Social Convergence

Why can't we be (Facebook) friends? - conferences, bullying, and blogging

2011-09-30T10:18:00.006-05:00

Wow it's been entirely too long since I last blogged. Things have been unbelievably busy with research, conferences, writing, and job applications. I just returned from a week in London with my awesome mom. I was there presenting at the EU Kids Online Conference at LSE and my mom came with me just for fun. The conference was very productive and useful and my presentation was well received. Apart from the conference my mom and I had a great time exploring London - we ate great food, saw an absolutely amazing production of Wicked, and loved the Tate Modern. It was a great trip.

Here are the slides from my presentation for anyone interested. It's called "Why can't we be (Facebook) friends?: Social networking, risk, and school policies" In it I consider school policies which restrict kids' access to the internet and explore the consequences such policies have on educational opportunities. I also include the perspectives of Missouri teachers responding to the recent "Facebook Law". I got a lot of positive feedback from educators struggling to incorporate digital media into the classroom.

In addition to traveling and the conference I've been busy applying for jobs and working on the dissertation. The dissertation is slow moving right now but I'm making progress and really hoping to be in the field by next week *fingers crossed*. I'll try to update more about that some time soon and share a little bit more about what it is I'm doing.

For now I'll share two interesting articles: First, a NYT op-ed article written by researchers danah boyd and Alice Marwick titled Why Cyberbullying Rhetoric Misses the Mark. In it boyd and Marwick discuss why cyberbullying campaigns are largely ineffectual and put forth a call to approach bullying from teens' perspectives (drama rather than bullying) and frame issues within a more positive framework of "healthy relationships and digital citizenship".

And somewhat related, Anne Collier at NetFamilyNews posted an example of how blogging can be positively used in formal learning spaces to teach responsible digital citizenship in a way teens want to engage. As 15 year-old Nicole says in the article, “If I can share my work online, I get more out than I put in; then I can add even more and benefit from others’ expertise." Both articles are related to my recent presentation in someway - that is, blocking technology doesn't solve bullying and instead restrictive policies put students at risk of missing opportunities for kids to learn and interact via social media and blogs. It's exciting to see examples of teachers who incorporate media in the classroom in innovative and productive ways, and hopefully in time more policies will empower teachers and students rather than over reacting and shutting down such opportunities.

Missouri's new "Facebook Law" - protecting kids by policing teachers?

2011-08-10T15:30:00.003-05:00

Image credit

In case you haven't heard, Missouri passed a new law this week officially called the "Amy Hestir Student Protection Act", but it has been dubbed the "Facebook Law" because of section 162.069 which states:

"every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with sexual harassment policies, and appropriate use of electronic media as described in the act, including social networking sites. Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and parents, or have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student" (emphasis added).

While the law is intended to protect students, many argue it goes too far in policing teachers. There is still a lot of confusion about the interpretation of the law: rather than abiding by the restrictions, many districts and teachers are likely to practice self-censorship and forgo participation on social networking sites all together. But isn't the point of the law to protect children? We know young people are increasingly active on social networking sites so shouldn't we want teachers to be able to engage and communicate with students via avenues students are most likely to use? Not surprisingly, the law has generated backlash from teachers, parents, and the ACLU.

Image Credit

I struggle with this law because it supposes all teachers are potential predators - this is not a message we should be sending our kids, parents, or teachers. Statistically we know children are significantly more likely to be preyed upon by a family member or family friend than a teacher. And while we should protect children from predators, the problem is the criminal behavior, not the technology itself. The law blames social networking sites rather than the age-old problem of criminal behavior. While we should hold teachers accountable to appropriate codes of conduct, we should also give teachers and school districts more credit in knowing how to appropriately engage with students (rather than insinuating they are all potential predators!). Sadly, if a teacher has ill-intentions, no law is going to prevent them from inappropriately communicating with students. Teachers can just as easily communicate inappropriately with students in a hand-written note, but no one is suggesting we ban pens and paper. Of course not, because it wouldn't solve the problem and the benefits of hand-written communication far outweigh the potential risks.

Similarly, the benefits of student-teacher private communication via social networking sites should also outweigh the potential risks. The law completely ignores the positive aspects of social networking sites for educational purposes and mentor relationships. Kids are learning, engaging, and participating in social media every day. Rather than restrict access we ought to be focusing more attention on how to appropriate social media into the classroom to facilitate collaborative learning.

Additionally, supporters of the law argue students and teachers should never communicate privately. Senator Cunningham says the law does not ban student-teacher communication but only requires that it be publicly accessible to parents and school districts. However, there are times it would be unethical for student-teacher communication to be made public. Teachers have traditionally played the role of mentor for many students, and there are certainly topics which students cannot discuss with a parent or peer (e.g. parental abuse). Likewise, students may want to confide in a teacher regarding peer bullying or struggles with work, school, relationships, suicidal thoughts, etc. Like adults, young people are not always comfortable having these conversations face-to-face, and we should not prohibit student-teacher communication which is beneficial to the student. There are of course gray areas as well. Teachers are often friends of the family, parents of students' friends, attend the same church, etc. These relationships exist prior to and outside of the student-teacher relationship and yet they are also being policed and regulated. In the an interview with St Louis Today, high school English teacher Lucinda Lawson vocalizes her concerns with the law and recounts specific instances in which social media has been beneficial.

"Lawson once called a state child-abuse hotline after a private online conversation revealed dangerous drug use by a student's adult family member. She encouraged a pregnant teen to remain in school and helped the girl tell her parents. Another student confided that his attendance woes and classroom struggles were caused by the financial and emotional stress of caring for a mentally ill parent."

Image credit

While there's a lot of talk about educating teachers and students about appropriate use of social media, policies such as this shut down conversation and lead to reactionary responses and fear-mongering rather than constructive spaces for dialog and education. Schools are continually failing our students if we continue to restrict rather than embrace digital technologies. According to Commerce Department research, “out of fifty-five industries, education is dead last in its use of technology” (thank you Anne Collier for stat). All technologies can be used for benefit or harm, we should take precautions and educate students, teachers, and parents about ethical uses of social media. Chilling technological progress reiterates how archaic formal learning environments are becoming. Although I'm sure the law had the best intentions, restricting technology also restricts positive uses of a technology. As George Lucas said in his testimony before Congress

"It is ironic that nearly all students participate in [digital media] outside of school – talking on cellphones, playing videogames, or socializing via Facebook – but many are disconnected from the educational benefits of telecommunications during the school day. Students tell us that technology provides the kind of choice and engagement that would keep them in school and motivate them to go on to higher levels of learning." (again, thanks to Anne Collier for the quote).

Unfortunately, if a teacher intends to have inappropriate contact with a student then no law is going to stand in their way. However, fear of an unlikely risk should not justify shutting down potential benefits of technology. Clearly in order to prevent restrictive policies, we need to find ways to better communicate research to policymakers, research which demonstrates the positive aspects of social media in the classroom. As one of my Missouri high school teacher friends put it,

"My biggest concern is that there are lots of exceptions and times when social media could be really helpful and useful that are being ignored. Also, if we ignore social media, how can we teach the kids how to use it properly?...I feel like a better use of our time is to educate students and teachers on appropriate use of social media, not policing teachers."

I couldn't agree more!

Wordle from ISDT

2011-08-02T17:53:00.001-05:00

This is a Wordle from the notes I took while I was at the International School on Digital Transformation (click for enlarged image). It's a rather interesting visualization of the topics we discussed.

Of comfort zones and connections

2011-07-21T09:16:00.003-05:00

Port wine ships in Porto, Portugal (J.Vickery)

After 5 years of grad school I tend to feel quite comfortable and in my zone when I'm at academic conferences. There are regular faces and names I know will be there, topics on which I feel confident discussing, and discourses with which I'm quite familiar. However, spending the week at the International School of Digital Transformation (ISDT) has challenged the familiarity and comfort I normally have at conferences and workshops. This is partly due to the truly international nature of the School (Brazil, France, UK, India, Columbia, Egypt, Canada, etc.), which does lead to some communication challenges (not in a negative way, but just different than conferences I attend in the States). This is is also because "digital media" is such a large area of study that spans so many different fields, each with their own discourses, agendas, and priorities. So at times I feel very on the fringe of a conversation and tend to observe rather than actively participate. Closely related, the School brings together activists, techies, journalists, practitioners, and scholars into the same space, which is wonderful but also challenging. So while I'm enjoying it and learning a lot, I have nonetheless been feeling a bit out of my element at times.

However, on Tuesday afternoon two of the presenters - Graham Attwell and Christina Costa - conducted a "practice what you preach" session in which they taught 50 people how to produce a live online radio show in fewer than 2 hours. After making some initial decisions regarding topics and roles, we broke into smaller groups to decide the actual content of the program. My group had 4 minutes to discuss children and digital media, which of course is my area of study. It was really fun hearing everyone's different perspectives about the topic and led to some interesting conversations. In the end we decided to do a Q&A format in which several of us provided a short one minute sound bite. My question was about issues of risk (of course). I threw together as much information as I could possibly cram into merely one minute but it was apparently very well received. I had several people come up to me afterwards and tell me how much they liked what I had to say; one lady went so far as to say it was her favorite! This was really encouraging and frankly unexpected.

Porto, Portugal (by J. Vickery)

The entire activity was fun (if not a bit nerve-racking as I hadn't intended to be on a live streaming broadcast), but it helped push me out of my comfort zone - a push I was needing. I also met people working on very promising and innovative projects - people such as Ademar Aguiar, who is developing exciting collaborative software for children, parents, and schools (Schoooools.com), which teaches children how to responsibly use the internet while also respecting their privacy and autonomy. So in addition to finding the presentation fun and informative, I also got to know people better and am now more comfortable participating in the sessions. The radio podcast should be up some time later today, but in the meantime, here's the little blurb I wrote/reported.

Q: We hear a lot about children engaging in risky behaviors online, how should we approach the topic of risk?

A: Often children and social media are discussed within a framework of panic and protection – we are concerned about bullying, sexting, predators, and pornography. And while these issues are important, they are often over hyped and tend to lead to restrictive policies and the naturalization of surveillance practices which actually tend to inhibit children’s opportunities.

Certainly schools and parents have a responsibility to protect children, however we must accept that risk is a normal and unavoidable part of life. Therefore we must teach our children to evaluate and handle acceptable levels of risk. So rather than merely restricting their access and rights online, policies should focus on empowering and educating children about ethical media use. That is, we need to teach them how to become responsible citizens online.

The past 2 days have been really fun. I've gotten to know a lot of people from all over who are all working on fascinating and promising projects and research (including several working on/with children). Last night we took a bus out to Guimaraes, toured an ancient castle and palace. We had a lovely dinner in the palace and enjoyed a jazz band. It was an enjoyable evening with good company, good music, good wine, and good food. We've got 2 days left, I'm looking forward to them but also looking forward to being done and going home. It's been an intense week with lots of panels and conversations and thinking!

Hello from Portugal!

2011-07-19T08:44:00.004-05:00

Lisbon, Portugal (J. Vickery)

This trip has confirmed what I always suspected to be true: I absolutely love traveling by myself! I spent three wonderful days exploring Lisbon and really falling in love with the city. Only those who know me well can appreciate this next statement, but I'm proud to say I did not get lost once the entire time I was in Lisbon! On the one hand this is very exciting because I'm notorious for getting lost even in my hometown, and Lisbon (like most European cities) is not an easy city to navigate. However, on the other hand, this really just proves that I don't get lost because I lack any sense of direction, but rather I get lost simply because I never pay any attention to where I'm going...sigh, it's true. But, I'm glad to know I do have a sense of direction when I actually chose to turn on that part of my brain that otherwise snoozes while I aimlessly wonder around neighborhoods lost in my own thoughts.

One of the things I really appreciated about Lisbon is that the people of Lisbon love Lisbon and they want you to love Lisbon as well. I went on two walking tours while I was there and both my tour guides went on and on about how much they love the city, as did several other people I met while there. Lisbon's history is very visible throughout the city, from architectural styles, to the layout of the streets and neighborhoods, the monuments, the food and music, etc. I learned so much about Portuguese and Lisbon history which also deepened my appreciation for the city and culture. I crammed a lot into my three days there - fado show, tapas bars, lots of codfish, vinho verde, ginjinha, pastries galore, funicular ride, trolley ride, ferry ride, lots of metro rides, art museum, palaces, cathedrals, castles, and parks! I really would've liked to have had one more day to visit the beach, but I just ran out of time. After three days of traveling alone I had thought that I'd be getting lonely or bored of being by myself, but that wasn't the case at all; I was never bored or lonely. It probably helped that my tour guides were so friendly and one of them actually took me out to Barrio Alto (Lisbon's nightlife and bars) one night. Also I had lovely chats with the servers when I was eating and met some interesting people. As much as I do enjoy traveling and experiencing new places with friends and family, I hope to take another vacation alone sometime.

