Youtube

While many of us are trying to pin down the meaning of the web 2.0 revolution's effect on ourselves and our society, I have come to the point where I regard Youtube as more than a place to upload and watch videos. Because well we aren't just watching short films and uploading low budget movies.

Although short films make up a percentage of the videos on youtube, we also have a large number of tutorials, video responses to other videos, documentaries, recordings of real life events, music covers, rants, etc. So instead of Youtube simply being a place to upload videos, Youtube is in a way a

digital society

.
It's a place where communities exist, where hierarchies persist, where issues are hotly debated, where people learn, where people spend their time.

The Reaction:

If you look on the internet you'll find that people are concerned about the possibility that time spent on the internet fosters anti-social behavior. Here's one I just came across http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2203/hyperconnectivity-teens-young-adults-internet
At first glance the issue of spending excessive time online is presented as a major problem. But that itself is a problem. The issue of excessive internet use is presented as a problem and not a symptom of a problem. The time spent on the internet, and the neglect our personal relationships are getting, is both evidence of our weak interpersonal relationships and a reaction to them -- which, from a macro perspective, is a reflection of our fragile society.

I think that instead of stigmatizing excessive internet use, we should be asking "why are people choosing to spend their time on the internet and not with their peers?"

Perhaps then we would realize that our behavior is a reaction to broken relationships. In doing so we might be able to restructure our relationships and reconnect with our peers in person.
So as the

digital society

grows, and the supposed anti-social behavior increases, let's seek to understand the cause of the problem instead of stigmatizing the threat that might be the catalyst to new social relationships

Technology (ramble)

Technology appears to be one of the defining attributes of the 21st century. Technology is ubiquitous. We live in a techno-environment. It can be found in almost every aspect of our lives. The prevalence of technology is growing exponentially and brings a number of advantages to our lives. From the accuracy of clocks, to efficiency of engines, to the mobility of mass communication, to the consumption of information through electronic journalism, to entertainment in our homes and on-the-go. Things are being replaced by technology. Machines are replacing workers, stores are now E-commerce, and mail is now electronic.

There is a mainstream acceptance of technology; a minority that praise technology as our savior, critical skeptics that argue technology is making our condition worse, and everyone in between. Largely our attitude towards technology is determined by our attitudes towards the specific form of technology and its effect on that aspect of our life. For example, someone might praise biotechnology that creates a cure for a disease that they have. And anti-capitalists might hate security cameras that monitor workers.

As technology becomes normal to us, what happens to us as individuals when it is no longer a novel thing? I think we forget what it means to be natural. We no longer co-exist with nature, we are now exploiting it. Can nature and technology exist together?

We typically think of technology as being electronic.

We are able to return to nature any time we want. But we have destroyed nature to the point that we can't really return. Is a hyper-techno-environment inevitable? Are we on a path to becoming severed from nature completely?

Our relationship to nature is a yearly trip to the snow, or an annual hike up a mountain, or to a campsite for the weekend.

But we have this inherent idea that nature is good, and a techno-environment is bad. But can a techno-environment be good? I can certainly see how living in nature could be bad. If we lived under a tyrant then nature would not necessarily be better. So the quality (good/bad) of an environment is determined not solely on the setting but by the conditions and relationships between people living in those environments. The emotions one ascribes to entities such as nature are socially constructed. nature as a positive space, techno-environments as negative spaces are arguably constructed by our interaction and interpretation of those environments. Arguing for a return to nature is a subjective argument that is based on the social conditions and interpersonal relationships within a society, and how one interprets them. Feelings of good or bad associated with an environment are not intrinsic qualities of those environments but are created by the values we give them.

Becoming Your Own Hobby (word vomit)

Is it just me, or are people becoming their own hobby? By that I mean, is personal maintenance, reconfiguring, and re-branding ourselves (losing weight, getting smarter, new clothes, etc.) a more prevalent part of our lives due to convenient tools for marketing and selling ourselves via social media, and is it becoming a hobby?

I can't be the only person who spends their free time constantly working on me. I'm sure there are others who are future-oriented.

Does the amount of time one spends contemplating the future and acting on those thoughts have a direct-causal relationship with feelings of obligations to conform to norms? Or is it the other way around? Does one's feelings towards social norms cause them to react, and taking steps to conform a common reaction in our society?

Are norms stronger when one is an active member of social media? Does the public eye affect our attitudes and behavior? Do members of society that are not active on social media sites care less about what others think?

I wonder if social media reaffirms the social boundaries of society? If it does, negative boundaries (redundant?) are strengthened, but perhaps only if deviants are scolded. I think this is what Foucault would say. But perhaps social media also offers a space of resistance, a space to speak publicly against the status quo. I think that social media reaffirms social boundaries & offers a space to resist them or challenge them publicly. But I think those that are contested are those that are generally acknowledged by the public as not being controversial, and issues that appear normal go uncontested. By not contesting certain norms, social media reaffirms aspects of society that might be problematic but not controversial. For example, we see no tolerance for blatant racism, and those who are are scolded (at least in my experience). But issues like going to college or having a career aren't contested as problematic norms. Social media reminds us that those with an education are in someways better, and presumably reminds those who aren't graduates of some university that they are breaking the social boundaries, and are at risk of being scolded. In a way Foucault's idea that punishment is no longer public is in a way antiquated.

I need to get a job...