Fighting for Ferndale: A Plan to Improve Communication

Abstract:  This blogpost will identify ways in which to help the City of Ferndale create a more accessible way for its citizens to connect with one another and their city officials, using Web 2.0.  This final communications plan has to be affordable and operate within boundaries of Ferndale’s tight, city budget. 

With the help of Web 2.0, there is a strong possibility that Ferndale will soon be able to communicate in a more affective way with its citizens.  The freedom and unlimited space that Web 2.0 allows, will leave plenty of space for Ferndale’s city council to relay a constant stream of information to its citizens and for its citizens to let council members know what they are and are not concerned about in the community. 

When thinking about how to improve Ferndale’s communication system, the first thing that needs to be done is to find out how other cities and communities have managed to do this very same task in the past.  Looking over their communications plans and looking at how they have incorporated Web 2.0 within these plans, will provide a much better understanding of how to develop the communications plan for the city of Ferndale.  For instance, paying attention to the average citizen’s response time to shared information, calculating the frequency of their visits to that particular city’s website and analyzing a citizen’s thoughts and opinions on social issues are all ways in which to begin developing a successful model for Ferndale. 

It is also imperative that research goes into finding out what the City of Ferndale has already done in order to connect with their citizens.  When going to Ferndale’s official city page today, one will see that they have no links or “page badges” to any social media sites.  Also, the meeting minutes from past city council meetings, award recognitions, news articles and press clippings are all in .pdf files.  Already, one can tell that Ferndale’s council members need to discuss the content that is on their website.  It is not just about what is on the website, but where the information is placed.  The information needs to be in a place where users can know about what is going on in the community without having to “search, search, search” for it.  Because Web 2.0 has created a lifestyle that is very fast-paced, citizens want their information quickly and want it to be visibly available.  If this cannot be done in one website, then the use of social media should be introduced. 

         Staying with the topic of social media, if Ferndale does invest time in maintaining social media sites for the city, then it would be very beneficial to find out who is in control of handling these social networks.  Knowing just who this person is proves very crucial because distinguishing what kinds of information is and is not permitted to share and post is all part of the development process. 

         Another step would be to contact Ferndale City Councilwoman, Monica Piana.  Since she has direct access to the other council members, Monica would provide specific and detailed input about what an ideal, improved, communications plan would look like.  She would also be able to speak about the disadvantages of Ferndale’s current communications system. 

         After much deliberation, the best strategy, in which to complete the task of improving Ferndale’s community network, would be to consolidate all of Ferndale’s messages, alerts and announcements into one place.  Desirably, the information would appear on Ferndale’s main website and then provide “badges” that would allow its citizens to interact with the city through social media sites.  Some social media sites that come to mind are Facebook and Twitter because mostly everyone interacts on at least one of them already. 

         Web 2.0 is not only needed to build the bridge between Ferndale’s council members and its citizens, it is also helping this project to progress to the next level.  For instance, it is allowing a space for group members to come together and discuss anything they have found having to do with the improvement of Ferndale’s communications plan.  There are many ways in which to do this without using Web 2.0, but at times, group members are not able to be in the same place at the same time.  As a result, they rely heavily on technology such as, “Google Documents,” to help them interact with each other.  Web 2.0 also provides a space where collective intelligence does not always have to be experienced physically, but can be digital as well. 

         In conclusion, the use of Web 2.0 is a great way in which to unite the City of Ferndale and this is because almost everyone participates in these acts of “posting” and “sharing.”  Interestingly, when researching what had already been done to promote the City of Ferndale, Facebook has many pages and profiles that were created by users about the city of Ferndale.  The content of these pages and profiles mainly focused on the types of activities that go on in the city, such as popular events, nightlife, seasonal traditions, etc…In other words, individuals have already began exposing other social network users to the excitement and entertaining events Ferndale has to offer. This shows that Ferndale’s citizens are really proud of their city and want to share their experiences with others.  All that is left to do now is to get Ferndale’s city council members on board.  

http://www.ferndale-mi.com/ 

You're in my Space...Out, Please!

Abstract: This blogpost will discuss the how today’s interaction between the private sphere and the market sphere is increasing concern among society’s individuals as they begin realizing how living in a “consumer culture” can be as dangerous as it is progressive.