Pena Palace in Sintra, Portugal (J. Vickery)

Now I'm in Porto, I arrived Sunday evening. It's been very interesting meeting people at ISDT who are from all over the world - Columbia, Egypt, UK, Italy, Canada, etc. The presentations have been thought-provoking. To a certain extent academia is on the peripheral of the conversations, as many of the participants are journalists, activists, etc., which has provided some interesting perspectives not always available within academia. The schedule is planned in such a way that we have a lot of free time in the afternoons to network, workshop, and plan "non conference" affinity sessions. Of course it also gives us the opportunity to explore Porto a bit. I'm glad I'm staying an extra day after the conference though since there are many things I would like to do here that I simply won't have time to do during the week. I look forward to the contemporary art museum and touring the port lodges on the other side of the river. I've been lucky in that I've had pretty much perfect weather since I've been here (highs in the mid-80s, lows in the 60s); it's been a wonderful reprise from the awful Texas heat.

Hopefully more updates later in the week.

Portugal here I come!

2011-07-12T18:30:00.006-05:00

Streets of Lisbon (J. Vickery)

I am excited to announce that I leave for Portugal tomorrow to participate at the third annual International School on Digital Transformation (ISDT) in Porto, Portugal. In a nutshell ISDT is a sort of think-tank which "brings together scholars (that's me!), policy experts, community advocates, designers, and hackers from around the world in order to explore the potential for digital media to empower citizens, strengthen communities, and contribute to a more vibrant civil society." I'm very thankful to the UT Austin-Portugal program for the amazing funding sending me to Porto! I am looking forward to meeting some great scholars who are doing some rather phenomenal work, particularly with the intersection of children, digital literacy, and policies. As far as I understand it, there will be planned sessions in the mornings and evenings and quite a bit of free time in the afternoons which we can use to network and plan informal workshops and sessions. Admittedly I'm most looking forward to these; I hope to make some valuable connections and gain some diverse insight into my own research.

In addition to ISDT I will also be traveling in Lisbon for three days by myself prior to the start of the program. I've never taken a vacation alone and I have to say I'm quite excited. I've always wanted to travel alone but the opportunity just hadn't presented itself until now. I love exploring new cities and trying new food and wine and beer and visiting amazing art museums (and of course shopping!). While I do love traveling with friends and family, I think I'll learn a lot from traveling alone and definitely enjoy the experience.

In theory I hope to post at least a few short blog posts about what I'm doing/learning/participating in at ISDT, but no promises.

Sexting - from norms to legality

2011-06-23T14:28:00.008-05:00

Amazing how time flies, I didn't realize it'd been this long since I'd updated the blog. Despite the hiatus from posting on here, I've been quite productive over the past month. I've turned in the first draft of my dissertation proposal to my chair and I've started making participant contacts...and the ball is officially rolling!

So today's topics: sexting. There has been a lot of recent news about sexting (sending lewd or sexual pictures via mobile devices). When sexting first entered into our vernacular it unsurprisingly incited panic from parents, schools, lawmakers, etc. There were of course the obvious reasons adults would be concerned about minors sending sexual images to each other, but the legal consequences became a great concern as well. While a congressman who sends risque pictures may risk his reputation and job, a teen could actually face criminal charges. Under current child pornography laws a teen who sends a sexually explicit photo of themselves can be charged with distributing child porn as can the receiver of the photo. There have been too many instances in which minors are criminally convicted and required to register as sex offenders as a result of an often innocent (albeit at times malicious) mistake. Ironically, it is the child porn laws intended to protect minors which are being used to potentially criminalize and harm minors by requiring teens to register as sex offenders for life. As danah boyd also writes,

teens are "aboslutely flabbergasted to learn that it's legal for them to have sex but not to take naked pictures of themselves. Because, from their perspective, the consequences of having sex are much more significant than the consequences of posing a naked picture."

But as we know, the legal consequences for sexting can be just as devestating and long-term. However, this is starting to change.

Perhaps not that surprisingly the sexting conversation has recently shifted from merely focusing on teens and minors to also include adults' technologically-mediated sexual practices. This of course could in part be a result of Representative Anthony Weiner's recent actions (sending lewd pictures via Facebook and Twitter) which has helped shift the focus from "oh my gosh what are kids doing?" to "oh yea, adults do that too". There's a lot to say about sexting and a lot that has been said already, but here are few recent more nuanced and complex considerations:

Ethnographer danah boyd just gave a talk about sexting and the tech industry to a room full of tech entrepreneurs recently at the Read Write Web conference. She provides a lot of insight and context into "what are these kids thinking?!?!" and puts forth a call to action for the tech industry to create practices, policies, and tools which responsibly address the complexity of the problem.
My dissertation advisor Craig Watkins wrote a short piece for the New York Times regarding technology and changing sexual norms of adults ("What's wrong with adult sexting?") in what he poses may be a new version of "do it yourself porn".
Texas Governor Rick Perry just signed a bill that will reduce sexting to only a misdemeanor charge rather than a felony (effective September 1).

These are merely three recent examples, but are also three examples of progressive thoughts and actions regarding sexting. Historically we can see that anytime young people visibly engage in activities which adults do not immediately understand, they are met with knee-jerk reactions intended to shame, restrict, and scare young people - sexting was no different. On the surface sexting may look "really bad" but it's more nuanced than it first appears. As danah boyd tells us, there are many reasons why teens take/send these photos - fame seeking, boy/girlfriend acquisition, slut-shaming, revenge, flirtation, a form of safe sex - and while some are malicious, others are often healthy explorations and expressions of sexuality. And while these behaviors are more of a cause for concern with young people than they are with adults, the desires and motivations are nothing new. boyd also reminds us that prior to cell phone cameras, young people explored their sexuality with Polaroids. What is new is the searchability, replicability, and visibility of such images as rendered possible by new technologies.

What I find most encouraging is the productive shift from sexting as a teen problem and rather a recognition of sexting as a societal issue. I would venture to say most of the teens taking/sending pictures are not doing so out of perverse motivations (malicious perhaps, but not perverse). What is perverse are the adults who get off on pictures of minors. Thus the problem is ultimately an adult societal problem - not just a teen problem. Of course, this is not to suggest that we shouldn't have laws in place to empower and protect minors, we should! And to be clear, I'm not saying we should be completely ok with teens taking/sending sexual photos of themselves - the emotional and social consequences can be detrimental and should not be dismissed or downplayed. But labeling a 16 year-old a sex offender for taking/sending a sexual picture of him/herself or a peer is going too far, and the behavior in and of itself is not a perversion. We should not be telling teens "your bodies are perverse and should never ever be photographed naked or in a sexual way". Thus we should focus on empowering teens to responsibly explore and express their sexuality while also enacting laws intended to protect them from the perversions of society.

Although I still struggle with criminalizing teens' sexting without taking into consideration motives, context, etc., I think Texas' new law is a small step in the right direction by at least reducing the penalty from felony to misdemeanor. However legality is not the only consequence at hand and more effort should be put into educating teens about the social and emotional consequences of sexting (in a way that doesn't reify the idea that their sexuality is in and of itself shameful or perverse). And I appreciate Craig's article for reminding us that it is not just teens who engage in sexting, but also adults. And while some people may find it strange, the motivations behind it are not new nor should it be completely stigmatized. And finally, as always, I love danah boyd's call to the tech industry to step up and create practices, policies, and tools enabled to deal with the complex issue. It is too easy to attempt to stigmatize, pathologize, and crimalize the behaviors of young people. Sexting is in no way a "teen problem" and it is not an entirely new problem, but rather new questions must be addressed as a result of new technologies. It should be addressed in complex ways which protect, empower, and educate teens while also normalizing healthy expressions of sexuality - for both teens and adults. In other words, shifting sexting out of the realm of teen perversion, and into the realm of normal sexual expression under the right circumstances.

"Little Johnny likes Batman" - The Ethics of Facebook Advertising and Children

2011-05-26T14:37:00.001-05:00

There have been several news articles in the past few weeks addressing issues of privacy and kids. From the Consumer Report's findings that there are 7.5 million children under the age of 13 using Facebook, which is against Facebook's own policy (read more), to California's proposed Social Networking Privacy Act (SB 242), to the FTC's investigation of Facebook's possible COPPA violations (illegal advertising to minors). I have mixed reactions to all of this, but overall I am encouraged to see so much attention circulating around children and privacy. My dissertation research (which I'll get around to discussing on here soon), focuses on children, digital media, and perceptions of risk. It seems far too often media and policies pay too much attention to harmful yet unlikely risks (such as predators) and tend to neglect the less harmful yet significantly more likely risks (such as invasion of privacy). Thus I see the invested interest in privacy to be a positive pendulum swing with regards to children, risk, and digital media.

I am not at all surprised there are so many "under age" children with Facebook accounts. Social media have become increasingly popular with all age demographics, and young children are no exception. Facebook attempts to restrict its site to 13 year olds however, any child can lie about their birthdate and sign up for an account. To be honest, this doesn't bother me that much in and of itself. The purpose of Facebook's minimum age requirement is not safety-driven but rather privacy-driven. Facebook's minimum age requirement is in compliance with the 1999 Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) which is intended to protect minors from unknowingly releasing too much personally identifiable information (PII). The Act aims to give parents control over how much information is collected from their children online. However, because Facebook is not aimed at children under the age of 13 (hence the minimum age requirement), they have not had to abide by the same COPPA requirements. But this could change...

Facebook is facing several lawsuits from residents in New York and California because of possible COPPA violations. Facebook's Terms of Service state that the site may use users' names and images to promote brands that they have "liked" on Facebook. While many adults view this as a privacy violation or an unethical form of advertising, users agree to it when they sign up for an account (and can restrict this to a certain degree via privacy settings). However, this becomes a gray area when the user is under the age of 13 and Facebook did not obtain parental consent to use their child's name and image - hence the lawsuits. On the one hand I completely agree that parents should have to give consent for commercial websites to use their child's name and image for advertising purposes. However, I'll be interested to see what the courts decide since said users were clearly violating Facebook's Terms of Service when they lied about their age. In so doing, did they waive their COPPA rights by lying about their age?

This gray area highlights some interesting aspects of children and social media. The Consumer Report article finds it "troubling" that so many "under age" kids have Facebook profiles. While the article does mention privacy concerns, it also discusses other risks such as bullying, exposure to pornography, and mallware. The article says,

"Parents of young children might think they are less likely to take risks, some observers say. "It's like an alarm clock goes off for parents when their kids turn 13," says Vanessa Van Petten, creator of Radical Parenting, a blog featuring writing by teenagers that aims to improve family relationships. "Parents think their younger kids aren't interested in porn. With a 10-year-old mentality, they're only interested in 10-year-old things."

But those parents would be mistaken. Ten-year-olds need protection from other hazards that might lurk on the Internet, such as links that infect their computer with malware and invitations from strangers, not to mention bullies."

Interesting how quickly the conversation shifts from concerns of privacy to concerns such as pornography. This is a really bizarre quote since ten year olds are highly unlikely to find porn on Facebook. Facebook has a strict policy regarding porn, nudity, and even sexuality (evidenced by controversies over Facebook removing photos of a gay kiss and breast feeding). Pornography really doesn't belong in a discussion about children and Facebook. I find it interesting how often Facebook's minimum age requirement is interpreted as a mechanism to protect children from the big scary world of the internet when in fact it has nothing to do with porn or bullying, but rather privacy and advertising.

I do agree with the Consumer Report that parents should also be concerned about their younger kids online (not just tweens and teens), however I find the tone of the article to be a bit alarmist and dismissive. Just because parents of younger children aren't closely monitoring their Facebook accounts does not at all imply they are not monitoring their kids' use of the internet in general. Of all the websites a 10 year old might purposely or accidentally access, Facebook is definitely not the riskiest.

Another aspect of all of this that I find interesting is the increasing number of younger children who are using Facebook. Facebook obviously started as a college-aimed website and has expanded to a much larger demographic, but I don't think even Facebook really considered the appeal it would have for elementary aged children. This makes me question whether or not Facebook should really be excluded from COPPA requirements. If there are more than 7.5 million children under the age of 13 using Facebook, then doesn't that demonstrate that Facebook appeals to children? Rather than deleting these accounts, wouldn't it make more sense for Facebook to comply with COPPA? This would discourage children from lying about their age and require advertisers to meet COPPA standards when engaging with children's information. I recognize that Facebook is successful because of "social advertising" and too harshly restricting what advertisers can do with users' information would be detrimental to Facebook's successful business model. However, the cat is out of the bag and children are going to continue to use Facebook regardless of policy. Thus, I think Facebook should allow young children to use the site and make sure that profiles under the age of 13 are COPPA compliant. This doesn't threaten the overall business model of Facebook, it merely protects minors in a way that the current system fails to do (since users are encouraged to lie about their age).

As noted, I'm glad to see privacy once again moving to the forefront of children and protection debates. As I've discussed before (here and here), privacy is a very important issue when it comes to new technologies, and certainly something we should be concerned about in regards to children. I don't have all the answers, but I'm definitely in favor of sites such as Facebook (and their advertisers) being held accountable for their engagement with children and children's personal information.

