Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/jbeau/teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/index.php:2) in /home/jbeau/teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/wp/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments for Social Media for Social Change http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia a project of the Philadelphia Applied Research Lab Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:22:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 Comment on Extremes and Nuances by Jeremy http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/2009/06/extremes-and-nuances/comment-page-1/#comment-253 Jeremy Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:22:01 +0000 http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/?p=231#comment-253 Yes, the problem with extremist, polarizing positions is that the subtleties and complexities that characterize many of us are de-emphasized at best or totally obliterated at worst. It's possible that declaring our positions on a range of positions could facilitate the discovery of common ground where none was assumed to exist. The experiment seems fairly straightforward to implement. What such declarations do in mediated interactions is to construct more complex identities that can compensate for the lack of embodiment. Yes, the problem with extremist, polarizing positions is that the subtleties and complexities that characterize many of us are de-emphasized at best or totally obliterated at worst. It’s possible that declaring our positions on a range of positions could facilitate the discovery of common ground where none was assumed to exist. The experiment seems fairly straightforward to implement. What such declarations do in mediated interactions is to construct more complex identities that can compensate for the lack of embodiment.

]]>
Comment on Back in the Game? by Nick Jehlen http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/2009/05/back-in-the-game/comment-page-1/#comment-249 Nick Jehlen Thu, 07 May 2009 13:27:20 +0000 http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/?p=219#comment-249 This scenario sounds great - I think you've mapped out a really clean way to try this out. I'm thinking that paper versions of technology might be the easiest way to try out different communication methods quickly. From our experience with the red phone hotlines to Iran, I think we'll need a high-traffic area with a mix of people - perhaps a festival or other public gathering that is unrelated to whatever topics we choose? This scenario sounds great – I think you’ve mapped out a really clean way to try this out. I’m thinking that paper versions of technology might be the easiest way to try out different communication methods quickly. From our experience with the red phone hotlines to Iran, I think we’ll need a high-traffic area with a mix of people – perhaps a festival or other public gathering that is unrelated to whatever topics we choose?

]]>
Comment on Back in the Game? by Jethro Heiko http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/2009/05/back-in-the-game/comment-page-1/#comment-248 Jethro Heiko Thu, 07 May 2009 11:01:22 +0000 http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/?p=219#comment-248 Oh, this is very exciting. And I love the drawing, it is worth some number of words, possibly more than a thousand. Looking forward to coming back to the project and experimenting. Very interested in exploring the messy as it seems to be the more challenging part of envisioning the digital commons. Great work. Oh, this is very exciting. And I love the drawing, it is worth some number of words, possibly more than a thousand.

Looking forward to coming back to the project and experimenting. Very interested in exploring the messy as it seems to be the more challenging part of envisioning the digital commons. Great work.

]]>
Comment on The Space of Embodied Anonymity by Alie http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/2009/04/the-space-of-embodied-anonymity/comment-page-1/#comment-246 Alie Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:28:35 +0000 http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/?p=215#comment-246 I completely agree with Jeremy about the cues that are present in real world encounters and seem to be impossible to replicate with any success in the virtual world (due almost exclusively to the fact that it would require voluntary action to expose that an involuntary action has taken place.) A blushing emoticon really doesn't have the same effect as true blushing because of that. I have had similar thoughts regarding that disconnect, but I haven't been able to articulate them. I could use a little clarification on what "embodied anonymity and the expansiveness of atemporality and distal relations" would entail, however, it does indeed sound messy! I would like to assume I have some idea about the sort of crossover you're talking about though. At least, I find relevance in that idea simply because that's where my thesis project continues to push. I know Jeremy is familiar with Will's thesis project, but to clarify (as best as I am able) for everyone: he's creating an on-line networking tool to allow makers (woodworkers, techies, knitters, designers, etc.) the ability to connect in real spaces within Philadelphia. I'm making use of it for my own purposes, by trying to expand that potential network through the creation of educational forums and practical applications between users. What I'm trying to do really would not be possible without the kind of tool Will is creating. Or at least it would happen much, much more slowly. I bring this up because I really see this being the directions the commons could go in my ideal world, at least. The whole facebook, myspace, twitter thing is really not engaging without some connection to the real world. I don't talk to anyone on Facebook that I don't regularly or (at least have the desire to regularly) interact with in real life. I know people get lost in things like Secondlife and World of Warcraft, but I think that's because it offers them possibilities reality doesn't. However, merging the virtual and physical extends the abilities of the individual in a much more significant way. (Using craigslist to find an apartment in another state / Viral political/activism campaigning / Accessing lectures from other Universities / etc.) After all, as much as one invests in any on-line activity(?) one still has responsibilities in the real world, if only to their bodies. I completely agree with Jeremy about the cues that are present in real world encounters and seem to be impossible to replicate with any success in the virtual world (due almost exclusively to the fact that it would require voluntary action to expose that an involuntary action has taken place.) A blushing emoticon really doesn’t have the same effect as true blushing because of that. I have had similar thoughts regarding that disconnect, but I haven’t been able to articulate them.

