Not A Stalker

As social media sites gain more and more users they also gain more and more power. They become something “everybody is on”. Putting it like that almost makes it seem like a drug that humans are hooked on. And like a drug many social media users have a hard time not using; some users even have to resort to blocking a site or the Internet as a whole just to get a break from it. This obsession over social media sites fascinates me and makes me question why they are so amazing or addictive.

The answer to the addiction lies in connection with privacy and surveillance. People like attention and many desire to have a high social status. Like celebrities, social media users willingly give up a great deal of their privacy. Why? Privacy must mean something, after all the right to privacy was written into the Constitution. Yet, why do so many people give away their right, but make a big deal when something gets out that they don’t want seen?

My answer for this social media popularity is that people believe when they sign up for a site they will still have total control over their lives and will be able to use that to their advantage. They think they can create a persona online that people will like and only tell others information that will make look how they want to be seen. They don’t think unwanted information will get out, or information will be stolen or used against them. People want to be like celebrities; they want their lives to seem important to others and want to feel special because others can see what is going on in their lives.

However, people can get caught up in this sharing craze. Too much can slip out and sometimes it can harm a person. Because social media sites act as a Panopticon in the way that a vast amount of people can view you, yet (unless you have the skills) you don’t know who is watching. Now people are warned about posting certain things like pictures of them partying it up. Sure the photos might make them seem ‘cool’ to their peers, but it can harm their personal life. Also, people might want to share almost everything about them including their birthday, location, history, etc. But by sharing too much people become vulnerable to identity theft.

But this information and realization unfortunately won’t change much. People find humor in the fact that someone can see what one’s up to 24/7. What one might have called a stalker ten years ago now might call a ‘friend’. Social media users think they have power, but who really has it?

Writer or Author?

Reflecting on this latest segment in my writing class I couldn’t help but feel a little overwhelmed at what my classmates and I had discussed about authorship. Before this class I thought there was a simple definition of an author. However, it seems I’ve been under a rock when it comes to the discussion of what an author is and what they do.

Up until these past few weeks in class I believed an author was someone who simply wrote. As to what they wrote I had assumed the boundaries to be novels, poems, plays, epics, or any other general form of text. After the class discussions I discovered that some people, such as Foucault, Barthes, Poster, and Grusin, all have different ideas of what an author is and what their function does. Some even say that the author is, in fact, dead. If you were to tell me the author is dead before I had read any of the class readings I probably would have been completely confused and said you were crazy. Now though I can understand where that conclusion comes from, even if I don’t agree that the author is dead.

Even after reading many articles on the idea of what an author is, I think I’ll stick to the basic definition. However, now with technology advancing and people writing many short phrases for Facebook ‘statuses’ and Twitter ‘tweets’, there is a small need for redefining what counts as a text worth authorship. Should we consider a status or tweet a work of the person who wrote it? And if it counts as a work, should that writer then become an author? I don’t believe such short phrases that are used as statuses and tweets constitute as works of an author, but there are times when I read one so creative and unique I can’t help but want to give authorship to the writer so they can be credited for being so witty and intelligent.

Also, on social media sites like Tumblr where people can post longer pieces of writing, some people should be considered authors because of what they post. As silly as this will seem, some posts created by more than one person do turn out quite brilliant, or as in this case, quite (I find) hilarious.

With the Internet being such a ginormous network we sometimes see creative and confusing pieces of writing that can stir-up people’s ideas. It’s things like this picture shown below that make me wonder if it should be considered a work of an author. Did they actually write something? Or is it a meaningless bunch of words jumbled to look like something creative. 

Whatever the definition of the author is, the Internet has been a great base for writers to share their work and claim authorship of something they have written. The short phrased statuses and tweets have allowed for more people to write and read. Whether people are considered authors might not even matter because, hey, at least people are practicing the skills of writing and reading, right?

I need answers!

After reading Bolter's "Writing the Self" and discussing it in class I couldn't help asking myself a few questions. First, are there any original thoughts to be made anymore? Second, what is more important: the text or how the readers act after reading the text? Third, is everything mediated through something else, and if so, does this affect a reader's reaction to a text?