NBA, PSA, and Homophobia

2011-05-13T17:25:00.001-05:00

This really doesn't have much (anything?) to do with digital media, but I wanted to post it anyway. Apparently the NBA is joining the Ad Council and the Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network to launch a new campaign targeting anti-LGBT language among teens. The commercials will air during the NBA playoff finals on more than 1,600 stations including TNT, ABC, and ESPN. The commercials star Grant Hill and Jared Dudley. Having not yet seen many of the commercials or larger aspects of the campaign I can't say much, however, I am at the very least cautiously optimistic about the NBA addressing homophobia and anti-gay language. To say the world of professional sports is sexist and homophobic is an understatement. One doesn't have to watch but one commercial break to see an essentializing, anti-woman, anti-non-normative sexuality commercial. This continues to baffle me ever so much in so far as advertisers continually alienate women sports fans, and trust me, we are out there and growing in numbers, but I digress, this is a topic for another day (and one in which I've written about in the past). I remain cautiously optimistic of the aim, approach, scope, and effectiveness of the PSAs. But at the very least I'm encouraged by the fact that the NBA is addressing anti-LGBT language. It's at least a start at combating homophobic, hateful, and ignorant attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

According to the GLSEN website,

The NBA has been a tremendous partner from the moment we engaged them last year," said Eliza Byard, GLSEN Executive Director. "The NBA's support helps us start a conversation that hopefully will have a lasting impact with an incredibly engaged audience about the Think Before You Speak campaign's message of respect. Anti-LGBT language is one of the most pervasive forms of harassment in schools, and the casual use of phrases like "that's so gay" contributes to the hostile school climates that LGBT youth face across the country.

At the very least I hope this gets conversations started and raises awareness about the power of words to hurt people. There have been way too many tragic and violent reminders this year that homophobia kills. I commend the NBA for being the first professional sport league to begin to address this problem head on - and I hope the league (its players, announcers, sponsors, broadcasters) will recognize their role in contributing to or combating homophobia.

Kids do cool things (with technology!)

2011-05-05T12:16:00.003-05:00

It's so easy to focus on the negative, risky, scary, stories related to kids and the internet that we often risk missing the really awesome things kids are doing with technology. Ricky Gilleland, a 17 year old from Stafford, Virginia, has done what the US government has failed to do: he has documented and digitized the graves of every fallen soldier at Arlington Cemetery. You can read a very touching piece about him and the families of fallen soldiers in the Los Angeles Times. An excerpt from the article:

While discussing Arlington's outdated record-keeping over dinner one night last summer, Ricky — who had just gotten an A in his Programming 1 class at school — announced, "I can fix that." [... ] He spent afternoons in a bookstore poring over Web development manuals for the right program language to create the site. At night, in his family's study, his computer hooked up to a 40-inch flat screen and his keyboard on a snack table in front of the couch, he input hundreds of names, photos, links to obituaries and newspaper accounts; he created a space to blog tributes.

To date his site has received over 116,000 hits and he has received hundreds of emails from families of fallen soldiers.

I find Ricky's work to be a compelling reason why digital literacy matters in a big way. Given the right tools and opportunities for creativity, kids can do some really awesome things - today, here, now - not "someday" when they grow up. While Ricky takes programming at school, his mother discusses the way he's been tinkering around with computers and technology since he was a kid. It's important to create spaces for kids to tinker and experiment with technology and learn on their own terms; allowing them the freedom to play and learn through experience and mistakes. Far too often society thinks of kids as "human becomings" rather than "human beings", but Ricky is just one example that demonstrates when given the right tools and opportunities, kids can do some pretty amazing things with technology!

Anti-Bullying Bill Approved by Texas Senate

2011-04-27T12:53:00.005-05:00

Cyberbullying has captured the attention of mainstream news - particularly the extreme and tragic exemplars such as the suicides of Megan Meier, Phoebe Prince, and Asher Brown. Apart from news, popular dramas such as Law & Order: SVU feature several episodes revolving around the use of video games, virtual worlds, and cell phones as technologies of meanness, violence, sexual exploitation and deviance. Broadly defined, cyberbullying is when an individual or group uses communication technologies to deliberately and repeatedly harass or intimidate another person. In response to the perceived increase of cyberbullying, the federal government has launched both a National Crime Prevention Council campaign against cyberbullying as well as an extensive and well-funded anti-cyberbullying health campaign conducted by the Center for Disease Control. At a more micro level, local school districts have implemented regulatory policies intended to prevent and punish cyberbullying, as well as state lawmakers who have proposed and in some cases passed Senate and House bills which outline legal definitions and regulations of cyberbullying

This year the Texas Senate proposed 15 bills addressing concerns of (cyber)bullying and just this week the Senate approved SB205 from Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston. In addition to providing a definition for cyberbullying, the bill outlines out 13 things that each school district's policy must address and includes provisions to hold school districts accountable for failing to address reports of bullying. The policy must:

prohibit bullying, cyberbullying, harassment, and intimidation
describe the behavior expected from students
lay out the consequences of bullying - specifically allowing counseling or referral to anti-bullying services
include a procedure for reporting bullying, including anonymous reporting
encourage students and employees to report bullying
layout a procedure for investigating bullying
describe how a school district will respond to confirmed bullying
prohibit retaliation against people who report bullying
have a rule against intimation of witnesses and victims of bullying to prevent reporting
describe how a school district will respond to retaliation for reporting or intimation of witnesses or victims
specify how the policy will be publicized
specify that publicization of the policy must state that it applies both on campus and at off campus school sponsored events
identify which school officials are responsible for implementing the policy

Overall I think I like this bill. It is vague enough to be customized and adapted to individual school districts thus giving them autonomy to structure the policy in a way that best serves their schools. It requires clearcut consequences for bullying and doesn't pigeonhole cyberbullying as distinct from offline bullying, which I believe is a good thing. Narrow policies aimed at only preventing cyberbullying completely miss the mark: students do not necessarily make distinctions between online and offline bullying and research demonstrates that aggressive behaviors move fluidly within these spaces (in other words, the behaviors are rarely isolated to just online or offline interactions).

SB205 is a bit more conservative in its approach than some of the other proposed bills such as SB242 by Wendy Davis, D-Ft Worth which stretches the policy to also include off-campus issues that affect school environments. While nice in theory, I actually struggle with schools regulating and policing off-campus behaviors, typically I feel that is best left to parents and law enforcement rather than schools. Davis' proposed bill also allowed for schools to relocate bullies to another school rather than victims. My initial response is in favor of this because it avoids victim-blaming and victim-shaming. However, in practice this too is difficult since research demonstrates the categories of victim and bully are not so neatly dichotomous - that is, victims often become bullies and bullies are often retaliating victims. When relocation seems to be the best plan of action I think both the bully and the victim ought to have that option when it is in the best interest of the child.

While I am generally in favor of SB205, I am still left wondering when, if, and how schools are addressing the actual roots of bullying? The larger questions of diversity and tolerance (or lack thereof) remain largely unaddressed, at least within news coverage and discourse. At Console-ing Passions (Eugene, Oregon, 2010) I presented a paper on the ways cyberbullying has been framed within the news. I argued that from a discursive perspective of moral and media panics perhaps one reason these larger issues of bullying are often absent from mainstream discourses is because addressing the "why" of bullying draws attention away from youth behaviors - behaviors which we can control - and instead shifts the focus towards society. Within the news (and arguably policies) (cyber)bullying is constructed as a youth problem (despite the fact that the most "famous" incident of Megan Meier was the result of an adult's, not a child's, behaviors). But as long as (cyber)bullying remains a "youth problem", it can be subjected to collective control and management. But the moment the problem becomes a larger societal problem then the blame is placed onto adults' racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes - attitudes which cannot be controlled through the pathnologizing and criminalizing policies and discourses (in the "real" world "bullying" is not against the rules). Youth are often a scapegoat on whom larger social anxieties are displaced and whose behaviors society place under control and surveillance. As a result (cyber)bullying and moralization panic distract us from larger racist, sexist, and homophobic discourses which cannot be so easily disciplined in the "real" world.

Reflections on Privacy in the Digital Age, Part 2

2011-04-21T15:44:00.002-05:00

The point of my previous post was actually to serve as an introduction for my thoughts related to two privacy/digital media news stories from the week:

Originally I was going to discuss both of these as related to privacy, but since I just erased everything I wrote I'm going to skip my thoughts on the iPhone case. However, for a level-headed response to what is actually happening I recommend Alex Levinson's blog post "3 Major Issues with the Latest iPhone Tracking 'Discovery;".

Of the two cases I actually find the Google lawsuit to be the most intriguing. In case you didn't read the article, basically a few Spanish citizens want old internet references about them to no longer pop up in Google searches. This request probably elicits empathy for any of us who have ever (or will ever) publish anything or do anything or think anything that we do not want forever archived in Google databases. I for one wish I could remove a few articles I wrote for a student website back in college. The articles are not inappropriate nor am I ashamed of what I wrote, but rather they are reflections of who I was at a a particular moment in my life. My opinions and views have greatly changed and become much more nuanced since I wrote them at 18 and while I accept that the student website archives all articles, I do wish there were a way to prevent them from popping up in Google searches.

However, I struggle with the legality and ethics of a search engine such as Google censoring or otherwise altering their results based on individuals' requests. First of all, even if Google were to remove a particular article, page, image, etc. from the search results, there undoubtedly exist other digital copies that could easily be re-shared via other URLs. That is, the requests appear to be rather technologically unenforceable even if Google were to comply.

Additionally, it is likely that the information that is to be removed is not actually owned by the individual making the request (lest they would remove it themselves). If Google removes a webpage, image, etc. from their search results it is likely they are also removing other information found on that page and understandably the owner of the webpage/website may not want this information to be banned from Google search engines. In other words, in order to grant one request would Google be trumping someone else's request for the information to remain in the search results? How could Google determine on a case-by-case basis when information should be removed from search results and when the rights and requests of others outweigh the request to remove the information?

Furthermore, while private entities such as Google are not obligated to protect freedom of speech, there is a very thin line between respecting the right of the individual to control information about oneself and outright censorship (which goes against Google's "Do No Evil" policy). How would Google change if they begin to comply to such requests? Who would hear these cases? What criteria should be considered when removing legal, non-slanderous, non-libel, information about an individual? Would it change our perception of Google and the trustworthiness of the search engine? What is at stake if Google were to actually remove information from their search results?

Apart from the legal and ethical decisions of Google, the lawsuit draws attention to some interesting and ongoing debates around issues of privacy and our digital lives. When I wrote the articles for the student website in 2001 there was no Google; there wasn't the same understanding that everything I put online would not only be archived potentially forever, but more importantly, would be searchable forever. Knowing what I know now I don't think my 18 year-old self would've actually made a different decision. Like I said, the articles are not shameful, inappropriate, or even embarrassing. However, they are a digital archive of what I believed at the time and a reflection of who I was at a pivotal moment in my life. But what does it mean when digital information has a shelf-life of F-O-R-E-V-E-R? (think flashlight and treehouse a la The Sandlot right now).

Certainly we should all carefully consider what we publish, post, share online and be held responsible for these decisions. But even the most diligent person cannot control what others will share about him or her and thus we do not have ultimate control over our digital lives, reputations, and archives. While people do post really stupid stuff in which they most likely deserve the repercussions of their decision, this is not always the case. How does a shelf-life of forever affect our freedom of expression? In an era in which privacy is becoming increasingly difficult to manage, should there be some sort of expiration date for Google searches - a way in which older less pertinent information could be buried deep in the archives of the internet? And if not, then how might we think about our freedom of expression? And how do we teach young people to behave responsibly when we as adults are still trying to figure it out?

Reflections on Privacy in the Digital Age, Part 1

2011-04-21T15:06:00.002-05:00

Onion News Network: Google Opt Out Feature Lets Users Protect Privacy by Moving to Remote Village

It's privacy week in the course I currently TA (and for which I used to be lead instructor). This is one of my favorite weeks every semester because privacy is such an ongoing and multifaceted area of our (digital) lives. New technologies have always brought about concerns of privacy. In 1890 Warren and Brandeis published an article in the Harvard Law Review advocating for greater privacy protection as a result of new technologies such as cameras.

"Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person... Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that "what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops." For years there has been a feeling that the law must afford some remedy for the unauthorized circulation of portraits of private persons; and the evil of invasion of privacy by the newspapers..." - Warren and Brandeis

As technologies have continued to evolve issues of privacy continue to surface. While many of us may feel we deserve more privacy protection (and I would agree), from a legal perspective the issues is actually quite complicated. In the US we are not granted a right to privacy - the Fourth Amendment protects us from "unreasonable searches and seizures" and throughout history this has come to be interpreted as the "right to be left alone". But beyond that, the Constitution does not guarantee us a right to privacy and anytime the US government attempts to regulate the private sector things tend to get legally complicated.

