Foursquare and Location-based Services

In my case study, I had to answer the week's question: what social and economic forces shape communication infrastructure? Location-based services are technologies that track where a user's mobile device is and then personalizes the content they see. When Foursquare combines this service with social media, it gives not only the consumer benefits through rewards and services, but it also gives producers business. This exchange is a cycle that has shaped how we communicate. According to a question about whether I would keep this app since I had downloaded it for this study, I replied that I would not. I would not like to be monitored of my whereabouts so therefore, I really have no influence over the communication infrastructure due to my inactivity.

One of my discussion questions wanted to know what the future holds for location-based services. In a case study I thought was interesting, it stated that libraries are now trying to use the same template as Foursquare by using location-based services to market library services and communicate with their users. (Cuddy and Glassman) This takes the tracking technology from a social level to a more economic level to benefit society with beneficial services.

Source: 

Cuddy, C., & Glassman, N. R. (2010). Location-Based Services: Foursquare and Gowalla, Should      Libraries Play?. Journal Of Electronic Resources In Medical Libraries, 7(4), 336-343.    doi:10.1080/15424065.2010.527254

Google's Monopolism Promotes Business and Societal Capitalism

The question of the week was "Who controls the network?" and in response I focused my presentation on Google's monopolism promoting business and societal capitalism for themselves, and even for it's users. Many critics argue that Google is becoming a huge monopoly in the network, and argues that the monopolism of Google is bad and harmful to it's users. I focused my arguemnt around the idea that Google's monopolism and monopolies in general are a good thing and not harmful as these critics suggest. 

While the Internet is quickly replacing television and film as the new "glamour medium," Google is becoming "the giant of the Internet." Beginning as solely a web search engine in 1998, Google has grown immensly and has acquired over 160 companies as of today. As the network's number one search engine, ad-serving busines, e-mail service, online video distributor, and more, Google's seperation from competition by control of the network has resulted in its business and societal progression and capitalism. Today, Google is the number one search engine in the network, an email service known as Gmail, a scholarly search engive known as Google Scholar, has aquired YouTube, announced the Android which was the first open platform for mobile device, and is an online drive system known as Google Drive. Google is also the dominant search advertising firm. This includes the ads  on the side of search results, the Adsense service that places clickable ads on other websites, adn the display ads that are ditributed across the web through Google's DoubleClick subsidairy. Beyond Google's size and many acquisitions, its unique characteristics of the search advertising industry also heped to encourage the development of its anticompetition monopoly power. This anticompetition monopoly power of Google is what many critics argue against, but Peter Thiel, the Co-Founder of Pay Pal argues that monopolies are a good thing, and I agree with his standpoint in my argument. (You can hear Thiel's argument here: http://www.wsj.com/video/peter-thiel-why-monopolies-are-a-good-thing/3D9A5E99-02E5-42EB-8B10-ED8E37FA26DD.html).

Thiel argues basically that monopolies are a good thing because they result in CAPITALISM for the busines and for it's users of the network. 

In the discussion, one of the questions that I presented to the class was "Which company do you think was Google's best decision in acquisition in terms of profitibility?" The class discussed that Google's best acquisition was that of the Android. In my research I found that the Android has actually been the number one selling phone recently, even over the iPhone. My second question that I presented to the class was "What future do you see for Google? Do you think that it will remain on top, or will another Internet company eventually rise above?" Students in the class answered in that they think that IF another comapny does rise above Google, they see that company being Facebook. In my research for my case study I also found that Facebook is acutally Google's biggest compeitior in the market currently, in that Google has long surpassed its other "competitors" such as Yahoo! and Bing. 

In conclusion, Googles vast ownership and impressive amount of acquistitions in the market has resulted in its criticism of monopolistic power, but hypercompetitive businesses are bad businesses because they are not capitalistic. As the networks number one saerch engine, ad-serving business, e-mail service, online video distributor, and more, Google's separation from the competition by control of the network has resulted in its business and societal capitalism. 

Helpful links to my presentation:

http://www.wsj.com/video/peter-thiel-why-monopolies-are-a-good-thing/3D9A5E99-02E5-42EB-8B10-ED8E37FA26DD.html

ICANN: In Charge of the Internet.

Internet regulation and Internet governance is in a bit of a grey area when it comes to who controls these aspects of the World Wide Web. It is truly difficult to say weather one entity or another has more control over the networks. If I had to answer the question on who controls the Internet I would have to say that a large dominance in this realm comes from ICANN. ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which is responsible for the coordination of maintenance and methodology of several databases of unique identifiers related to the namespaces of the Internet and ensuring the network's stable and secure operation. ICANN holds much power when dealing with domain names; this is a major role of the Internet. This power has been developed through the United States government in the 80s. Today much of the power is out of the hands of the US government but still there seems to be an underlying level of influence that our United States government brings, through advice and overseeing much of the work that ICANN does. This has lead to a level of mistrust from many countries due to the high level of power and pressure that the board of ICANN has over running and maintaining the Internet.

My discussion questions were geared in the direction of asking if ICANN has too much power, and if this is a necessary power for one organization to have. I agree that ICANN has a dominance in the control over the networks and that this power leads to pressure from outside sources. Obviously this is a problem worth avoiding and bringing to light, ICANN is more beneficial than negative in this aspect, I believe that this organization has enough integrity to keep fighting for the correct usage or the World Wide Web. However, I also believe that more regulation on government interference needs to be established as well as making the board members and CEO elected positions. The debate continues that these positions and ICANN as a whole are not owned by the United States, therefore not able to be voted upon only by US citizens. ICANN is not a perfect solution to governing the Internet however it is a step in the right direction with the best foot forward, as long as we as a country and world can keep these members of ICANN accountable for making the Internet a fair resource to all. 

