headline on CNN.

Twitter has allowed anyone to express their opinions in 140 characters or less. I think the character limit is what makes Twitter very appealing to people. You don't have to write lengthy articles in a blog, and the complications of Facebook or Myspace don't come into play. Twitter is simple. You create an account and you post away, simple as that.

To be honest, I became aware of a lot of news items because of Twitter. Everything from the latest NBA trades to celebrity deaths (or hoax deaths), even the latest on the Middle Eastern protests, I've gotten from Twitter. I think it's a great resource and it's fun to use once you get familiar with all the features.

It's probably the most direct way to keep up to date with your favorite celebrities as well. I know some people say that they don't care what an actor ate for breakfast, but I've gotten free concert tickets from responding to a celebrity Tweet. Celebrities like Olivia Munn also keep close contact with their fans, usually inviting them to some event. Munn invited the first however-many followers to join her in ringing the closing bell of the New York Stock Exchange earlier today. I also mentioned in an earlier post how Twitter helped me launch a blog and get an endorsement from the owner of Liverpool Football Club.

I personally enjoy, like, and use Twitter regularly. I think it's an entertaining, and sometimes educational resource.

@nymrtz

Is Twitter Worth it?

Let me start by saying I do not want a Twitter. I have no need to make one and I'll give some reasons why.

First: I understand that many people have a Twitter just so they can follow their favorite celebrities. However, there are ordinary people who like to tweet just for the fun of it. But there will always be one person who loves to tweet every detail of their day. These people exist even on Facebook, but there you can always hide their posts. I don't know if that is a setting on Twitter since you probably wouldn't follow those people anyway. But if it's one of your friends, you feel kinda obligated to follow them. That is just one of my social networking pet peeves: those people who find it necessary to tell the world every detail that's going on.

Second: I don't have a favorite celebrity that I need to know their life story. I don't have a need to follow sports teams since I can get all the information from espn.com. And to be totally honest, I don't need another social networking site to procrastinate more of my time on as it is.

Third: As Professor Levinson points out, the average age of Twitter users is 37. That is probably because many of those users do not want to create a Facebook. But that means that many of my friends aren't actually Twitter users. So unless I want to follow celebrities, sports teams, or just so I can say I have a Twitter, I don't see the need for creating one.

Professor Levinson talks about a Congressman who didn't update his privacy settings on his Twitter page. It seems that many people today never actually take the time to read directions or small updates that have been made. That is why when something electronically new (that I have never used before) comes out into this world, I always try to read, or at least skim the basic directions. But I try to read the advanced directions because you never know what else something can do. For example, Gmail has filters that can automatically label, skip the inbox, or even star your messages. Sometimes, it's actually worth those extra minutes to read the features of something new, especially something that can go public.

Follow Me

Instant gratification is what our world thrives on. Whether it is losing weight quick, or hearing news first, quicker is always better when it comes to results. This is what makes Twitter so great and one of the reasons it is gaining popularity throughout the nation. While it is so simple, the concept seems to be very effective and accepted. It is all about immediate communication and status updates. People are able to create one-liners that are sent and received with the “flick of a finger.” The accounts are free and anyone can have one which makes it accessible to everybody. Ordinary people can follow their favorite celebrities throughout the day or their friends and peers. You can “tweet” them with the hope that they will “tweet” you back. My best friend who is obsessed with DJ Tiesto is an avid follower of his Twitter and was lucky enough for him to “tweet” her back when she was abroad last semester. This concept of interpersonal communication with someone that you would never be able to actually speak with is fascinating. She was ecstatic with his response and this kind of made me want to get my own Twitter in order to receive contact from my favorite celebs. Twitter also makes it possible to know where certain artists will be, whether they are having a concert or doing a book signing, otherwise not to be known.

Personally, I do not have a Twitter and do not have any desire to have one. I understand why celebrities may have one to enhance their publicity and to get their name out there, but I really do not see why ordinary people have Twitters, other than to follow celebrities or companies. People will update their statuses just as much as their Facebook, but for what reason? Does anyone actually care what you are doing at this very minute or how your midterm went? If people actually did care, they would talk to them in person, rather than broadcasting otherwise withheld information to the public. I honestly feel like it is an invasion of your own privacy, but people feel the need to let everyone know what they do and how they feel. Like Facebook, it is just another way for people to glorify their daily activities.