SXSW Opening Remarks by danah boyd: Making Sense of Privacy & Publicity

Nonetheless, regardless of Constitutional protections (or lack thereof), we value privacy protection and continually argue new technologies invade our sense of privacy. Anyone who even remotely follows Facebook in the news is probably aware of the bad publicity they have received through the years as a result of privacy invasion and exposure. Ethnographer danah boyd has written and spoken extensively about definitions and conceptions of privacy and the various privacy faux pas Facebook has committed. (see for example "Facebook's Privacy Trainwreck: Invasion, Exposure, and Drama"). As she and others have argued, private is not the opposite of public. We all willingly share private information on a daily basis which we do not intend to ever be public. The vulnerability that comes with sharing private information is the foundation of relationships - but we share private information within particular contexts with individuals (and institutions) we trust. Privacy is ultimately about the ability to control the flow of information about oneself; it is about understanding the context in which that information is shared; and it is about trusting that individual or institution to ethically use our information.

As noted, new communication technologies are almost always accompanied by privacy concerns (and of course privacy concerns also exist outside the realm of communication technologies). Yet, what is unique to concerns related to digital technologies, particularly the internet, is that we are less aware of the fact that our privacy has even been invaded. In the physical world we can observe who is listening to our conversations, taking our pictures, recording what we are saying, and easily identify who is asking for and collecting our personal information (and we can easily refuse to give out that information, such as when The Gap asks for you phone number). However, the architecture of the internet makes it possible for individuals and institutions to collect, observe, record, share, search, and distribute our personal information, locations, conversations, etc. without our explicit consent and often without our knowledge. Herein lies the challenge of privacy and digital technologies: do ISPs, cell phone providers, websites, etc. have the legal right to collect data about our behaviors and personal information and furthermore who should regulate and enforce the ethical use of this information? These are huge questions policymakers, lawyers, judges, researchers, journalists,etc. are dedicating their entire career to figure out.

(to be continued...)

CFP: Children, risk and safety online: Research & policy challenges in comparative perspective

2011-04-21T12:53:00.001-05:00

One of my professors forwarded this CFP to me yesterday and I just about peed myself with excitement. This is an ENTIRE CONFERENCE dedicated to my dissertation topic. I couldn't ask for more perfect timing or a better conference. For those of you not familiar with this research, the conference is the culmination of a huge research study called EU Kids Online II (2009-11). The study consists of more than 25,000 participants in 25 countries across Europe. I have already learned so much theoretically and methodologically from this study and would absolutely love the opportunity to participate in this conference and learn more about how scholars, educators, and policymakers are thinking about risks and opportunities for kids online.

Well look who's blogging...again...again

2011-04-21T10:26:00.002-05:00

After a year and a half hiatus I've decided it's high time to start blogging again. I've had a complicated relationship with blogging, especially since graduate school. I blogged consistently (and almost daily) for about five years (from college on through my Master's), but since starting work on the PhD I've struggled with if and how and when and what to blog. I continually go back and forth on the productivity of blogging as a graduate student and I tend to overthink my posts and worry about how they might be perceived by future employers etc. Yet here I am again and as I'm starting to get deeper into my dissertation work I've decided it'd be beneficial to have a space to share articles, musings, and questions - for my own sake if nothing else (although I certainly welcome feedback, criticism, and advice). Thus here I am...again...again. I'm re-entering the blogging world for the fifth time and hopefully I'll be here to stay for awhile.

Now I remember why I hate baking...

2009-12-15T23:52:00.010-06:00

I'm re-watching Gilmore Girls season 1, enjoying winter break, and for some unbeknownst reason I decide it'd be a good idea to bake cookies. Yea, you heard me, bake cookies! I know what you're thinking, "But Jac, you never bake." That's right, I never bake. I cook, oh yes I cook, and I'm damn good at it, but baking and I have not had the best relationship. I don't think the word "precision" comes to mind when people think of me; and for good reason.

So why am I baking? I don't know. Blame it on the cold weather, the holiday cheer, or the all-around make-merry, deck-the-hall, all-be-jolly mood, of the past few days, but all of the sudden I thought, "You know what would be really good tonight? Homemade Snickerdoodles."

After discovering I had no Cream of Tartar (seriously, who comes up with this stuff anyway?!?), I forgo the Snickerdoodle idea and decide on Peanut Butter cookies. Excellent, I like peanut butter and I have peanut butter.

Well, despite my failures as a baker, my mom did teach me quite a bit about baking as a child and if there's one thing I know it's: get out all your ingredients before you start. So, there I am getting out all my ingredients, you know the flour waaaay up on the top of the pantry that hasn't been used in months. Well, I get it down only to discover the bag has little weevils in it (yuck!). This should've been a cue to stop, but no! I have a second bag of flour (yea! I was shocked too!). The second bag is weevil free so we're good to go.

I continue gathering ingredients only to discover my eggs had expired. In August. But I'm baking them though, heat kills germs right? Right?!?! Well to be sure I do some Googling and I find this nifty test to determine whether or not eggs are still good. You put them in a glass of water, if they sink they're good if they float they're bad. Well, my eggs, all six of them, didn't so much as get their heads wet in the water. So again, this should've been a cue to stop baking, but no sir, I'm not a quitter. I'm going to have cookies tonight come hell or high water!

So, back to the computer I go to do some more Googling. I discover I can use applesauce or vegetable oil with water as an egg substitute. Excellent, i have oil, olive oil that is. Hey, olives are vegetables aren't they? So still unsure in my decision I cast doubt aside and go with the olive oil. Phew, ingredients gathered.

Step 1, pour the sugar in the bowl. Yea, I screwed up step 1. How in the world can someone screw up step 1 you might ask? Well let me tell you. I apparently didn't dry the bowl well enough and it was damp, thus my sugar made nice little clumpy sugar balls the moment I poured it in. Seriously, every sign was pointing towards "Don't make cookies" but instead I dump out the damp sugar, rewash the bowl, re-dry the bowl extra thoroughly, and repeat step 1.

I manage to make it through the rest of the steps with relative ease. I pull out my 60 year old electric mixer (this required a step stool by the way), I turn it on all excited to make the dough aaaaand...nothing. The mixer does nothing. Not even a last ditch whirl for old time's sake. It's dead as dead can be. I try another outlet just to verify the death of the 60 year old green mixer, observe a moment of silence in its honor, and then, well ,and then all I can think is "Crap! How am I going to mix the cookies now?"

Sigh, are you exhausted yet? Yea, again, why did I not just quit. But no, I start mixing the dough by hand. Which, had I known I'd be mixing the dough by hand when I started I would've let the butter soften much more prior to putting in the bowl (mom why didn't you tell me the mixer qualifies as an ingredient?!), but alas, hindsight is 20/20. So I mix, and I mix, and I mix, and I count my blessings I'm ambidextrous, and I mix some more. All right, add the dry ingredients and we're good to go.

The cookies are in the oven, what can go wrong now? Well, a few minutes later a wonderful smell wafts into the study, mmmmm, garlic. Wait, garlic? Why do my cookies smell like garlic? I open the oven to discover there is garlic stuck to the bottom of my oven and oh-so-pleasantly roasting away. This would otherwise be a desired smell, were it not for the fact that I have peanut butter cookies in there! My entire apartment smells of garlic and there's nothing I can do but let the cookies bake.

Ten minutes later I pull the cookies out and surprisingly they look ok. Thinking a glass of cold milk might compensate for the lack of quality of the cookies I suddenly remember I poured chunky milk into my coffee this morning. Yea, apparently my milk was expired too (shut up, it's finals week!). No milk and garlicky cookies, yummmy.

As it turns out, they actually aren't that bad. They're a little thin (did I screw up the fork pressing thing too?), but amazingly they don't taste like garlic (that or the smell is so overwhelming I don't notice it anymore). I wouldn't exactly give these cookies away to anyone, but all things considered they aren't bad.
But from now on I stick to cooking, you know, things which don't require measuring cups, electric mixers, dry bowls, ingredients which you can't creatively substitute, or garlic-free ovens. Next time I get the itch to bake, somebody please stop me!

False Assumptions - a series

2009-09-22T19:39:00.010-05:00

False assumptions:

Christians are brainwashed and therefore tend not to be logical or open-minded
Feminists can't be Christians (or religious at all for that matter)
Liberal Christians have somehow abandoned their faith or are backsliding

The above assumptions are increasingly personal to me as both the Christians in my life as well as the liberals often have completely misguided understandings about each other and therefore about me. For the most part, I avoid discussing politics with many of my Christian friends (most of whom are more moderate-conservative) and likewise, I avoid discussing religion with my liberal friends (most of whom, but certainly not all, are agnostic/non-religious). Then there's me - a progressive Christian who actually loves discussing both of these topics late into the night (and certainly after a few glasses of wine) with just about anyone willing to engage in a thoughtful conversation with me about either of these topics. Although, it is rare that I discuss the intersection of these two issues with very many people, there are certainly exceptions to this. And to those of you who have engaged in these late-night musings about the intersection of progressive politics and faith, you know who you are and I love you dearly for it!

I've been playing around with these ideas for a long time now but I've been reluctant to openly talk much about them. In part because I fear I won't clearly articulate what it is I'm trying to say, but also because I fear what I have to say will be taken out of context and further perpetuate misunderstandings. And finally, I have no desire to piss off the liberals or the Christians or the liberal Christians in my life - I love you all! But I've become increasingly frustrated by misunderstandings from both sides and feel there are issues I should explicitly address. First, I should say that in part my frustration stems from the fact that neither side - Christians or liberals - actually want to have these conversations with me (or each other!); they'd rather make assumptions about my beliefs (and each other) and these assumptions are usually manifested in rather snarky remarks towards me (or each other). It should be evident to anyone who knows me that I will willingly discuss, explain, or debate either of these topics if you merely ask. I'm not however, going to shove my religion or my politics down your throats. But I do ask in return that you don't make assumptions about my beliefs or the seemingly mutual exclusivity of my faith and my politics.

With this explanation and pseudo-disclaimer out of the way, I'd like to tackle the three false assumptions presented at the beginning of this post one by one.

1. Christians are brainwashed and therefore tend not to be logical or open-minded.
I have to say that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I attribute much of my critical-thinking skills to religion and my religious education. The Bible is a confusing, hard to dissect, open to interpretation, historically and culturally contextual, translated text. While I do believe it is the Holy Word of God, I also recognize it is open to multiple interpretations, as do the majority of Christians (there are obviously exceptions, but they are just that - the exceptions). Thus, I spent my entire childhood in a church and a Christian private school in which I was taught skills and given tools to help make sense of the Bible. I was taught to question intent, consider historical context, examine multiple interpretations, go back to the original Hebrew, Latin, and Greek to more fully understand translations, to consider geography and history in order to interpret cultural meanings and significance, to analyze and understand who the author of passages was and where they were in their lives when writing texts, etc. etc. etc.

As you can imagine, there were times that such a study of the Bible led to doubts and anxieties about my faith, but it is because of these doubts and anxieties that my faith is strong. My faith is not blindly accepted or built upon brainwashing - but quite the opposite. My faith is built upon a lifetime of questioning, doubt, experiences, and understandings that have led me to believe what I believe today. Do I have all the answers? Of course not. Are there issues I still don't know exactly how to make sense of? Absolutely. But do I doubt the foundation of my faith or Jesus? Most definitely not.

If you go back and look at the non-extensive list of skills I acquired via Bible studies and a Christian education, it should be rather obvious that these are many of the exact same skills I employ daily as a scholar. I must question causality, historical context, cultural indicators and effects, translations, multiple interpretations, numerous theories explaining the same phenomenon, etc. etc. etc. I would go so far as to say I am a good researcher and scholar not in spite of my religious upbringing but because of my religious upbringing. I acquired so many of my critical thinking skills and research approaches vis-à-vis Christianity and a religious education (at home, in school, in church, in Bible studies).

Now obviously not all Christians are critical or open-minded, but neither are all liberals, feminists, conservatives, Muslims, vegetarians, fill in the blank. Close-mindedness comes from a lack of understanding of one's own beliefs as well as a lack of understanding of someone else's perspectives. When we feel our own beliefs are threatened we often respond by shutting down dialog; unfortunately this happens far too often. However, I hope I've made it at least a little bit more clear that it is very possible and even likely, that Christians can be logical and open-minded about their faith and the world. We are taught a plethora of critical thinking and investigative skills, however, not everyone chooses to apply these skills to a context outside of Christianity. This is not the fault of Christianity, but rather the individual, and it is certainly not unique to Christianity, but is applicable to all people.

There's obviously so much I could say on the topic, but I'd rather be somewhat brief so as not to bore you. I'll tackle the next two assumptions in separate posts (I'm not a fan of super long entries).

Facebook is the new blog

2009-09-22T19:23:00.005-05:00

In the past couple of weeks I've had a surprising number of people thank me for the various articles I've been posting on Facebook over the past few months. This has really caught me off guard. For the most part, none of these people typically leave comments on my Facebook nor are they people I generally discuss sports, gender, or politics with (the primary topics of my Facebook postings). So I guess it just surprised me that they were reading what I posted and I definitely wasn't expecting any of these people to say anything to me about what I post on Facebook. In fact, a few of these people are people with whom I rarely have any contact at all and whom I never actually see in person.