In the past, the boundary between the private and market spheres was clear:  individuals were once able to live in a world without branding. They could control what and how much they were exposed to.  Today, newer technology, such as the television, has caused the boundary between the market sphere and the private sphere to fade, creating more of a “consumer culture”—one in which individuals are allowing the market sphere to “brand” them, by influencing certain aspects of their lives, based on their interests and dislikes.  These sudden changes have allowed society to progress economically, but threaten the personal identities of individuals living in the private sphere.   

First of all, the private sphere is greatly affected by the intentions of market sphere.  Specifically, the market sphere is all about the buying and selling of goods and services, but today, what is not mentioned is that producers are not only extracting monetary material from consumers, but personal information as well.  Individuals will often wonder, “how did [that company] get my email address?” or “how did they know my phone number?” The market sphere wants to make individuals in the private sphere think that it has been performing like it always has, but the market sphere makes it’s money by using personal information to figure out what customers really want.  The fact that it is so stealthy about it is why the “new and improved” market sphere poses a threat to the private sphere.   

The market sphere also utilizes Web 2.0 to obtain private information; showing that it’s influence is not limited to only physical interactions with individuals.  For example, when discussing Google’s influence in society, Daniel Soar states, “Google knows or has sought to know, and may increasingly seek to know, your credit card numbers, your purchasing history, your date of birth, your medical history, your reading habits, your taste in music…or whatever you idly speculate about at 3:45 on a Wednesday afternoon” (Soar, 2011).  This is a scary thought.  Yes, users reveal pieces of their personal lives online, but the difference between what users solicit about themselves and what Google solicits about users is that users know and are aware of what they reveal about themselves, whereas Google automatically collects all of the user’s information—how they search, what they search for, the time the search happened, where the search happened—and has the potential and the tools to reveal everything else about that user, for the sake of their market advertising.  Google does not do things like this yet, but knowing that it has the option to do so, worries people. 

The same goes for social networking sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn.  Users on the web feel violated when these sites sell their personal information to advertising companies because they are uncertain about what types of things online communities and businesses around the world, know about them. While it might feel as though their lives are private and that they get to choose what they reveal about themselves online, their lives are actually very public and are exposed to big, profit-making businesses and it is all thanks to the movement of the market sphere into the private sphere.  This is the reason why there needs to be some sort of understanding between what the private sphere expects from the market sphere and what the market sphere expects from the private sphere—the boundary between the two is slowly fading away. 

In addition to taking and using a user’s personal information for profit-gain, the market sphere also expects the private sphere to accept its possible, future role as a market commodity.  This has not happened yet, but Daniel Soar alludes to a quote by Siva Vaidhyanathan, a writer who seems to think that the objectification of the private sphere has already occurred:  “‘We are not Google’s customers.  We are its product. We – our fancies, fetishes, predilections and preferences – are what Google sells to advertisers.”  Daniel Soar then goes on to say that Google has not gone so far as to confirm Vaidhyanathan’s accusations, but the possibility of this happening is what frightens individuals in the private sphere.  Since most of Web 2.0 is already extracting personal information from users, what is to stop Google from doing the same thing?

The implication is that soon, a user’s identity will be sold into the market sphere in ways that will be out of his or her control.  Sure, in order for databases, such as Google and Bing, to make “searching the web” more efficient, it needs to know a little bit about users in order to produce exactly what they are looking for.  However, because Google and Bing are constantly developing new methods of efficiency and improving their features to enhance the user’s experience, knowing “a little bit” about users could very well shift towards knowing “everything” about users.

Fortunately, society’s private sphere seems to be turning its fears of the “future Google” into efforts towards pulling away from the market sphere.  In the past, interactions between people were based on the market sphere’s ability to create products that brought people together, allowing them to discover common likes and dislikes about one another. Now, since we know about one another, the market sphere wants to know more about individuals on a more personal level, so that it can promote new products. The attempts by the market sphere to improve the state consumer culture has greatly affected the individual’s constitutional right to privacy.  As a result, consumers are opening their eyes to the concept of “branding,” what it means and how the market sphere has used it to infiltrate the private sphere. 

