The Facebook Effect - Part 1

David Kirkpatrick gives an in depth story of how the creator of The Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, brought this revolutionizing social network to life. Starting off in his dorm room at Harvard University, Zuckerberg was constatnly finding new projects to develop. The idea for developing an internet social network for Harvard was something that he had been considering for a while. "Zuckerberg went online and paid Register.com thirty-five dollars to register the web address Thefacebook.com for one year. This site borrowed ideas from Course Match and Facemash as well as from a service called Friendster" (pg. 27). With just a merely cost of thirty-five dollars, he had first launched a website that would forever change his life. When reading this section of the book it reminded me of when I had gone to the Texts From Last Night event. The creators of the website TFLN had no idea that it would be such a success when they paid someone only two hundred dollars to design their website. Before TFLN, there were many sites similar to it such as FML.com, and same goes for Facebook, whose competitor was Myspace. Essentially, in the beginning Facebook and Myspace were similar in the sense of social networking. However, Facebook offered limited functions and a plain white profile page, while Myspace allowed you to customize your page. Facebook was also more secure, at first only allowing Ivy League students access to it. Unlike Myspace, Zuckerberg had created a social network where individuals were allowed to keep their profiles private and only viewed by friends they accepted, therefore allowing people to share more information when using the website. "Facebook is profoundly, centrally, about people. It is a platform for people to get more out of their lives. It is a new form of communication, just as was instant messaging, email, the telephone, and the telegraph" (pg. 16). There is no doubt that Facebook has become a great new way of connecting with friends, acquaintances, and sometimes even strangers.
Zuckerberg became a CEO of a billion dollar company at the age 20. It's crazy to think how someone my age could invent something so unique and hold all that responsibility, but clearly it can be done. When developing The Facebook, Zuckerberg took ideas from many other social networking websites and combined and used them for Facebook. Zuckerberg was also sued by his fellow classmates for allegedly taking ideas from "Harvard Connection," a project which he worked on for 10 hours, with no contract, and was never paid. (pg. 84). The book goes into detail about several of the lawsuits, and I know the recent film "The Social Network" was loosely based off of them as well. Even though I never saw the movie, from what I've heard and seen from the commercials, it portrays Zuckerberg in a bad light, while the book shows him in more of a positive light. Whatever the case may be, the many ideas that Facebook uses were already out on the internet, he just managed to bring them all together. I honestly do believe that Zuckerberg deserves the credit that he receives for the initiation of Facebook. However, is Facebook the social networking site that he sought out for it to be and a beneficial part to our society? Well, that could be questionable.

Wikipedia Audit Blog Entry

I've used Wikipedia for many years, and I always find it to be a reliable source when I'm in need for quick pieces of information. Whether it be for an academic purpose or pop culture fact, Wikipedia definitely has evolved as the internet encyclopedia of our time. However, after auditing and evaluating my group's Wikipedia article on Decriminalization of Cannabis in the United States, I realized many things regarding the validity of Wikipedia. There were many cited sources that lead to dead links or third party websites, which completely discredited that section of the article. The primary and secondary sources that were cited were valid, but much of the information taken from them was taken out of context. Bias was definitely present in the article, which is expected when talking about such a highly controversial subject such as marijuana. Overall, in all honesty I don't think Wikipedia should be used as a scholarly source, especially not one to be cited for academic purposes. The beneficial aspect of Wikipedia is that it allows users to research an array of topics. Its weaknesses are that many of the information presented on the site can be changed by anyone, some of it is out of context, and in some cases it is contradictory or not accurate at all. Technology has such an immense influence on American culture, which can be a good and bad thing at times. By relying on Wikipedia we are allowing ourselves to take in information that in some cases may not be accurate, or not portray the full aspect of a subject, and be misinformed. However, many people still use Wikipedia, generally because it's quick, easily accessible, and best of all free. This idea of quick and easily accessible has become very prominent in our culture, and most probably why we are so reliant on technology (even if it may harm us). In the end, I learned that Wikipedia should not be the first or only source of where I get my information. However, I will most likely succumb to the easy access of technology and use Wikipedia again, but this time being fully aware that it is most probably not a reliable source. 

Thought this was interesting!

One of my Facebook friends just posted this and it came up in my mini-feed. I thought it was an interesting video, and relevant to our class discussions...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2n8Ma7y4-I

Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America Part II

The next three chapters in Slade's novel I found to be sort of confusing and almost irrelevant. Chapter 4 went into a very detailed chronological order of how new innovations of radio manufacturing and broadcasting were the beginning to the development of product obsolescence in the industry of computer electronics. Then Chapter 5 went on to discuss how the invention of "nylon would soon make Japanese silk obsolete" (pg. 123). This is where i started to lose my focus. I understand that onset of World War II and the use of nylon "symbolized America's creative industrial capability as well as its determination to do without Japanese silk" (pg. 127). However, the detail that Slade went into I felt was a bit overwhelming and unnecessary. I also didn't see the connection of obsolescence between the choice of nylon over silk. Slade goes on to talk about how silk is still used today, but the context of how we think about it is different. Nowadays people think of silk as a luxury item, mostly used for sheets and intimate or expensive clothing. Nylon was less expensive and therefore companies preferred to use it over silk, which doesn't necessarily make silk obsolete, but just less favored in use during mass production. However, I can see in some sense how clothes and certain fabrics become obsolete when fashion trends fade in and out. In Chapter 6, the fifties and sixties were all about planned obsolescence. Companies made good products and induced people to buy them, but then deliberately enhanced these products so the next year they could market them and make the old ones obsolete, solely to make money (pg. 153). It is definitely clear that companies have not lost this mentality with all the new devices that come out every year - iPhone, iPod, Computers, TVs, etc. Obsolescence in this form makes more sense to me than when Slade was talking about the switch from silk to nylon stockings. Companies are driven by the sole desire to make money every year with their new products, where some aren't even that much different than the year before. In these three chapters Slade discussed the development of obsolescence in America through the war, and 50s and 60s, and it certainly shows that the ideas and tactics that were followed in the past are still present in culture today.