This actually ties in quite nicely with the research interviews I did this summer about weak ties, Facebook, and exposure to ideological difference, but this was something a bit different. Having given it some thought, I've realized that in a lot of ways Facebook and Twitter have replaced the function of my blog. As I've said before, I used to be an avid blogger, blogging three or four times a week; clearly this is no longer the case. While there are several reasons for this change, I think Facebook has got to be a contributing factor. I still blog when I have something important to say, but I have shifted my focus away from expressing my own opinions and tend to be more focused on just sharing information.

While people often (incorrectly) infer my opinions from Facebook postings, my goal is not so much to let people know what I think about a particular issue or event, but rather to just disseminate information that I think is important. Even if people disagree with my particular view or the view(s) presented in the article/video, I hope to expose people to stories, events, issues that are not generating a lot of conversation in mainstream media. Or, in other instances, I hope to present a view that complicates mainstream discourses about a particular issue or event.

Since my goals have shifted more towards information dissemination rather than opinion expression, I find Facebook to be a more efficient medium than blogging. It's faster to post a link and I don't feel the pressure to provide commentary or contextualization like I do with a blog post. All this being said, I have a couple blog entries that have been running around in my head the past couple weeks that I really need to sit down, sort out, and articulate. Also, I am going to try to start posting more articles to my blog and using it as a news aggregate when appropriate.

Image Credit: Facebook

FlowTV Special Issue CFP - Sports Media: Tensions and Transitions

2009-09-15T01:55:00.008-05:00

FlowTV Special Issue CFP: Sports Media
Please distribute widely; submission deadline is Monday, Oct. 5

As the NFL bans players from Tweeting on the sidelines and the NCAA bans fans' unofficial Facebook recruitment pages, it is clear that players, fans, leagues, and media institutions are struggling to maintain control in changing mediated sports environments. Yet it is not just new media that is both enhancing and threatening the relationship between athletic institutions, media industries and fan communities. Major transitions have also occurred in traditional media like television and radio with the 30th anniversary of ESPN's Sportscenter, and online audio and video available for seemingly every major sport worldwide. Although sports and mass media have a well-established symbiotic relationship, media studies has been slow to embrace sport as a legitimate or significant object of study; this is a negligence that Flow seeks to remedy. Questions to consider might include:

How have fan experiences been transformed by transitions from radio to television, network to cable, and television to the internet?
How have the games, players, fans, and leagues been transformed by these media developments?
What of other technological developments such as screens in arenas, ballparks and stadiums?
What is the social significance of fans', players', coaches' and leagues' use of social media technologies such as Twitter, Facebook, iPhones, and blogging?
How do all of these developments change the fan experience and notions of fandom? And how do these developments contribute to athletes' ability to construct and promote their own celebrity image?
Should players be given a voice via personal blogs or Twitter and what does it mean when leagues regulate and silence these voices?
What happens to traditional gatekeeping roles when fans become the experts and journalists are bypassed by amateur coverage and footage?
How have discourses and representations of gender, race, class, sexuality, and ethnicity progressed (or not) over the decades?
How do advertisers, journalists, and leagues reinforce rigid constructs and representations of "the athlete" and "the fan"?

We encourage submissions that highlight and critically analyze contemporary or historical tensions between sports leagues, media industries, technological developments, fans, athletes, representations, and/or significant case studies. We welcome submissions which address any sport, American or International, professional and amateur from tennis and golf, to rugby and hockey, to college football and professional basketball. Flow has a longstanding policy of encouraging non-jargony, highly readable pieces and ample incorporation of images and video. Please send submissions (attached as a Word doc) of between 1000-1500 words to Co-Coordinating Editors Alex Cho and Jacqueline Vickery no later than Monday, October 5, 2009.

Image Credits: Collage by Jacqueline Vickery

It's health care, it's a good thing: Thoughts on health care, religion, and politics

2009-08-19T13:16:00.007-05:00

Despite my best attempts, I still feel rather ignorant about the health care debate, although I have found the White House's site helpful for information. The issue is just so huge and complicated that it's hard to have a strong opinion one way or the other for me in terms of reform. What I do know is that the system is broken, that 40 million Americans are uninsured, that private health insurance is expensive for individuals and businesses, and that we need some sort of reform to make health care accessible and affordable to Americans. How do we go about doing that? Well, that's what I do not feel informed nor educated enough to have a strong opinion about. While I knew this was a tricky issue, I have been surprised by people's reactions, not necessarily at how divisive of an issue it has become, but rather at how much anger it has provoked from some people. I agree with NPR's Brian Unger that the Health Care Debate Is Making Me Sick. It's HEALTH CARE people, we are talking about a social issue that is intended to HELP people. How evil can it really be?

While we might disagree about the details of reform, I am stunned some people seem to think we don't need reform. And I'm stunned so many people are getting angry at Obama - disapproval and disagreement are one thing, but anger! It's hard to argue against the need for reform - and if you are arguing against the need for reform then you need to take a moment to realize what a privileged position from which you are speaking. If you have a good and affordable health insurance plan great, but please recognize that you are in a position of privilege and that 40 million Americans are denied this same coverage. It is our responsibility to do something about that. Obama is putting his reputation on the line by trying to fix the system; the easy way out would be to sit around and do nothing, just let it stay broken. He's taking a risk not to win popularity or favor but because he feels it's the right thing to do.

I grew up in a part of the country where I thought the words Christian and Republican were synonymous. When I went to college I suddenly had this realization that I was not a Republican at all. While I tend to be a bit more fiscally conservative than some Democrats, from a social perspective I am on the left. And as a Christian I am often perplexed by the conservatives' response to government socialized issues. It is a Christian attitude to take care of the poor, to give, to be generous, etc. etc. etc. Thus it is my belief that as citizens it is our responsibility to ensure that the government creates standards which allow for underprivileged citizens to take care of themselves. Our current system is screwed up and inhibits access to health care for those who do not fit within the middle class, and increasingly so even middle class families are struggling to afford health care. While I'm not necessarily in favor of socialized health care all together, I do think it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that all tax-paying, working citizens have access to affordable health care. If that means public options, taxes, tort reform, subsidies, etc. then so be it. And it is refreshing to see that some Progressive Religious Groups Are Lining Up Behind Obama on Heath Care.

Woman yells Heil Hitler to a Jewish man at LA Town Hall meeting (more info here)This video literally made me feel sick to my stomach - I do not understand such anti-Semitic views and I hope this woman feels remorse for her comments (although I doubt it)

Woman compares Obama to Hitler at Town Hall meeting with Barney Frank (more info here). This video will make you smile, Barney Frank is amusing.

For conservatives (and Christians) to refer to Obama's plan as a Nazi plan, spread rumors about death panels, etc. serves no other purpose than to ignite fear and misunderstanding among citizens. Such accusations are anything but Christ-like and completely distract people from the root of the issue: Americans can't afford health care! The current rhetoric has been so twisted around one would think health care were an evil thing Obama is attempting to force upon citizens against their will rather than a policy intended to HELP PEOPLE! Yes, health care is a GOOD THING, it is not evil nor are Obama's proposals. It is tricky, complicated, complex, and will require much negotiation and compromise of course, but the goal for both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals ought to be the same: find a way to make health care affordable and accessible for all citizens. I particularly loved this piece - The GOP's Misplaced Rage - from conservative economist Bruce Bartlett reminding Republicans that their rage is misplaced - Obama isn't the one they should be so angry with, it's Bush. The article offers a lot of historical contextualization about the economy, taxes, recession, and health care.

" Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting." - Bruce Bartlett

Andrew Sullivan also offers some interesting thoughts and perspectives from conservatives on the health care debate in his article Conservativism and Health Care. In particular, he explains why it was different to oppose stronger government involvement in health care in 1993 than it is to do so now. Quoting David Frum, he writes that the status quo means:

"(1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments. We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion."

By no means are Republicans and conservatives the only ones opposing health care reform (I'm sure we're all aware of the Blue Dogs), but recently liberal CEO and founder of Whole Foods has stirred up a lot of controversy (and even calls to boycott Whole Foods) with his recent Wall Street Journal article The Whole Foods Alternative to Obama Care. While it is an interesting perspective and offers some good suggestions I don't think it is enough. I feel it is still more beneficial to those already insured and doesn't do much for those who can't afford insurance. Overall it's an oversimplification to a very complex problem. He's also too optimistic about "we should all be able to live healthy 'til our 90s". While many diseases are (to a degree) preventable with proper diet and lifestyle, many healthy, active people still get cancer (my mother), have strokes, give birth to unhealthy babies (I was born with heart complications). It's an oversimplication and overly idealistic perspective to say cancer can be prevented by healthy lifestyles. While a healthier population would reduce the cost of healthcare, this view is dismissive of the absolute need for more cancer, heart, diabetes, etc research. It's more complicated than lifestyle and we have not found cures!

I'll end on a lighter note by sharing this article from The Onion, which would be so funny if it weren't so true: Congress Deadlocked Over How Not to Provide Healthcare.

Image Credits: Reality Check

More on sports, power, and control

2009-08-19T11:03:00.007-05:00

I've been using my Facebook as a blog more than I should so I thought I would try to update today.

In an earlier post I discussed some of the tensions between the NCAA, Social Media, and Fandom. There has been a lot happening recently in the world of sports with regards to social media so I thought I'd give some updates and pose some new questions. What strikes me as significant are the changing relationships between athletes/coaches and fans, but also how these relationships are being policed and are subject to surveillance and restrictions from both leagues (NFL, NCAA, SEC, etc.) as well as traditional media (ESPN, FSN, etc). I'm curious what exactly is at stake for traditional media/leagues if they resist fans' use of social media (by regulating it, banning it, etc.) versus embracing fans' use (encouraging it, creating spaces for it, etc).

For example, the SEC was initially making attempts at regulating fans' use of media during games.

"...the policy also includes rules for fans in the stands. No updating Twitter feeds. No taking photos with phones and posting them on Facebook or Flickr. No taking videos and putting them on YouTube."

As you can imagine there was a lot of backlash to such a policy. Not only is it an extreme policy, it is also an incredibly unenforceable one. Can you imagine not being allowed to text during a football game? As much fun as it is to attend a live game, one of the ultimate frustrations is the lack of updates from other games going on simultaneously across the country. I know that I text more on Saturdays than every other day of the week combined. Part of the fun and camaraderie of being a sports fan is sharing enthusiasm about a game, anxiety about the score, anger at a call, with your fellow sports fans who are not physically present with you during the game. After revision the SEC loosened the restrictions placed on fans and the ways they could distribute their own media.

"No Bearer may produce or disseminate in any form a “real-time” description or transmission of the Event (i) for commercial or business use, or (ii) in any manner that constitutes, or is intended to provide or is promoted or marketed as, a substitute for radio, television or video coverage of such Event. Personal messages and updates of scores or other brief descriptions of the competition throughout the Event are acceptable. If the SEC deems that a Bearer is producing a commercial or real-time description of the Event, the SEC reserves the right to pursue all available remedies against the Bearer."

Interestingly such a statement is strikingly similar to Creative Commons licenses which allow the creator/author/copyright holder to share content for personal use but can choose to prohibit others from commercial/business use. This policy is much more reasonable and protects the commercial aspects of the SEC and CBS without threatening fans' rights to communicate during a game and document their experiences via cameras, videos, etc.

The initial knee-jerk reaction by the SEC though is indicative of the leagues' and networks' realization that traditional gate-keeping mechanisms are being challenged, threatened, and to a certain degree deemed unnecessary. As fans gain a louder voice with the means to distribute information they become in a sense journalists themselves. However, there still exists a need for press conferences, injury reports, highlights, talking heads etc. within the sports world. Rather than resisting fans' particiatpion in this, the leagues and networks ought to embrace fans' contributiions and create spaces for fan media.

In this evolving media environment fans are not the only entity gaining a louder voice independent of media, but rather athletes themselves have greater power to manufacture their own image while bypassing traditional journalists. Unfortunately this is landing many of them in a heap of trouble. There are obvious reasons why policies are needed which restrict athletes' communication. For example, tweeting from the locker room at halftime is just downright dumb and gives your opponent an obvious advantage while creating the impression that players aren't taking the game seriously.

However, what about athletes who want to tweet and communicate with fans on their own free time? Should there be restrictions placed on what they can say? A Chargers player was fined for complaining (half-jokingly) about camp food via a Tweet. Should the freedom to criticize your team or league be prohibited? To what extent should players be granted a voice and freedom to speak and at what point does it become a liability to the league, team, image, etc.? A recent NYT article discussed the various ways Twitter has become a threat to the NFL and the ways in which the league is attempting to regulate it.

There are also countless examples of ways athletes are using social media to construct their own image, self-promote, tell another side of a story, etc. Some of have speculated that NFL players' use of social media could save Michael Vick's image. And then there's Barry Bonds who used his blog to bypass the press to tell his own story of the steroids scandal. And Shaq who regularly updates his Twitter with quirky observations as a way to connect with fans.