In conclusion, the market sphere has proved to be more dominant than the private sphere and this evidence lies in how individuals have been covertly exploited through the development of a consumer culture.  This issue is demonstrated when Holt says that the, “consumption code [is] the system of cultural meanings that the market inscribes in commodities…Marketing is a form of distorted communication in that marketers control the information that is exchanged. Marketers organize the code, and we, as consumers have no choice but to participate” (Holt, 72).  Thankfully, society is now pushing towards a culture that is not market-dominated at all, but focuses on consumer resistance.  Individuals want to re-define the boundaries between the market and private spheres because there is an imbalance between the territories in which they occupy, but most importantly, the private sphere wants to reclaim both its privacy and peace of mind.  

Holt, Douglas B. “Why do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding.” Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 29, No. 1 (June 2002), pp. 70-90.  The University of Chicago Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/339922 (accessed on October 26, 2011). 

Soar, Daniel.  “It Knows.”  The London Review of Books. Vol. 33, No. 19 (October 6, 2011), pp. 3-6. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n19/daniel-soar/it-knows (accessed on November 4, 2011). 

I’m Looking At You, Looking At Me

 Abstract: This blogpost will challenge arguments made by Christian Fuchs, about how the state sphere uses surveillance to exercise complete control over the private sphere, threatening the development of a liberated Web 2.0, in contemporary American society. 

         Christian Fuchs claims that the state sphere is finding more ways in which to invade the privacy of its citizens within society’s private sphere.  However, the development of Web 2.0 has allowed for the private sphere to infringe on the state sphere’s privacy as well, showing that Fuchs’s argument is one-sided and provincial. 

         According to Fuchs, the idea of surveillance carries with it negative connotations.  He states, “surveillance [is] a form of systematic information gathering that is connected to domination, coercion, the threat of using violence or the actual use of violence in order to attain certain goals and accumulate power, in many cases against the will of those who are under surveillance” (Fuchs, 135).  This meaning is troubling because in contemporary American society, surveillance is not used to coerce or to dominate, but to simply monitor society, making sure that everyone abides by the rules and regulations.  For example, in many cities cameras have been placed next to traffic lights and in intersections to ensure that the system of transportation is running smoothly.  Should someone choose to neglect the basic traffic laws and run a red light, their picture will be taken, along with their license plate number and they will be required to face the consequences.  If no actions are taken against people who run red lights, then it becomes “ok” to run them all the time.  As a result, everyone on the road would be put in danger. 

         Another example are how video cameras are placed in places of business, like in grocery stores, banks, restaurants, non-profit organizations, etc.  The right to privacy is granted to everyone, but how would the state sphere look if they did not catch employees stealing from registers or failed to notice when caseworkers are sexually abusing their clients? Humanity is not a terrible race and society does not consist of only bad people, but individuals do use means of manipulation to get what they want out of life, having no regard for other people.  The state sphere uses surveillance merely to make sure citizens continue to make good choices. At the end of the day, the common good of society is preserved. 

         Fuchs also discusses how the surveillance allows the state sphere to interfere with Web 2.0.  One of his concerns focuses on the lack of knowledge individuals have with the concept of Internet commercialization.  He claims that social networking sites, such as Facebook, refuse to pay for the creativity among users, reduce democratic rights, coerce advertising, manipulate our needs through market concentration and purposefully increase the complexity of the terms of use and privacy policies (Fuchs, 142).  These accusations against the state are not fair.  Specifically, when individuals log onto a social networking site, they should already be aware of the fact that they are choosing to relinquish a piece of their privacy.  Normally, it is uncommon for individuals to create online profiles for the purpose of getting to know themselves.  The intention is to share certain aspects of their private (now public) lives with others, creating an open network with everyone, including the government.  The government is not just this THING that collects taxes and makes rules.  It is made up of individuals who exist in the private sphere as well. 

         Fuchs also talks a lot about how state sphere surveillance increases the complexity of the terms of use and privacy policies.  What is interesting is that when Internet users click the “Agree” button on Privacy Policies, nine times out of ten they have not read the privacy policy and this is their choice.  If individuals are that concerned by their privacy then they should take the time to read the policy and conditions. 

         In addition, individuals oftentimes only consider their privacy violated when money is involved.  Never mind about how the phenomenon of cyber-bullying has almost completely taken over social networking sites, or that users pick and choose what tragedies to pay attention to in third world countries.  When it comes to money, individuals choose to neglect the issues circulating in their own social networks to complain about this so-called “governmental interference.” 

