New Media Q’s 1

I am a techno-optimist when it comes to some types of social media—such as YouTube, which is a great way to share informational videos on topics that are not covered by mainstream media. I am less fond of Facebook and Twitter and so would regard myself as a techno-pessimist when it comes to these forms of social media, as they tend to be more of a platform for people to spout off their own personal views and opinions. At least YouTube provides the platform for content to be shared and searched in an easy manner. Twitter is more for trolling and Facebook is more for creating a shrine to oneself. Twitter can be a way to get headline news out the door quickly, but I myself have never found it to be my go-to source of news information. I prefer news blogs like ZeroHedge, which are updated throughout the day with news stories published on both independent and mainstream media sites.

What makes me optimistic about YouTube (till the recent purge of politically incorrect content, at least) is that it acts essentially like an enormous video library that usually anyone can add to. This can help people develop new ideas about themselves and the world and be better informed. What makes me pessimistic about Facebook and Twitter is that they seem to be odes to one’s self—one’s socio-politics—one’s beliefs—one’s biases, without really offering much in the way of content or value. It usually just contributes to the stream of “pointless babble” often associated with social media (Baym, 2010, p. 30). For organizing political movements like Me Too, Arab Spring, or BLM, I am not optimistic either. I feel like Me Too brought a lot of noise to an issue and bad karma to an issue that could have been handled better. Arab Spring I feel was co-opted by the state for the purpose of regime change. And BLM does not seem to me to carry the same weight and urgency as the Civil Rights Movement. So I view these as more noise.

2

I think the fact that Ross’s...

Her private life was her public life—there was no division. That is one of the problematic aspects of social media. It blurs the line between private and public. As Baym (2010) points out, “building new online relationships has been both touted and decried as a way for a person to ‘assemble his or her own electronic neighborhood’” (p. 35). Ross was simply assembling her electronic neighborhood, asking for prayers and then informing everyone that her boy had died. It would be like calling a friend on the phone to alert the community for the need for urgent prayers fast. In this case, Ross was just taking to social media instead because that is how she communicates to her followers. Followers are like today’s friends in the Digital World. So in this sense, I think it was appropriate for her to go on Twitter to make this private tragedy public. As for “live Tweeting” the tragedy, I think the mother was simply acting as she was accustomed to act in the Age of New Media. Social media is the new telephone. It gets the message out quickly and all at once to everyone. Should people have a better sense of keeping private tragedy private? Should they invite the world to share in their private lives in the first place via social media? If one is going to invite the world in for the good, one is more than likely going to invite them in for the bad, too. If the latter is unacceptable, why is former acceptable? The good and bad are both sides of the human experience—and the human experience is now on social media.
3

Avatar creates a virtual reality at the level of its production by inviting the viewer to see the images using immersive 3-D glasses that allow the images to pop off the screen. It is not quite the same as virtual reality—i.e., a totally immersive experience—but it is close. Likewise, the use of the green screen allows the production to avoid having any real…