Once an old teacher of mine said that a person should strive to actually think at least once a day. Upon hearing this I was confused. Didn't we think all the time? My teacher then explained a person only truly thinks when they think an original thought. At first I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Of course I think my own thoughts! It's not like I copy other people's ideas. Then it clicked. What a person thinks has probably already been thought. Taking into account the population and age of the human race, there's a good chance that at one point in time someone has thought the same thing as you. However, I do think it is still possible to create an original thought if one tries really hard and is really creative.

What does this have to do with The Network and the Self? Well, with the Internet, it becomes even harder to come up with original ideas because ideas can be easily shared on the Internet and therefore can generate the same thought in many minds. In terms of copyright, if someone comes across an idea they swear was their own and the other person stole it, maybe the other person just had the same idea. Therefore, this leads to it being harder to have an identity of your own, especially on the Internet. 

This leads me to wonder what is more important: the text or the reader's reactions to the text? I say that the reader's reaction is more important because with so many common ideas, it's what the reader does with the text that matters. How a reader reacts also deals with the remediation of a text. If someone is able to mediate a text into something more comprehensible, it will increase the audience. Therefore, more ideas are generated and actions are made.

An action could be something positive like becoming an avid reader because you found an author or genre you love. Another positive action could be writing your own text because you became inspired or motivated by something you read. An example of this is fanfiction (even if some stories are not so great at least someone is practicing writing). However, there are also negative actions like sending hate mail or messages to someone because you disagreed with something they wrote. For example, there was a Tumblr page all about hating Cassandra Clare, a Young Adult author. That’s right, it got removed because it was wrong and shameful. 

So, now that I’ve answered these mind-boggling questions, what are your answers or responses? Please comment below. I need answers!

Keep Calm and Write On

As we read in the first paragraphs of Bolters’ first chapter of Writing Space

Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print, the priest in Victor Hugo's Notre-Dame de Paris, 1482 was distraught in thinking that the invention of the printing press would not only destroy the church, but human thought. When we read this, we must be reminded that the world was in a completely different time period with very different ways of living when the priest was freaking out. Humans were in a different mindset/consciousness. Humans were making more history than discovering it, but now we are able to reflect upon our history and learn from it. 

Now, when we face the dilemma of going from paper to digitalized media, it does not seem as urgent of a matter. Both times of change are seen as civilization advancing in technology, but this time of change is not as dramatic. Our society is now used to a lot of new advances in technology because there have been various new items invented. For example, when a new iPhone comes out, people only care about having the latest gadget, not necessarily what’s new about it. We are so used to new technology appearing that seeing media go from print to screen is not unpredicted. 

Alas, there are still some people out there who are concerned with the idea of print being overthrown by digital media. Sometimes I think people forget to take into account the population of this world and the differences we all have. There will always be people who prefer a book to an e-reader. And if there comes a day when there are absolutely no paper books or sources in this world, we will be long gone and the world will have changed so much that we cannot predict what our response will be. Therefore, instead of guessing and fretting about this “issue” we should realize that print isn’t going to just disappear. Instead, we should focus our energy on refining the technology that we currently do possess now. 

Where’s the authorship when things are written on the Internet, whether it be via a social media site or professional website? When we talk about plagiarism in class the consequences are usually failing the class and possibly worse. However, on the Internet, when someone uses another person’s words, there really isn’t a format for citing them. Therefore, it is easy to plagiarize on the Internet and people do it a lot. This is not okay for people to be able to easily steal another’s words. Also, some think that the Internet helps create or influences students to plagiarize. Here is a link to a journal article from Education Leadership on how plagiarism relates to this generation: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar09/vol66/num06/Plagiarism-in-the-Internet-Age.aspx

This makes me question, should there be new lines/definitions categorizing writing to encompass social media and various digital networks? For example, should there be a new essay called the “Blog Essay” or the “Status Essay”. Okay, those aren’t very creative names, but I hope you get the point. Also, is the digital media creating more writers? If so, I think there’s less true readers. Therefore, there is an abundance of writing, but not enough critical and participatory readers. So, what do you think? What are your answers to these questions?