         In an article written by Bin and Goertzel, the idea of sousveillance is introduced and takes on the opposite meaning of surveillance.  It allows “everyone to see everyone else.” So how come the government cannot monitor society if individuals feel as though they have the same right to infringe on the privacy of the state sphere? In the case of sousveillance, citizens in the private sphere are doing the same thing that state officials are doing in all the spheres and that is “watching” to make sure everyone stays within his or her boundary in society. 

         In closing, Fuchs argument about the balance of power being uneven between the state and private spheres is lacking other perspectives.  Where he claims that the state sphere has the most influence over surveillance, the private sphere actually has the same amount of influence and the ability to monitor the state sphere.  This is why Web 2.0 is so great; it can balance out the power between the two spheres.   Eventually, surveillance techniques from the state sphere and sousveillance techniques from the private sphere will create a world in which nothing is private.  Everything, information, personal thoughts, news articles and even obituaries, will exist in the public realm of society for everyone to see. 

Brin, David, and Ben Goertzel. "David Brin on the Path to Positive Sousveillance." Humanity+. 23 May 2011. Web. 21 Oct. 2011. <http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/05/23/david-brin-on-the-path-to-positive-sousveillance/>.

Fuchs, Christian. "New Media, Web 2.0 and Surveillance." Sociology Compass (2011): 134-47. Print.

Paid in Full

            Individual action, dedication and compassion are needed in everyday life to help maintain stability in society, but at the end of the day, what can be done to stabilize an individual’s personal life?  Privacy is a special aspect of society and culture that truly indentifies what is personal and is something that is internal and specific to the person who wants it.  According to an online article by Zizi Papacharissi, privacy is the human right “to be left alone.”

            The private sphere talks about privacy in a way that is relative to the structure of society.  It is one of the four spheres needed to make society function and without it the state, market and public spheres can not carry out their proper duties.  The privacy of individuals is needed so that the other spheres have a place to influence and infiltrate in order to make their spheres seem stronger and/or more superior.   Specifically, the state sphere is strong because it affects how individuals in the private sphere live their lives: either as part of the state or in a separate but civil manner, from the state.  

This contrast between what privacy means to different social groups is seen centuries ago, during the time of the ancient Romans.  Privacy was more of a stratified system between social classes.  Those who could afford privacy purchased it without a problem.  These individuals were wealthier and higher up in hierarchy than most citizens.  With their access to privacy, they had the ability to separate their social and personal lives.  They were able to go to work each day outside of their homes and converse with the outside world away from their personal space.  This ability to come in and out of the different spheres of life, leaving their personal lives in the private sphere, defined what advantages came from living a wealthier lifestyle.  However, to the other citizens, who were mostly poor and worked for the individuals in the upper class, privacy was too expensive of a commodity to obtain.   

According to Mats G. Hansson, the public, state and market spheres all interfered with lives of individuals in the private sphere, because social, work and personal life were constantly being combined.  Businesses were being run out of people’s homes, causing an invasion of family life and personal space by the public.  Back then, if individuals or families were not constantly interacting with citizens in the public and market spheres, then they did not get paid.  Part of maintaining a family-owned business was finding ways in which to integrate the wants and needs of society with one’s own goals. 

Fast forward to 2011, this idea of “privacy as a commodity” is a little less common.  The private sphere is now so easily accessible to everyone because of the development of new technologies, such as Web 2.0, all around the world.  Now, something that was once available to only the upper class can now be shared by society as a whole.  For instance, now the state sphere and private sphere can act alone.  Yes, individuals still have to follow rules and regulations, but they can do so from a distance. Nowadays, the key to operating within the private sphere is knowing what and what not to share with others.  Social groups now have more control of their private lives and are able to control what they expose to society. Thankfully, the Internet is not a socially stratified environment and individuals are able to regulate what people know about them and what information they want others to know, regardless of social class.  For instance, social media sites like Facebook and MySpace are perfect examples of this.  A person who follows someone or becomes someone’s “friend” is only exposed to the information of the individual that they are following or “friending.”  In the past, this would not have been possible because privacy was not available to everyone. 