The list goes on and on and the more I think about it the more questions I have. I'm still in the beginning stages of parsing this all out (with the help of Craig Watkins). I'm curious what is at stake for a) fans, b) coaches, c) players, d) traditional media, and e) sports leagues in the changing media landscape and evolving fan-coach-player dynamics? Obviously all of the aforementinoed entities exist within a symbiotic relationship, and there seems to be an issue of power and control as fans/athletes gain a louder voice. Who will benefit, who will suffer, what are short/long term consequences of giving players/fans a voice and what are the consequences of embracing/resisting the use of social media?

At this point it seems as though only time will tell...

Image Credits: 1) Comic 2) Chargers/Twitter

Nope not abandoned, just busy

2009-07-30T00:09:00.013-05:00

So true, so true (click to enlarge)

I truly haven't abandoned the blog but I feared summer updates would be few and far between and as it turns out they have been. I've been staying quite busy this summer but not having a regular routine actually leads to fewer updates than during the semesters.

I was teaching kindergarten through college level reading classes for the first half of the summer. This had me traveling to Killeen three days a week and kept me quite busy with little time to do much else.

The second half of the summer has been devoted to research. I'm currently conducting interviews with people about their use of Facebook as it intersects with news and politics. I don't want to say too much about it right now because I'm still conducting interviews and wouldn't want to bias anyone's interview in the off-chance that an interviewee reads this, but I'll post more when they are done. I've come to realize I really love conducting interviews; I always learn so much about people's perspectives and various uses of the internet. And I've reluctantly been transcribing them as well. I took an ethnography course last semester where I was required to transcribe interviews and I have to admit I'm hooked. As tedious and time consuming as they are, I am now a converted believer in the value of transcriptions. If you are needing to do any transcribing I highly recommend you download Express Scribe; it's a free software that allows you to slow down the recording and makes it much easier to transcribe. I'm hoping to have all the interviews completed in another two weeks and then just focus on writing up the analysis. I'm presenting the paper at the Internet Researchers conference in Milwaukee this fall.

Read Latinitas online edition

I've also been working with Latinitas all summer. I'm loving working with the high school girls; it's quite inspiring. They've been working on a "Love Your Teacher, Love Yourself" body image campaign they've put together for a girls' middle school here in Austin. This summer they've been writing a script and shooting an intro video for the campaign. Very fun!

And of course I'm still publishing FlowTV every other week. It keeps me busier than one might think, especially right now as our editorial board is contemplating some upcoming Flow sponsored events (should be very exciting!).

Intro video for S. Craig Watkins' new book coming this fall

And finally, one of my professors, Craig Watkins, (who was also my thesis advisor) has asked me to build a website for his upcoming book The Young and the Digital. I'm really anxious for the book to come out so I can read it. I really respect his research and feel he's doing some really cutting edge research. He's going to be continuing the research even after the book is published and has invited me to be on his research team; I'm thrilled to say the least! The website is still a work-in-progress but you can check it out: theyoungandthedigital.com and view the short intro video above.

Happy 4th - Muppets Style

2009-07-04T11:25:00.005-05:00

Happy Independence Day - have a fun and safe weekend.

NCAA, citizenship, and new media

2009-07-04T11:03:00.004-05:00

Apologies for the lack of updates, life has been unbelievably busy and I just haven't found the time to post. I'll write soon but in the meantime, here are a couple of interesting links.

College Stars Sue over Likeness in Video Games

And an NPR interview with Andrew Rasiej: Redefining Citizenship in the Digital Age.

Image Credit: NCAA 08

Thoughts on female friendships (sorta)

2009-06-19T14:15:00.019-05:00

Hey Ladies, accessorize with an Ugly Girlfriend!

There's been a lot of talk recently within psychology, education, parenting, sociology, health, pop culture, and academia about the "Mean Girl" syndrome. If you don't know what I'm referring to, it's the recent hype surrounding girls' aggressive relational behaviors and strategies. While there's a lot I could say on it I actually want to consider the adult version and ask, "Is it really that different?" If girls are somehow socialized to be "mean", should we expect such behaviors to disappear into adulthood? Of course not, we just replace the label "mean girl" with "bitch." Certainly a lot has been written about the "bitch" and the sexism attached to the label as well as Mean Girls, and I'm feeling inclined to add to the conversation today.

Bacardi Breezer's new ad campaign not only perpetuates such behavior, but does so in such an overt and explicit way that we are somehow supposed to find it humorous. I don't understand what is humorous about women viewing other women as "accessories" that will help them feel better about themselves. And by "feel better" I mean attract more men so as to validate their own femininity. From a very young age girls are socialized to look at other girls and women. In fact, I think a lot of girls and women will say they look at the female body more often than they ever look at the male body. This is not at all surprising - take a typical teen magazine or Cosmo and count how many females are in it versus males; the females largely outnumber the males.

Moving beyond media, I think many females also say they are more likely to check out other females at a bar, party, in class, at the grocery store, etc. than they are likely to check out males. While a potential queer reading certainly exists and is at times present, it is also more complicated than that. I think in large part it is because from a very young age females are told to "size up other women", we come to view other women as "threats" and thus we are supposed to check out our "competition". The competition of course just further inscribes females within male patriarchal discourses in which women are to compete with other women in order to "win" the best male. It is all together a perverse and dangerous perspective which pits women against one another.

"Sally" from Bacardi Breezer's new ad campaign

Now of course plenty of girls and women develop loving, supportive, and healthy relationships with other females. I do not mean to imply that all (or even most) female-female friendships exist within a dynamic of threats and competition. But I do think most females know this feeling all too well, either the feeling of being judged by other females who somehow perceive them as a threat or vice versa. And the stereotype is played out all too often within television and movies. Assuming the female protagonist is even given a female companion (something which in itself can be quite rare - think Disney films and most romantic comedies), the "friend" is never perceived to be as pretty, independent, popular, etc. as the protagonist. Regardless if the "friend" might actually be "the pretty one" or the "strong one" etc., she is still only viewed as a sidekick to the protagonist. Her identity and femininity are intended to be a reflection of the protagonist and her role is to help the protagonist achieve her goals (which usually involve a heterosexual love interest). The implications suggest that the protagonist is to be perceived as the powerful one within the relationship and the friend is usually her sidekick or minion, someone who looks up to the protagonist, wants to learn from her, or take advantage of social gains earned by association with the protagonist.

a) Alex and Harper from Wizards of Waverly Place b) Miley and Lilly from Hannah Montana c) Carly and Sam from iCarly

I admit to watching a lot of Disney and Nickelodeon shows, and the recent trend I've noted is the female friend seems to be rather sporty and therefore more masculine, or rather "less feminine", particularly in shows such as Wizards of Waverly Place, iCarly, and Hannah Montana. While the more masculine friend might offer a positive alternative form of identification for some girls (as opposed to the overtly feminine protagonist), the friend often serves as comedic relief and the butt of many jokes (and even her tomboyish masculinity is still quite feminine).

For example, in one episode of Nickelodeon's iCarly, the age-old narrative of "tough girl needs to be tamed" rears its head as Carly attempts to feminize her otherwise too aggressive and tomboyish friend Sam by giving her a makeover (episode "iMake Sam Girlier"). In these examples it is unusual for the friend to be the one to progress the narrative in any manner other than in relation to the protagonist. While I do appreciate the shows for providing the female protagonist with a female friend (and for casting Latina girls), I have to question why she cannot occupy the same space as the protagonist? That is, why must she be masculinzed (such as Sam in iCarly), or completely goofy (such as Harper in Wizards of Waverly Place) or stupid (such as Tawni in Sonny with a Chance) and therefore not intended to be taken seriously ? The two friends are not really presented as equals but rather a complicated power dynamic is at play in which one girl is much more adjusted, smart, popular, feminine, and confident while the other girl can only hope to achieve such a position. But I digress...

What I really wanted to talk about today was the ways in which adult females are still told to view other females as threats or competition and the ways in which such socialization creates negative power dynamics within female friendships. My friend Amanda and I were recently discussing how sad it is when you meet a new group of women for the first time and it becomes immediately apparent that even as adults there is still a "Queen Bee" within the group who derives her power from surrounding herself with other females whom she views as non-threatening. And likewise, when it is so easy to identify females who view themselves in a subordinate position within the group simply because they do not think they are as attractive, powerful, etc. as the "Queen Bee" (think being the operative word, because often such behaviors and positions are self-inflicted; in other words, the "sidekick" might actually be more attractive or smarter etc, but she does not view herself as such).

"Lucy" from the Bacardi Breezer campaign

You would think such behaviors would have been outgrown, but this is not always the case. I hear so many women say they have a hard time trusting other women, or they don't get along as well with women, or are not as comfortable with women as they are with men. And I just think, yea that's because we are having to undo decades of socialization which has taught us not to trust each other, but rather to view each other as threats. It's yet another example of the ways in which patriarchy hurts women, that is, when women view and judge each other through the same lens through which men are "supposed" to view us. (Paging Laura Mulvey)

And that is why I find the Bacardi Breezer ads to be so incredibly offensive. Yes, I recognize that the ad is intended to be funny, but it's not. It's not funny when women are told to view other women as "accessories" and to use other women in order to make themselves feel better, or to use other women so they can appear more feminine and attractive to men. In a world in which women are still fighting an uphill battle for equality and respect apart from our bodies, we cannot stand to pit ourselves against one another nor can we afford to size up other women based on their bodies (or anything else). When women judge other women on the basis of male masculinity we have already lost the battle. If we judge and use each other based on our bodies and sexuality, how in the world can we ever tell men that's not ok? So yea, shame on you Bacardi for your misogynistic, childish, and offensive ad.

And finally, because I'm discussing female friendships and because I love Sarah Haskins so much, I leave you with her recent video about female friendship and shopping!

Image Credits: 1) Sally 2) Bacardi Ad 3) Wizards, Hannah Montana, iCarly, 4) Lucy

Tweeting from Tehran

2009-06-15T20:30:00.008-05:00

Iranian Protests - wow!

I'm literally about to walk out the door so I can't say much, but I wanted to share some really fascinating and important links concerning the situation in Iran right now. I can't help but wonder how ill-informed the world would be right now were not for social media and Twitter in particular. For a brief summary of the ways in which Twitter is contributing to the protests in Iran check out this article - The Revolution will be Twittered from The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan (and check back frequently because he is continually covering the situation and updating often).

Here is a video from what was happening in the streets of Iran last night (June 14). They are chanting, "Death to the dictator" and "I will fight, I will fight, I will take back my vote".

Twitter has played such an important role, but even if you're not on Twitter you can still follow Tweets from Tehran (within 15 miles). Many of the Tweets are from protesters and people in Iran, but many are calls to action and for solidarity. For example,

Floodsourcing = change Twitter Timezone to +3 GMT/location to Iran. We are all Iranians, i.e. Iranian govt, find us all.

don't know if this really helps but: Change ur Twitter Profile Timezone to GMT+03:30 & your location to Tehran to confuse govt #iranelection

Video of shooting on the streets (warning: graphic)

The Twittersphere has called for everyone to change their location and time zone to Tehran to confuse the government. I do not know the effectiveness of this action, but is at least an act of solidarity. So many of the Tweets you will see in the search are actually Americans and Europeans (and more) who have changed their location to Tehran. It is almost overwhelming how many Tweets are coming in - hundreds a minute - with important information about what is happening on the streets of Iran right now (sad and scary!). Some other examples of calls for solidarity and social action as well as news include:

Please retweet: just signed petition 'Google Earth to update satellite images of Tehran ' - http://301.to/23o

RT URGENT to any following #iranelection remove usernames when RT, gov tracking dissenters in iran. don't risk their safety/lose their voice

When RT use "RT from Iran" to protect safety of Iranians who are Twittering

RT Iranian government propaganda news site ISNA.IR is back up. Let's bring it down http://is.gd/12Y5F (expand) #IranElection #cnnfail

Please sign petition: http://bit.ly/Z3Yzq (expand) to get United Nations to investigate #IranElection.

RT from Iran: Gov hackers are on twitter now - we are getting threats - #iranelection

RT from Iran Functioning proxies 218.128.112.18:8080 218.206.94.132:808 218.253.65.99:808 219.50.16.70:8080

RT from Iran: The Guardian: 12 students killed in protest http://bit.ly/A5zi #iranelection

RT @IranRiggedElect) Uloaded YouTube video -- Shooting people in Iran Election Protest http://bit.ly/OGes0 <-- graphic

It goes on and on. And for those of you not familiar with Twitter, the http://bit.ly or http://tinyurl etc. are shortened URLs that fit into Twitter's 140 character limit. If you copy and paste them into your browser it will take you to the link. And the proxies suggested above are people alerting Iranians of ways to bypass the government surviellence and/or get around blocks that have been put on internet access. There is also a flood of images coming in, images that mainstream media certainly aren't showing. So disturbing and violent. In recognition of the importance of the tool, Twitter has rescheduled downtime maintenance so as not to interfere with service during this critical time.