I could use a little clarification on what “embodied anonymity and the expansiveness of atemporality and distal relations” would entail, however, it does indeed sound messy!

I would like to assume I have some idea about the sort of crossover you’re talking about though. At least, I find relevance in that idea simply because that’s where my thesis project continues to push. I know Jeremy is familiar with Will’s thesis project, but to clarify (as best as I am able) for everyone: he’s creating an on-line networking tool to allow makers (woodworkers, techies, knitters, designers, etc.) the ability to connect in real spaces within Philadelphia. I’m making use of it for my own purposes, by trying to expand that potential network through the creation of educational forums and practical applications between users. What I’m trying to do really would not be possible without the kind of tool Will is creating. Or at least it would happen much, much more slowly.

I bring this up because I really see this being the directions the commons could go in my ideal world, at least. The whole facebook, myspace, twitter thing is really not engaging without some connection to the real world. I don’t talk to anyone on Facebook that I don’t regularly or (at least have the desire to regularly) interact with in real life. I know people get lost in things like Secondlife and World of Warcraft, but I think that’s because it offers them possibilities reality doesn’t. However, merging the virtual and physical extends the abilities of the individual in a much more significant way. (Using craigslist to find an apartment in another state / Viral political/activism campaigning / Accessing lectures from other Universities / etc.) After all, as much as one invests in any on-line activity(?) one still has responsibilities in the real world, if only to their bodies.

]]>
Comment on The Space of Embodied Anonymity by Jethro Heiko http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/2009/04/the-space-of-embodied-anonymity/comment-page-1/#comment-245 Jethro Heiko Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:06:11 +0000 http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/?p=215#comment-245 I am fascinated by the hybrid public space/networked messier space. Such a result of our work to this point is inspiring and gives me a lot to think about. I am fascinated by the hybrid public space/networked messier space. Such a result of our work to this point is inspiring and gives me a lot to think about.

]]>
Comment on Online Group Chat Experiment (v. 1) by Ona Krass http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/2009/04/experiment-v1/comment-page-1/#comment-243 Ona Krass Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:24:56 +0000 http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/?p=198#comment-243 Once again, I find it fascinating that in SMSC trying to develop a social media project about democracy in a public space or in terms of debate, we ourselves exercise the Social Rules that we are expecting or hoping for in our experiments. The first videos that display a table of minds discussing how to carry out a group project, shows a commons of ideas. OH! The “Meta-narratives.” I think our first test was a huge success in terms of interest and was an imperative step, but at the same time I think it helped us define where now to move and what to move away from. I think Sunday, if our participants show, we might possibly get some controversy. I’m hoping for! Mainly, in the sense that it will require more engagement and spice up a relationship between our experiment and the reality of our problem. So Onward! Once again, I find it fascinating that in SMSC trying to develop a social media project about democracy in a public space or in terms of debate, we ourselves exercise the Social Rules that we are expecting or hoping for in our experiments. The first videos that display a table of minds discussing how to carry out a group project, shows a commons of ideas. OH! The “Meta-narratives.”

I think our first test was a huge success in terms of interest and was an imperative step, but at the same time I think it helped us define where now to move and what to move away from. I think Sunday, if our participants show, we might possibly get some controversy. I’m hoping for! Mainly, in the sense that it will require more engagement and spice up a relationship between our experiment and the reality of our problem.

So Onward!

]]>
Comment on Online Group Chat Experiment (v. 1) by Alie http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/2009/04/experiment-v1/comment-page-1/#comment-242 Alie Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:52:52 +0000 http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/?p=198#comment-242 You guys have to stop giving me caffeine. In other, more pertinent news, I am really happy with the first experiment. I think the two very different results we witnessed are really suggestive of what some of the underlying issues are in on-line debate. To be specific: the participants and their level of education as well as their engagement with the topics under discussion; how the questions are framed; and the devices and language people use specifically in the context of on-line discussions. For me this is a great start to evaluating how important each of these and other factors are in how fruitful, diverse, and respectful on-line dialogs can be. So! I'm excited for more testing and for the results to our surveys. Moments of particular interest to me during the discussions were: The sharing of links and citing outside sources made it easy for people to back up their points. Most people don't carry back issues of the NY Times in their pockets so this is unique to on-line dialogs (I wonder if the other participants viewed these during or after the discussion or even at all.) During the second discussion, one of the participants got all meta on us and attempted to lay down rules for the discussion, that each participants would speak their peace and then "pass." The rest of the group decided the free for all was best. Attempts to maintain contact between some of the participants in the first discussion through facebook. (easier than exchanging numbers?) Readiness/reluctance to answer questions directly/immediately. There was a whole lot of questioning the question. So, yeah, excited to see more and see if any patterns develop! You guys have to stop giving me caffeine.

