Facebook changed it all

I watched “The Social Network” today and thought it was an amazing movie. With great characters, plot and photography, the movie took me to the birth of a revolutionizing idea, a creation that changed social life, communication and human behavior.

The movie suggests Facebook was created to connect university students, catering their need of connecting with others and sharing personal information. And with the creation of a then-Harvard student, the world changed.

Before Facebook, the need to share thoughts, rants and personal information was available only to those with a blog. But even then the information wasn’t readily available for all to see. Opinions were only read if you told friends about it or if people knew you were talking behind someone’s back. Otherwise, you were spending hours talking to the Web with no audience.

Once the option of writing on someone’s “wall” or sharing status updates were available, information became public. So much that privacy concerns became a problem.

When was the last time you hit the “backspace” or “delete” button after a status update? You’ve come to learn that what you publish is open for everyone and retracted your statement. The communication you once had with friends has become selective; some are worthy of knowing raw thoughts, whereas sometimes opinions are filtered in order to avoid offending someone. Other times you simply don’t want a friend to know where you’re at and choose not to share that piece of information.

Selecting what is published and what isn’t was rarely thought about before social networking. MySpace, Xanga or Livejournal never quite reached that potential, but it was certainly the beginning of social change.

But why did Mark Zuckerberg need to create such a technological device that would have us glued to our screens? Why do we spend hours browsing through people’s lives? Is there a need to know their lives?

Yes.

Last semester I spoke with a psychology faculty member and told me the need to be social is vital to human beings. Our human ancestors needed to be social in order to survive, she said.

And that human element is still with us. Perhaps it’s become an addiction to browse profiles, but the need to stay connected is in our genes. It’s no surprise Facebook has become so popular with about 500 million users across the world.

Applications are here to stay

When I bought an iPhone this summer, I didn’t think it would create a division between me and my laptop.

But it has. And I blame it on the glossy rounded squares commonly known as apps.

Perhaps my Macbook Pro laptop is three years too old, or it fails to continually stream Netflix movies, but it no longer serves for entertainment purposes.

In fact, my modern laptop has become the basic typewriter. It does the only thing the iPhone is not yet able to do, and that is to serve as an extensive writing platform. The only reason why I use my laptop now is to write articles, blogs, columns, or design graphics and layouts.

I used to spend hours browsing through Facebook, Twitter, and yes, MySpace, to name a few. But I don’t waste as much time on the Web scrolling to see what interests me anymore. Because their sibling apps, free or not,  are easier to maneuver and give me direct information, I have moved on to flipping up and down the iPhone’s screen.

Applications are dividing our interests much more successfully than the Web. There’s no need to browse for a particular piece of information anymore; no more scrolling and having something else catch our eye. It’s there when we want and need it.

This trending technology is here to stay, even to the point of possibly replacing the Web. Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, recently wrote an article stating that applications are not involved with the Web, but rather with the Net.

In case you didn’t know, the Internet and the Web are different things. Configured in the 70s, the Internet is a very large connection between networks. On the other hand, the World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in the early 90s, giving us the power to link pages together through a browser.

Because applications live under a particular network, the Web is slowly blurring into the background. We no longer go online to look for a page and enter our zip code to check the weather. Instead, we touch a button and the weather is instantly there.

Do you hear me now?

I woke up hearing muffled noises a couple of days ago.

“This is it,” I thought. “This is the day that listening to my iPod too loud finally made me deaf.”

Although my hearing went back to normal hours later, that may not be the case for people younger than me.

Hearing loss increased from 14.9 percent in 1988 to 1994, to 19.5 percent in 2005 to 2006, according to a recent study by the American Medical Association. The 4.6 percent increase was concluded after sampling 12 to 19-year-olds.

Noise-induced hearing loss may be caused by listening to loud noises over a long period of time or being exposed to a one-time sound such as an explosion, according to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders’ website.

Many blame earphones for causing noise-induced hearing loss because of its “bud” design. Because the bud is inside the ear, sounds are more likely to damage hair cells, which are responsible for converting wavelengths into sound. Once they’ve been damaged, they don’t grow back.

But it is not the fault of earphones, the iPod that hosts the music or the companies that create such products.

It’s a personal problem.

It’s an issue about having self control and thinking about long-term consequences, which frankly, teens – and myself – don’t often do.

In fact, Apple has an iPod setting that locks volume levels in order to avoid surpassing a specific volume limit.

I understand wanting to clearly hear Daft Punk’s “Around the World” instead of a bus engine, but cranking up the volume to muffle background sounds is perhaps the main reason behind this issue.

I always thought hearing loss would be something fixable in the future and that I didn’t have to worry about volume control. But when one in five teens have some form of hearing loss in the U.S. today, it reminds me turn the volume wheel to the left.

Scrolling into trouble

I can sometimes be described as a nerd, someone who gawks at new technology or gadgets at a Sharper Image store. But there’s a big – and I mean big – side to me that treasures the past and anything printed on paper.

Yesterday taught me that more than ever.

I had fallen asleep while reading for my anthropology classes and failed to print out a 10-page document for a class. In a feeble attempt to read the journal, I took out my iPhone and looked for my professor’s website where the PDF was available.

After buying an iPhone this summer, I finally felt truly engaged in the 21^st century. But I don’t understand how I managed to read five pages and not retain any information.

Yes, perhaps the reading was too advanced or too out of my element, but I blame my fingers scrolling up and down the glossy screen of my phone. In “Hamlet’s Blackberry: Why Paper is Eternal,” William Powers states reading from a screen distracts the reader due to navigating and trying to figure out where in the text you are.

I do recall getting lost a few times and having to zoom out to know where in the paragraph I was, cutting my concentration. I never reached “flow” while reading on my phone, a term used by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who described flow as being completely immersed in something such as reading.