And Obama finally spoke about the situation today as well, you can watch his report here:

The entire situation is quite unsettling but it is amazing to think about the role new technologies play in facilitating citizens to communicate with one another, even against a government that is trying so hard to shut down communication and information.

Image Credit: Protest

Life is good!

2009-05-29T19:44:00.013-05:00

Today has been one of those days in which I realize how good life is and how well things are going for me. I had a meeting with one of my professors today to talk about his upcoming book (I'm doing the website for him) and we started talking about all sorts of digital media/youth issues. It was a very good conversation that left me feeling quite inspired. It's nice to know that other people (scholars) take interest in your research. There are some more details/good news from that conversation that I don't want to publicly announce until things become official, but yea, it was a very good conversation with lots of potential research opportunities.

Also, as of yesterday I am now part of the Latinitas Teen Reporter Intern Program. I've done a little bit of academic research about the organization, primarily their social networking site, and I've done a little bit of volunteering, but haven't been as involved as I wanted. An opportunity presented itself for me to be one of the TRIP facilitators and as busy as I am, I'm really excited to do it. I love academia (obviously) but I definitely feel the need to also be in the "real world", working with "real people" outside of academia. A lot of my research addresses issues of youth cultures and in particular girls, so it's a perfect way for me to bridge my academic interests with "real world" issues. I like to think my research is important and makes a difference, but it's also really nice to do something hands on outside of academia. Working with girls gives you a whole different perspective on their world that is hard to really grasp from a research perspective. I'm also hoping to possibly incorporate some of the girls into a couple research projects, as I'm all about giving youth a voice in research so that it's not just research "about' youth but rather research by youth.

In addition to publishing FlowTV and working with Latinitas, I also have a summer teaching job that I've done the past few years. I get to teach reading to all levels - kindergarten through college - it's a lot of work but very rewarding. I enjoy working with kids and helping them (hopefully) fall in love with reading. I just got my schedule yesterday and I'm quite pleased with it.

And finally, I'm about to tackle some of my summer research projects. I've got a chapter coming out in Sharon Mazzarella's edited book Girl Wide Web 2.0 (the follow-up to Girl Wide Web) which I really need to get ready. It's a chapter from my Master's thesis which addresses girls' blogs as spaces of community-building, but right now it's way too long and I'm not quite sure how to cut it down yet. I'm also planning on doing some interviews this summer to talk to people about their use of Facebook. I'm particularly interested in the ways Facebook fosters weak ties and how this creates opportunities for exposure to political and ideological difference. I've worked up the proposal, just waiting on IRB approval before I start conducting the interviews. Hopefully that goes well since I'm presenting at the Internet Research 10.0 conference in Milwaukee this fall. And finally, about a year and a half ago I wrote a paper about the Megan Meier MySpace Suicide Case and presented it at the 2008 International Symposium on Online Journalism. A lot has happened with the case since that paper was written so I'm hoping to update and expand it over the summer and get it ready for publication. I didn't really address the legal aspects of the case at the time I wrote the paper, but I'm wanting to address some of the strange ideological gender biases associated with the legality of the case (as well as just bring the paper up-to-date).

Today was also really good because I got to talk to my Dad on the phone for awhile. He and I have a really great relationship, but for whatever reason we usually communicate via text and email rather than the actual phone. But today we have a nice long conversation and it was really nice. I love my Dad :)

So that is my summer in a nutshell and really I couldn't be happier. It has been pretty hot lately, but when I'm not working I've been spending a lot of time outdoors with friends - floating the river, going to the beach, hanging out at Barton Springs, Bar-B-Qs. Heat is much more bearable with water and friends. So yea, things are going really well in my academic life and my personal life - what more could I ask for?

Image Credits: 1. Life is Good 2. Latinitas 3. Facebook Politicians

Special Issue Social Media

2009-05-29T09:49:00.005-05:00

FlowTV recently sent out a call for submissions addressing various issues of social media. We received a record high number of submissions which was very exciting to read. Apparently Twitter is the new hot topic - both in academia and mainstream - as there were a lot of articles talking about the various aspects of Twitter. The Special Issue includes several perspectives on Twitter but also includes columns addressing blogs, gender, Digg, race, YouTube, cell phones, academia, citizen journalism, celebrity culture, privacy, and much more.

Please check out the Social Media Special Issue and I strongly encourage you to leave comments.

Happy Weekend.

Twittering the academic community

2009-05-22T15:17:00.004-05:00

danah boyd

Although I've never met her, I follow danah boyd's Twitter feed. Recently she asked her followers to send her questions we might have for the teens she was about to go interview. I sent her a question and was pleasantly surprised to see she answered it on her blog. Check it out here! (I'm @texas_sooner).

People continually ask me why I like Twitter, and this is a perfect example of why I think it's a valuable tool. I use it to gather news and follow headlines from various news sources, journalists, and politicians, but it also allows me to social network with a lot of media scholars. I come across a lot of great research and interesting tidbits of information from the scholars whom I follow. And it's even cooler when they respond.

Image Credit: danah boyd

Interesting news of the week

2009-05-22T12:56:00.012-05:00

Weisure...seriously?

2009-05-14T10:50:00.010-05:00

Weisure? Or ruined vacation?

Welcome to the "weisure" lifestyle by: Thom Patterson, CNN

What better way to draw attention to blurring boundaries than by blurring words? Sociologist Dalton Conley has coined the term "weisure" to describe the mingling of work and leisure time. Yea that's right, I said weisure. I think I find this term even goofier than glocal, which still makes me giggle a little.

Having skimmed over Conley's CV I think issues of race, class, and gender are on his academic radar, thus the critique I'm about to offer is more directed towards the CNN article than perhaps it is towards Dr. Conley. That said I find the overly optimistic and glossy description of the "weisure lifestyle" to be rather problematic. A much more appropriate term would be the "weirsure class" (but of course we don't like to acknowledge class in America...). The idea of weisure most prominently ignores issues of class and equally as much gender.

To start with, let's talk about class. A large percentage of America's workforce still occupy service industry and manual labor jobs and so it is important to understand exactly who gets to participate in weirsure time. Somehow I don't think Walmart employees, or construction workers, or Starbucks baristas are permitted access to their smart phones during shifts.

Additionally, the article did not really account for the growing demands in which business professionals are expected to be available anywhere anytime. Bringing your work home, even "fun" work, is still work and can be disruptive. Even outside of the professional sphere, danah boyd (2008) discusses the ways in which social networking sites foster feelings of "I must keep up with everyone", which certainly aren't healthy. Social convergence leads to a loss of control and privacy.

weisure?

Next, the presentation of weisure problematically overlooked the role of gender. Within modern times one only has to look to the stay-at-home parent (most often the mother) for evidence of weisure. Taking care of children and a home is unarguably a lot of work, but for many parents there is also pleasure to be found in that work. Reading a book at the park while your kids are on the swing set should constitute weisure time - it is neither all work nor all leisure nor does it occupy separate public/private spheres. Issues of gender were not addressed within the article at all, which is of course indicative of America's continued dismissal of child rearing as valuable work.

Finally, weisure was presented as rather ahistorical; work and leisure have certainly blurred prior to the advent of the information society, or the PC, or the smart phone. Within the article, nostalgic longing for the 1950s surfaces as some idyllic period in which boundaries between public and private were nice and neat. I don't understand why the 1950s are continually the starting point for all historical perspectives. Looking back to the preindustrial age, public and private were much more permeable. As Bimber, Flanagin, and Stohl (2005) write:

...preindustrial societies, especially small-scale agricultural and rural communities, exhibited comparatively porous public-private boundaries. Heavy reliance on interpersonal communication for exchange of information and for coordination, high levels of familiarity among members of communities, and high social interdependence meant that the public sphere intermingled closely with what would be more private domains in the later age" (383).

In fact, it wasn't until the industrial era that public and private boundaries were more definitively erected. And even in the 1950s there were panics about public/private disruptions. The television brought "the outside world into the home" as never before. Coupled with the rise of suburbia (obviously classed), leisure time became more privatized as individuals chose to relax within their own homes (or backyards) rather than in public.

I don't want to be dismissive of weisure lifestyles, certainly new technologies are eroding boundaries and challenging conceptualizations of work, leisure, public, and private. However, any time we talk about revolutionary changes as a result of technologies, we must always be mindful to ask who has access to these changes and who is denied access. Furthermore, we should also contextualize our arguments within a historical framework of social change rather than risk falling into a technologically deterministic trap. Technology is not causing these changes, but rather facilitating them. Boundaries have never been as distinct as we might like to think, they have been challenged before and it is important to consider the ways in which history has dealt with these changes lest we get too caught up in nostalgia and technological revolutions.

Source:

Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory 15, 365-388.

Image Credit:

1. Laptop on beach

2. Walk in park

As if I needed another reason...

2009-05-11T12:20:00.006-05:00

...to be in favor of Obama: White House Plans to Reverse Bush Antitrust Rules.

The Obama administration today said it would reverse rules made during the Bush administration that made it difficult to stop anticompetitive business behavior.

Excellent news indeed.

Image Credit:

Obama

Net Neutrality Under Attack...again

2009-05-07T14:04:00.006-05:00

Rupert Murdoch, what a fine American...err, Australian

Murdoch: Websites to charge for content

I don't have time to write my thoughts about this right now, but I at least wanted to get the link up here. Net neutrality is under attack yet again, this time from Rupert Murdoch who is quoted,

"We have been at the forefront of that debate and you can confidently presume that we are leading the way in finding a model that maximizes revenues in return for our shareholders... The current days of the Internet will soon be over."

This is really disappointing and scary, I feel as though the internet just keeps moving even closer to becoming just another cable/broadcast model wherein the participatory elements of the medium will be severely restricted. While scholars have been discussing this for some time, it has not surprisingly been silenced within popular internet discourse. More thoughts later though, gotta get back to campus.

Image credit: Murdoch

Dogs' time

2009-05-07T13:22:00.008-05:00

Scout, the laundry basket, and my clean sheets

I've heard it said that dogs don't really have a sense of time, but I gotta say, I think my dog definitely has a sense of time. He knows when I'm not "not supposed to be home" and he's so excited when I come home unexpectedly. Usually I'm gone all day on Thursdays, but I'm wanting to go out this evening, so I decided to come home and eat lunch and let Scout out then go back to campus for office hours and class. As soon as I walked in he came out of my bedroom, where he'd clearly been sleeping, and he came into the living room with a very quizzical look of, "Who is coming into my home?" Once he realized it was me he came running up to me and started running figure 8's around the house like he does only when he gets really excited. He's still sitting on the couch next to me "smiling". He never gets this excited when I come home unless I bring someone with me. So my only conclusion is that dog's do have a sense of time, and he's excited that I came home early today.

Of course, this will probably only increase his disappointment when I leave again in an hour or so, but still, it was a nice way to come home. I got very little sleep last night and as a result I've been in a rather irritable mood all day. Stress does that to me (and I've been stressed all week), and I'm aware of it, but I have a hard time fixing it. And it's just been little things bugging me today, like the fact that Einstein's was out of the only two coffees there that I like, and out of milk, and for some inexplicable reason they added butter to my bagel, I have no idea why. Then my bus was late and I was losing patience wasting time at the bus stop, ugh. Point being, I came home quite irritated over really minor incidences and when I get like that I get even more irritated with myself for being irritated in the first place, vicious cycle! But Scout put me in a much better mood; it's hard not to smile when you are with such a cute and happy dog. I'm so thankful for pets, they bring so much pleasure to our lives and can so quickly change my mood for the better.

FlowTV CFP: Social Media

2009-04-30T23:42:00.006-05:00

FlowTV CFP: Social Media

Due May 18

Please feel free to redistribute.

Social media have created new ways for individuals to communicate and share information. Technologies such as blogs, Twitter, social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, Orkut, etc.), wikis, Second Life, digg, Last.fm, FlickR, etc. have become increasingly pervasive. Social media are being used by celebrities, athletes, journalists, politicians, TV personalities, musicians, scholars, news organizations, businesses, marketers, and more. How does the use of social media change the ways we think about identity, community, and interpersonal communication? In what ways are social media being used for political purposes, for collective action, and news aggregates? How does receiving a Twitter message on your cell phone from Shaquille O'Neal or NPR's Scott Simon erode boundaries between public and private or change conceptualizations of intimacy? Are blogs and other social media challenging journalism's traditional gatekeeping and agenda-setting functions? Should we be concerned about issues of privacy and free speech? How are certain social media technologies being gendered, classed, racialized, and policed? And as is the case with all forms of media, we must be careful to ask who is denied access and to what effect?

We are interested to hear what the Flow community thinks about social media technologies: uses and users, popular discourses and rhetoric, and the ways in which social media challenge concepts of identity, community, friendship, public/private, creativity, surveillance, and more.

Please send submissions of between 1000-1500 words to Jacqueline Vickery (jvickery183@gmail.com) and Anne Petersen (annehelenpetersen@gmail.com) no later than May 18th, 2009. Flow has a longstanding policy of encouraging non-jargony, highly readable pieces and ample incorporation of images and video. For examples, please visit FlowTV.org.