Resources-

• ICANN. (2014). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/923082/ICANN

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJY5xJKPhjA 

COMM 330: Video Podcast Examples

As you prepare your final Video Podcast, due on Nov 26th, here are URLs to two videos created during the Camtasia Workshop that might provide a useful reference. One video is a finalized example of the project Jernaley Martin from ITS created in-class while the other video is a fast-paced example of how she created the in-class video.

 

Camtasia In-Class Example

http://youtu.be/KFAuBr4CxjQ

 

Camtasia Editing Example

http://youtu.be/pQHIkNCRZDk

Facebook: Who controls the network?

This weeks question was "Who controls the network?" I decided to answer this question using an example from a social media site. There are so many people in today's society that use the Internet for just that reason. They have a profile on Facebook or twitter and in most cases both. In this example, a woman posted a photo on Facebook that showed herself breastfeeding her daughter. Facebook decided that it was a violation of their nudity protocol and took it down. After this happened she was angry with what Facebook did and re-posted the photo onto a pro-breastfeeding Facebook page. After getting some attention the photo had over 160,000 likes and was shared over 22,000 times. A few days after it was re-posted Facebook then took it down again. Hundreds and hundreds of angry Facebook users complained to Facebook about how they shouldn't have taken the photo down in the first place. After the complaints were made Facebook then decided to change their policy to exclude breastfeeding photos. In this case the users of Facebook were able to control the network.

Facebook makes it rules and regulations based on what the users want because they are the ones who keep Facebook relevant. If they don't pay attention to those who have Facebook then they may lose customers. With most social media companies this is usually the case. The users are the ones who post and create activity on the time lines of these social media platforms.

Discussion: One of the questions I asked after my presentation was if the audience felt that this incident would be a gateway to the changing of more rules. As the Internet and society changes so do the things that will go on the networks. Someone said that since the changes happen almost everyday that there won't be a need to get them changed.

Sources:

Facebook: The Missing Manuel (3rd ed.). O' Reilly Media.

Staubhaar, J., & LaRose, R. (2014) Media Now: Understanding media, culture, and technology (8^th ed., pp. 251-283). Belmont, Calif.: Waldsworth;.

The New Golden Age of Television

The question of the week for week 9 was “How do older forms of media inform new media markets?” Keeping this in mind while reading the textbook, I became intrigued over the television market during the first Golden Age and then the regression of content produced in during the Wasteland period of television. During my research, I came across several renowned TV critics discussing what they called “the New Golden Age.” This is what really caused me to further look into the way the television media market has evolved over the decades.

To begin to answer the question of the week, I gave a quick review of the Golden Age and Wasteland of television, which we had discussed in class earlier that week. To more thoroughly answer the question of the week, I discussed the New Golden Age, its characters and characteristics, and how the New Golden Age came to be.

Discussion: After completing my presentation, the main discussion question that I posed was: Even though there are examples of the New Golden Age, do you think we are coming out of the TV wasteland at last or venturing further into the wasteland? My fellow classmates did a good job of pointing out that while there has been a revival of controversial, thought-provoking content, which are characteristics of what critics and scholars describe as the New Golden Age, that there are always going to be people who prefer to watch reality shows or sitcoms that do not require viewers to think beyond what is playing on the television.

Sources:

Garrison, Lindsay H. (2011). ‘Defining Television Excellence “On Its Own Terms”: The Peabody Awards and Negotiating Discourses of Quality’. Cinema Journal, 50(2), 160-165.

Straubhaar, Joseph, and Robert Larose. (2008). Media Now: Understanding Media, Culture and Technology. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth Company.

"Welcome to TV's Second "Golden Age"" (2013, October 1). CBSNews. CBS Interactive. Retrieved October 27, 2014.

ABC (American Broadcasting Company)

The question of the week was " How do older forms of media inform new media markets?", got me to start researching the history of ABC as a radio station to today as one of the biggest TV televisions known to everyone. I found that ABC move forward with the wants of the society. Started as a Radio station to compete with NBC and CBS. All three of the radio stations grew and became the "big three" in the radio industry and later in the TV industry. I would say the huge step that ABC to move away from the other two competitors was actually listening to what the viewers wanted and made the right moves in the direction. I would consider ABC as more towards the entertainment viewer industry and NBC and CBS try to get more of the political audience but still have some entertainment shows.

ABC has transformed into the top watched television stations with their popular TV shows at night to NFL football on the weekend. If anyone wants to try to compete with this company, They were seriously need to produce TV shows that attract larger size audiences and try to also have other type of entertainment like sports or news.

Discussion: After I presented my information, the big discussion was if Netflix,Hulu, another online viewing websites will cause the number of viewers to reduce watching ABC. many of students admitted that they watch Netflix over live Tv but believe that the numbers won't change because of the many live events that ABC host.

Sources:

American Broadcasting Company (ABC). (2014). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com.lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/EBchecked/topic/19375/American-Broadcasting-Company-ABC

The Big Three's Prime-Time Decline: A Technological and Social Context ( 2014)  received from Journal of broadcasting & electronic media [0883-8151] Hindman yr: 2008 vol: 52 iss: 1 pg: 119 -135

Television in Today's Society. (2014) received from Phi Delta Kappan [0031-7217] Ross yr: 1954 vol: 35 iss: 4 pg: 179 -180