A-LISTS just think about it
Social networking technologies have prompted a global debate. It matters what we, the self-anointed “Ms. or Mr. Communications” experts, think about the appropriate- ness or usefulness of today’s technologies as a means of expressing ourselves. Primitive grunts, hilltop smoke signals, the beat of distant jungle drums, the rhythmic dots and dashes of Morse
code...they all emphasize that the need to establish communication links between societies and their members is a universal and timeless pursuit. Every generation has its share of “new fangled gadgets” and the changes in behavior, social practices and ideas that accompany them. Every generation debates whether the changes will unravel the societies and customs they have come to rely upon in their daily routines. As creatures of habit and routine, we resist change even as we seek it, but change is an inevitable and never-ending reality. Each age group progressively pushes the envelope and the outgoing generations
generally fight changes to the sacred cloth each of them has woven in their time. As long as our species remains feeling, thinking and curious it will search out new adven- tures and possibilities until our imaginations run dry—and I don’t see that happening. Still, each of us has uncertainty about e-mail, texting, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Linkedln and the tidal wave of high tech communication devices sweeping the globe.
“We control what we write and who can read it, but just as we sometimes speak without looking to see who can hear, we call, text, e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, “Link” and YouTube without looking around or carefully considering who can read, see or hear our communications.”
Arguably, an abundance of communication technologies can increase and strength-
en social ties. But how and when these technologies are utilized is a matter of individual choice and responsibility. Social networking sites expand personal networks to find people with similar experiences and to share information. They discuss, promote and share interests while connecting causes with supporters. These sites expand our personal networks, awareness, connect and reconnect us to friends, family, markets, businesses and even create realtime news. Communications on social networking sites cover a wide spectrum. They can be personal, emotional, private and important; or trivial, informal and public. We control what we write and who can read it, but just as we sometimes speak without looking to see who can hear, we call, text, e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, “Link” and YouTube without looking around or carefully considering who can read, see or hear our communications. Rather than talk of a limit on social networking technologies, perhaps we should
embrace the merits of establishing a think tank to explore the wisdom in collectively determining universal communication standards for the sake of consistency. Put- ting aside the fact that various cultures and societies have dominated the scene in the course of history, is it not true that the world selected the most consistent and widely used languages and methods of any given period to communicate and conduct personal, business, scientific and diplomatic matters? Is it not also fact that societies and nations that did not want their messages widely understood proceeded to create intricate secret codes and ciphers? The debate is not about communicating but rather not communicating. In past gen-
erations, setting reasonable ground rules in place was the way to create consistency and broaden mutual understanding. We established and taught a consistent use of grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, spelling and pronunciation. This did in fact facilitate wider understanding of our oral and cursive writing communications. We did this not to control communication but to share the thoughts, concepts, feelings and ideas we wanted to express widely. Not to over- or understate the dilemmas we debate, we need only look to the development of the countless different languages, symbols and dialects that have become a part of our communication and social networking tool
THE FUSS OVER SOCIAL
by william e. kelly
NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY
boxes over the millennia to understand there is no better or more correct way to be understood than the pure consistency and practice which translates to acceptance, use and understanding. As for the etiquette of using communication technologies, there is a reason we don’t yell, “FIRE!” in a crowded theater when there is none. We don’t scream our words loudly unless we are agitated, intend to be rude or simply don’t feel able to be heard. Most of us still don’t speak loudly in a church, we don’t butt-in when someone else is talking or speak French to people who don’t. What else do we do or not do when communicating? More importantly, why? Therein lie the answers to this ongoing debate. Coincidentally, I just returned from the “All People’s Breakfast” at the San Diego
Convention Center where keynote speaker, Ms. Jehmu Greene—a Fox News com- mentator, said to some 1,500 community leaders, “In many ways, the media shapes our understanding of who we are, what our country is and our place in the world...We need a media that enriches public discourse not one that enriches corporations, that strengthens democracy, not one that strengthens government. When the media does not reflect the vibrant diversity of the people on this planet, the quality of journalism and democracy suffer.” Paraphrasing Ms. Greene, social networking technology advancements have made all of us journalists and we share and discuss globally in seconds, holding our media accountable and democratic. It gets the truth out there. So, can social networking be a good thing? And who is responsible for the outcome? Us or someone else? Think about it!
30
RAGE monthly | FEBRUARY 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92