I believe that’s why I didn’t understand the difference between explanation and explication, among other terms in my reading. My brain was too fixated on the device that I couldn’t immerse myself completely to the written language.

I’m the kind of person that needs to feel the document itself, flip through pages and know when things physically start and when they end. Not like online information, where everything is infinite and uncontainable.

Although I admire the fabulous iPad design and amazing applications, it scares me to know education will lean toward electronic devices, possibly cutting on future flows.

Controlling the Web

A Tuesday ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is putting the Web community in a tight spot.

The Federal Communications Commission has been trying to adopt net neutrality regulations, which would prevent Internet Service Providers from regulating Web services and content.

Judges agreed the FCC has no right to require providers to give users free and open content. With this in mind, the FCC would also be unable to prevent providers such as Comcast or AT&T to become gatekeepers.

David Weinberger argued the Web should be open and sharable through users. He also said gatekeepers and experts are unnecessary. On the other hand, when Andrew Keen said gatekeepers filter information from stupid banter and that they’re a necessity, I took Keen’s side.

But the idea of having corporations control Web services and content worries me.

The last time a civic service was controlled by corporations, a big chunk of journalism died. Investigative reporting weakened, readership fell and hundreds of newspapers closed.

I understand service providers are concerned over their business, often competing with free content, but it’s too late to play the “pay for what you want” game. Users are accustomed to free content, reverting that custom could be disastrous.

“Analysts said the decision in effect removes a government enforcer that otherwise would prevent a company such as Comcast from blocking the Hulu or YouTube video sites from its network, analysts said.” – Court rules for Comcast over FCC in ‘net neutrality’ case by Cecilia Kang from The Washington Post

Google might just have to save the day with its “free” form of business, controlling THE Web and perhaps the rest of the world too.

In a non-evil way of course…

The Death of Privacy

Persuading the opinion of millions of Americans is extremely hard to do, but with time and a couple of events, it has been known to happen.

Since Sept. 11, the term “privacy” has been thrown out the window, all in the name of security. We have accepted, and welcomed, the addition of security cameras throughout the U.S. for example, thinking it’s for our protection.

In late 2008, New York launched “Lower Manhattan Security Initiative,” a project that started in 2005 to monitor the area by adding 3,000 cameras, 96 license-plate readers and algorithms to find potential threats.

Did anyone protest? Not really.

Our fear is so strong we’ve diluted, or even completely forgotten about privacy. And because of that, it has little or no meaning in everyday life. We ignore Terms of Services all the time, we even allow companies such as Google to create algorithms that skim our e-mail for advertising purposes.

“Google has built a highly intrusive picture of your life, health, relationships, finances, employment, reading interests, and political and religious interests.” – Shadow Government by Grant R. Jeffrey

The privacy we once gave up for security has now been taken over by products and services. Does anyone even care? We’re giving away one of the most important values we have as individuals, and to who? Companies? The government?

I’m not sure who would be interested in a society who couldn’t care less about their privacy, who would willingly enter an agreement with terrible consequences…

Conspiracy theorists would say the government is aiming toward a one-world government and/or mind control. Those who study the Bible say it’s a step closer to the introduction of the Mark of the Beast and the Antichrist. The rest of the population might think it’s for the best or probably wouldn’t care as long as they continue to have access to their services.

Closing the Gate on Irrelevance

Judgment from experts is needed to control and rescue valuable information that has, or is heading, toward binary quicksand. Often called gatekeepers, these experts have the responsibility to filter everyday irrelevancies and produce objective and thorough content.

According to a 2009 report, Americans at home consumed information about 11.8 hours a day. That’s about 4,032 hours a year, or roughly 168 days. Almost half a year’s worth of limitless information, and most consumers aren’t aware of where it comes from or why it’s there. Not aware, or just don’t care.

A.J. Liebling said freedom of the press belongs to those who own the means (newspapers, magazines, etc). Thanks to the World Wide Web, anyone who has a virtual outlet is able to say whatever they want to, true or false. And because bloggers or members on Wikipedia aren’t bound to a code of ethics as are gatekeepers, the range of non-authentic work is published.

I agree with Andrew Keen’s philosophy, but because there’s too much ground for gatekeepers and experts to cover, I believe users can also be the gatekeepers. Of course the average user isn’t equipped with vast knowledge, but as User Generated Content increases and true gatekeepers decrease, someone has to keep an eye on THE gatekeepers.

I want it, and I want it now

Wednesday night I was trying to open Facebook but the page wasn’t loading. I refreshed multiple times, then switched to Firefox thinking Safari was acting up. Still no luck. I even went to the extent of downloading Chrome, hoping it would help.

Nothing.

My friend called me an addict, but I insisted that wasn’t the case. I was upset the page was taking a long time to load. If I’m paying for high-speed Internet, I deserve more than a slow page, or even worse, a page that never loads.

According to a 2007 Pew/Internet study, 59 percent of users get impatient when a technological device breaks, or fails to works. The percentage was equal across the demographics, but those who used a device the most were usually the target. In the same study, 65 percent said they use the Internet “a lot” to stay in touch with friends and family.

In the United Kingdom, TalkTalk, an Internet provider said 70 percent of users “loose it” if they have to wait longer than a minute for a page to load. It said one third of 18-24 year-olds expect to wait 10 seconds, whereas 64 percent of seniors are comfortable waiting the minute.

“The speed of the online world is making us less prepared to wait for things to happen in the offline world, causing people to reach the ‘Point of Impatience’ earlier than ever before…”  Mark Schmid, communications director at TalkTalk

I wonder what will happen once Google’s faster-than-ever Internet service hits the world…