In other, more pertinent news, I am really happy with the first experiment. I think the two very different results we witnessed are really suggestive of what some of the underlying issues are in on-line debate. To be specific: the participants and their level of education as well as their engagement with the topics under discussion; how the questions are framed; and the devices and language people use specifically in the context of on-line discussions. For me this is a great start to evaluating how important each of these and other factors are in how fruitful, diverse, and respectful on-line dialogs can be. So! I’m excited for more testing and for the results to our surveys.

Moments of particular interest to me during the discussions were:

The sharing of links and citing outside sources made it easy for people to back up their points. Most people don’t carry back issues of the NY Times in their pockets so this is unique to on-line dialogs (I wonder if the other participants viewed these during or after the discussion or even at all.)

During the second discussion, one of the participants got all meta on us and attempted to lay down rules for the discussion, that each participants would speak their peace and then “pass.” The rest of the group decided the free for all was best.

Attempts to maintain contact between some of the participants in the first discussion through facebook. (easier than exchanging numbers?)

Readiness/reluctance to answer questions directly/immediately. There was a whole lot of questioning the question.

So, yeah, excited to see more and see if any patterns develop!

]]>
Comment on A random walk in the commons by Jeremy http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/2009/04/a-random-walk-in-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-239 Jeremy Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:40:36 +0000 http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/?p=193#comment-239 Really interesting find, Nick. As we discussed this weekend, I wonder how we might incorporate a similar chat tool that allowed more than two strangers to attempt a conversation (perhaps 4 or 5). Our experiment this coming weekend will connect strangers together in a group chat, but what is interesting about Omegle are the random combinations of discussants and the spontaneity, which is very much like public life. I could envision the basic framework of Omegle iterated with different sets of rules and constraints to test some of our proposals for the SMSC project. Really interesting find, Nick. As we discussed this weekend, I wonder how we might incorporate a similar chat tool that allowed more than two strangers to attempt a conversation (perhaps 4 or 5). Our experiment this coming weekend will connect strangers together in a group chat, but what is interesting about Omegle are the random combinations of discussants and the spontaneity, which is very much like public life. I could envision the basic framework of Omegle iterated with different sets of rules and constraints to test some of our proposals for the SMSC project.

]]>
Comment on A random walk in the commons by Steven K-Brooks http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/2009/04/a-random-walk-in-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-237 Steven K-Brooks Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:50:38 +0000 http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/?p=193#comment-237 Thanks for the comment about my son's website. A few of the conversation that I have had were promising but seemed not to develop. One conversation which was getting interesting "imploded" causing it to disconnect (according to the prompt but I don't know what 'imploded" means). Some of the users seemed shocked to find out that I am 63, which apparently is ancient. A lot of the users disconnect suddenly for no apparent reason without even saying goodbye. I am surprised at the number of people who use the site and wonder what attracts them to it. Steven K-Brooks Brattleboro, Vermont Thanks for the comment about my son’s website.

A few of the conversation that I have had were promising but seemed not to develop. One conversation which was getting interesting “imploded” causing it to disconnect (according to the prompt but I don’t know what ‘imploded” means).

Some of the users seemed shocked to find out that I am 63, which apparently is ancient. A lot of the users disconnect suddenly for no apparent reason without even saying goodbye. I am surprised at the number of people who use the site and wonder what attracts them to it.
Steven K-Brooks
Brattleboro, Vermont

]]>
Comment on Just two sides? by Ona http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/2009/03/just-two-sides/comment-page-1/#comment-235 Ona Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:31:40 +0000 http://teach.boxwith.com/socialmedia/?p=187#comment-235 If the question is "Should we have pizza for breakfast?" or "What should we have for breakfast?" Your going to get various answers depending on who your asking, and both questions could have interesting or lead to interesting results just because of how everyone is different. Unless you take into account how people decide things based on other people. However, I do agree with Allie about making the questions more open ended. But this is a pure example of our project. Jethro proposed a thought and now here we are making various statements about it and in a democratic respectful way. If people could "Think Before We Blog" and not " Think therefore we blog" much like how we've managed here... *I am committing disrespect for not rereading this tho, I'm on a break and didn't want to lose the thought, but have to go, so apologizing for any grammitcal/spelling errors If the question is “Should we have pizza for breakfast?” or “What should we have for breakfast?” Your going to get various answers depending on who your asking, and both questions could have interesting or lead to interesting results just because of how everyone is different. Unless you take into account how people decide things based on other people.
However, I do agree with Allie about making the questions more open ended.
But this is a pure example of our project. Jethro proposed a thought and now here we are making various statements about it and in a democratic respectful way.

If people could “Think Before We Blog” and not ” Think therefore we blog” much like how we’ve managed here…

*I am committing disrespect for not rereading this tho, I’m on a break and didn’t want to lose the thought, but have to go, so apologizing for any grammitcal/spelling errors

]]>