NCAA football, social media, and fandom

2009-04-28T10:58:00.019-05:00

The OU/Texas Tech Game Ball was dedicated to the fans after the 65-21 win

The NCAA bylaws have been updated to restrict the ways in which universities (and by extension boosters, fans, and alumni) are allowed to interact with potential recruits via social networking sites such as Facebook.

According to rules created in 2006 and updated each of the past two years, "any communication via message boards, chat rooms, walls, comments, blogs, IM, etc. is not permissible.

Phone, e-mail and faxing are the only acceptable forms of direct communication with recruits, with restrictions placed on how many times a school representative can initiate the contact.

And the NCAA uses a broad definition of "representatives of a university" - in addition to coaches and athletics staff, it also includes boosters, season-ticket holders, alumni, donors and even current students, according to Stacey Osburn, the NCAA's director for media relations.

Interestingly this means seemingly innocent Facebook groups about a particular player are not allowed, especially if the recruit is currently uncommitted. I think it is interesting to consider the ways in which the NCAA is responding to social networking sites, but equally as interesting to consider the expanding definition of "booster" which basically just means "fan". In a preemptive move to protect themselves and their fans, the University of Oklahoma has published guidelines of appropriate and inappropriate fan behavior on social networking sites. I'm sure other schools are doing this as well. Certainly it is becoming increasingly difficult to regulate and enforce such policies, especially when the guidelines not only apply to coaches but to individual fans.

Texas fans lobbying for right to play in Big XII Championship

Fans have always had an emotional and personal investment with their teams and to a certain degree have always felt a sense of "ownership" of the team. Recent controversies with the BCS have provided fodder for fans to exercise their "rights" to influence and govern their teams. When the Texas Longhorns failed to secure the Big XII South title (and therefore a chance to play in the Conference and National Championships), fans did not just feel as though their team had been cheated, but rather felt that they personally had been cheated. This led to a lot of politicking and lobbying from fans on behalf of the team, both online (such as the 45-35 Facebook group which still boasts over 60,000 members) and offline (such as the 45-35 plane planner). Coaches and players also acknowledge their commitment to the fans, for example when they dedicate a game ball to the fans as was the case in the OU/Texas Tech game in 2008. Or when they acknowledge a sense of obligation they have to the fans, for example by apologizing not only to the team, but also to fans after a disappointing loss (think Tim Tebow's overplayed apology after the Ole Miss loss).

Fans identification with their teams is nothing new, in fact it is an inherent part of fandom, but what is changing are the ways in which fans can interact with their teams, the players, the coaches, and each other. New media technologies such as blogs, Twitter, chat rooms, and social networking sites serve to diminish the gap between fan and team. I believe with the increasing level of intimacy comes a greater sense of fans "ownership" and investment. As such, it is not surprising that greater investment is likely to lead to greater control and policing of fans' behaviors (inappropriate contact with a recruit could mean a fans' season tickets are revoked), as well as players' behaviors on such sites. One extreme example is the case of the Texas player who was dismissed from the team because of a remark on his Facebook account.

Mike Leach's Twitter page

Placing restrictions on the ways in which coaches can communicate with recruits (as well as the frequency) is a necessary policy, but in our contemporary media environment it is increasingly difficult to actually regulate what constitutes "recruitment" and "communication". A Trojan friend of mine recently alerted me to Pete Carroll's blog, which he described as, "an outright recruiting tool masked as a 'fan' site". Several NCAA coaches also have Twitter accounts (Pete Carroll and Mike Leach update on a frequent basis) where they send updates about practices, pep talks, interviews, games, etc. Seeing how Twitter is not considered "private" communication, I'm guessing it falls outside of NCAA's recruitment regulation.

In a media environment which continues to blur boundaries between public and private, it becomes ever more difficult to actually regulate and enforce policies intended to restrict communication. It will be interesting to see the ways in which fans continue to interact in a more personal manner with coaches, athletes, and other fans. As with all new mediated technologies, new challenges will arise which regulations have yet to address. Policies are always a few steps behind behaviors and in an environment in which fans have an increasing sense of ownership over their teams, I think it will become more difficult to actually regulate interactions between coaches, (future) players, and fans.

Image Credits:

1. Game Ball

2. Texas Fans

3. Author Screenshot

Virtual Memorials

2009-04-27T14:44:00.016-05:00

Screen shot from the Second Life Virginia Tech Memorial

I came across an article (on Fark) today about funeral homes selling virtual memorials to family members of the deceased. They are intended to be spaces where friends and family can virtually remember loved ones, complete with virtual flowers, benches, and other items available for purchase. The company will even send reminder emails about birthdays of the deceased so friends can remember to call the widow etc. Apparently future plans would also allow for people to purchase their own pre-death virtual memorials/profiles. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that funeral homes have found a way to capitalize upon virtual memorials, grief, and people's desire to preserve the memory of their loved ones.

More organic examples of virtual memorials can be found on MySpace, Facebook, and Second Life. While I'm sure earlier examples exist, the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings resulted in a lot of these kinds of memorials. You can view a video of the Second Life Virginia Tech Memorial here:

Linden Labs, creator of Second Life, has recently launched a Memorial Park within Second Life as a virtual park dedicated to victims of Katrina, Virginia Tech, and other tragedies which affect members of the Second Life community. A 9/11 memorial was also set up in Second Life on the seventh anniversary of the tragedy. From what I have read, the event was rather sombre, quiet, and respectful.

I remember after the Virginia Tech shooting many of the victims' names were released via Facebook profiles prior to the mainstream media release of their names. Despite the fact that my Facebook network does not include Virginia Tech, I still came across the victim's names on Facebook, hours before the media released them. Many of their profile pages included public messages from friends offering condolences and sharing memories about the person. The profiles functioned as makeshift memorials honoring the victims. Additionally many Facebook groups were started as a way to share information, grieve, and come together as a community in a virtual space.

September 11 Memorial in Second Life

Since then Facebook and MySpace now have official Memorial pages set up to honor users who have died. After a user dies family members can request that the page become a memorial and they gain access to the person's page. There are many examples of such pages, although I feel a bit exploitative posting them here since I do not personally know the people (just do a Google search for Facebook/MySpace memorials if you really want to see some examples). A site called MyDeathSpace functions as an archival space for obituaries and memorials of deceased MySpace members and also includes a discussion forum for friends and family members to pay their respects.

In an environment in which more and more people express their identities and find communities via mediated communication, it really should come as no surprise that even in death individuals turn to digital media to express grief, condolences, and to find support. Although I do wonder about funeral homes capitalizing upon these virtual spaces. Facebook, MySpace, and Second Life are free to use and have a more organic feel to them. Paying a couple hundred dollars for a funeral home to set up a virtual memorial in honor of a loved one feels a bit too opportunistic to me. Why spend $35 on virtual flowers or a park bench?

Fox's Memorial to Dr. Kutner of House

Last week I wrote an article for FlowTV called House MD: A Consideration of Convergence Marketing in which I analyzed the ways Fox used the death of a fictional character, Dr. Kutner of House, as a creative marketing ploy. A virtual memorial was set up in his honor which then led users to a Facebook page. While my focus within that article was to consider the ways on-air and virtual marketing are converging, I think it is also important to consider the fictional memorial in light of virtual memorials intended to honor real people. Does something such as a memorial dedicated to Dr. Kutner somehow cheapen the memorials of actual individuals whose loved ones have chosen to virtually memorialize them?

While I think it might be easy to dismiss both kinds of virtual memorials -fictional and actual individuals - as merely virtual and therefore somehow trivial, silly, banal, or even cheesy, I think it's important to recognize and appreciate the symbolic relationship individuals have within these spaces. Essentially all memorials are merely symbolic - a way for family members and friends to remember loved ones and honor their memory in death. Memorials also serve as spaces for individuals to gather and grieve together, to leave notes, tributes, and other symbolic items. In this way physical memorials and virtual memorials are really not so different in terms of function and symbolic meaning. Whether you are leaving a note and flower on a physical wall of a Facebook wall, the intent really isn't so different. I think such examples are further evidence of the ways in which boundaries between virtual and offline worlds are continually being eroded. What does concern me though are the ways in which the virtual spaces are becoming increasingly commercialized and profit-driven, which can serve to undermine the intended sacred symbolism of the virtual memorials.

Image Credits:

1. Virginia Tech Memorial

2. 9/11 Memorial

3. Kutner memorial - author's screenshot

In defense of Twitter

2009-04-25T16:34:00.010-05:00

It's hard not to notice the sudden obsession mainstream media have with Twitter lately. Just the other day the New York Times had three, yes three, Twitter stories on the same day. I'm not sure why Twitter is suddenly generating so much attention, some attribute it to Oprah but I noticed it prior to that as well. Like most "new" media, a lot of the articles and stories are merely trying to make sense of why and how people are using the technology/application. And as we have seen, a lot of this attention seems to be a bit negative or dismissive. I came across this article (on Twitter nonetheless) which offers a witty yet poignant discussion of Twitter: How the Other Half Writes: In Defense of Twitter. My two favorite lines are:

"...she [Dowd] describes Twitter as something 'for bored celebrities and high-school girls' – well, first of all, who says high-school girls aren't supposed to write? And why is it anyone else's business if a bored person, who happens also to be famous, decides to share random thoughts with the world?"

Interestingly there exists a long discursive history of girls' relationship to writing, originally because they were confined to the home and thus encouraged to "sit around and scribble in a book" but also because girls' education also took place within the home. Of course men have always written as well, but historically their writings were considered more "important" biographical or historical accounts than were girls' "personal" writings. The article goes on to say,

"Now that suburban housewives in Missouri are letting their thoughts be known via Twitter, it's as if writing itself is thought to be under attack, invaded from all sides by the unwashed masses whose thoughts have not been sanctioned as Literature™."

The sarcastic remarks draw attention to the ways in which "panics" about new media technologies and users are always already embedded within larger anxieties related to class, race, gender, and politics. The author is right, who cares if people want to Tweet inane thoughts to one another, it's not "threatening the way we live" or the "quality of writing" nor do I think it's indicative of increasing narcissism as many would have us believe. And furthermore, by merely focusing on "inane narcissistic thoughts" most critics fail to recognize the larger social, political, and cultural implications of the media technology. For example, consider the innovative ways Twitter was used during the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks; it's hard to deny the significance of the technology.

Personally I use Twitter for so much more than just following my friends (who often post witty comments), but rather I also follow journalists, politicians, athletes, scholars, and bloggers. In this way I tend to use Twitter more like a news aggregator than a social technology. Many of the interesting articles and editorials I read on a daily basis I came across because of my Twitter network. Like all media, there are good uses and bad, but I really struggle with critiques that dismiss the "mundane" uses as somehow insignificant. Our lives are comprised of "mundane" "ordinary" interactions that are chock-full of importance.

Here I go again

2009-04-25T15:22:00.001-05:00

Who knew blogging could get so complicated?

I maintained a personal blog for about five years when I was in college and I loved it and I loved the community I found from blogging; it was definitely my most successful blogging experience. When I started grad school though I began to feel a bit awkward having my name associated with the blog. I certainly censored myself and kept the blog very "public friendly", but at that time in my life I figured the only people who would be Googling me and stumbling upon the blog were either personal friends/acquaintances or strangers - and I was ok with either. Grad school of course changed all that because I realized that going to conferences and getting published etc. meant that my name was going to be a lot more Googleable (yes I like to use Google as a verb). Even though there wasn't anything on the personal blog that I felt I needed to hide, I just wasn't comfortable with fellow scholars (future employers?) reading about my life in such a personal manner. So, I stopped blogging.

The sabbatical only lasted about a year; I just missed blogging too much not to do it. So I decided to solve my problem by maintaining two blogs - one anonymous personal blog and one more "academic" blog. I was a bit naive - this clearly required way too much time. I updated the personal a lot and got plugged in with a community, but this meant the academic one suffered. I was trying to maintain two separate blogging identities and I found it increasingly difficult to separate the "academic" me from the "social" me. But here I go again, with a new blog and a new framework. Rather than attempting to separate my academic research interests and my social/personal life, I'm going to allow the two to converge, obviously policing the personal more than I would were it anonymous, but nonetheless using this space to discuss both. The distinction was a rather arbitrary one to begin with, my personal interests are so deeply embedded within my research and vice versa.

As such the name of the blog has a bit of a double meaning. On the one hand it describes the convergence of my social and academic identities, but on the other it also describes my research. I know I should be narrowing my research interests rather than expanding them, but that just isn't happening. The longer I'm in grad school the more areas I want to study. However, if I must come up with an umbrella term I think it would be "convergence media". The last academic blog I had was called gURLculture because at the time I was working on my Master's thesis about girls' use of anonymous blogs as spaces for identity formation and community building. I still research girls and my research is always framed with a feminist perspective, but by naming the blog something so specific I felt I had unnecessarily limited the use of the blog. Hopefully "Social Convergence" will be broad enough to allow me to blog about all of my research interests, current and future.

Phew! That was a rather lengthy introduction. I'm excited to be blogging again and hope to update one a regular basis.