Web 2.0 not only allows the private sphere to be independent of the state, market and public spheres, but individuals can now watch these spheres more closely without interfering with these spheres’ daily routines.  The improvement of the Internet has made public records, communication, news and entertainment media available to all citizens in society.  Citizens of lower social statuses know just as much about what is happening in society, as do citizens in the upper classes.

On a more social level, Web 2.0 has greatly influenced how individuals interact with each other.  As mentioned before, the Internet knows no social class and brings everyone in the private sphere together.  One would think that they are now part of the public sphere because everyone shares and interacts with one another, but they are still in the private sphere because the things that they want to share about themselves are being controlled and managed. 

To define privacy as the “right to be left alone,” is a bit limiting because of the transformation of privacy over time.   In the past, those who were not provided with the same benefits of the private sphere as were others, longed for their own personal space and their right to separate private life from social and business life.  However, with the developments and technological advancements of Web 2.O, the private sphere has taken on a whole new position in society.  The modern definition of privacy has become: the right to control what the world knows and thinks about an individual.   Privacy is no longer something to be wished for, because everyone has it.  Now the issue becomes how to maintain and regulate it against social, political and public pressures. 

Hansson, Mats G. "The Private Sphere from a Historical and Cultural Perspective." The Private Sphere: An Emotional Territory and Its Agent. Springer. 1-19. Print.

Papacharissi, Zizi. "Privacy as a Luxury Commodity." First Monday 15.8 (2010). First Monday. 2 Aug. 2010. Web. 6 Oct. 2011. <http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3075/2581>.

It Doesn't Love You Back

In 2010, I traveled to Spain during my first semester sophomore year.  Since sixth grade it had been my dream to study abroad and I had finally gathered enough courage to pursue the opportunity.  While in Spain, not only was I able to immerse myself in the culture, language and traditions of its people, I was able to use the many rhythms and beats of Spain to understand a very diverse music style.  Yes, everyone was a Spaniard, but many stories about Spain’s past and present came to life through its music and helped me to comprehend the various ethnicities that made up this region.  At times it was difficult to keep track of each group’s unique music style because the population was so multicultural, yet I knew my problem would soon be fixed because of my IPod Touch. 

With my IPod Touch came many advantages.  Specifically, I could enjoy the authenticity of Spain, knowing that the music I was downloading consisted of referrals and suggestions from my Spanish friends.  Also, their recommendations helped me learn more about the language in a new, creative context, one apart from a classroom setting. 

Although the IPod Touch benefitted me globally and ensured my access into Spanish culture, my use of it would be considered provincial because at the time, I only used it to play music.  In fact, the IPod Touch can be used in more ways than one because it is both creatively and professionally beneficial. Personally, I use mine for creative purposes.  I do not necessarily like touch-screen devices, but their functionalities are amazing and I find it extremely helpful to have all of my music in one, single device.  Before IPod’s came about, I had a bunch of CD’s that I always listened to.  I would just carry around both my walk man and CD holder whenever I went somewhere.  However, when the IPod came out I was elated because I no longer had to carry around CD’s with me and could have every genre, every artist, and every song in one little music box.  Also, I am someone who loves every song she hears on the radio, so instead of having to wait hours to hear the song again, I was able to buy the song for $0.99 and it would be mine to listen to whenever I wanted. 

The invention of the IPod has had a huge impact on today’s society because now, not only does the IPod exist, but recent innovations have also allowed access to cheaper versions that are just as functional.  For example, other types of MP3 players serve the exact same purpose, yet are more affordable and allow for music to be purchased in different places, apart from the iTunes Music Store. 

This handy little information box has also made life easier in both the educational and professional world.  Applications, or “apps” such as Bing and The Weather Channel, have made getting through our work and school days easier.  In class, students are on social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook, while in the workplace, employees are combining their personal workload with their professional ones. Now, bills can be paid online and doctors appointments can be made through a website.  It does not matter who you are or where you have to be, “there’s an app for that.” 

In addition, more and more colleges and universities are utilizing the technology of “podcasts” for their lectures.  Basically, if a student misses a class, or someone just decides to take an interest in a certain field of study, such as astronomy or chemistry, professors are now allowing for their lectures and seminars to be downloaded as “podcasts” from the Itunes Music Store.  This allows college students and other curious individuals to listen to these lectures or seminars on the go.  This feature is beneficial because it delivers a useful task in a way that works for everyone. 

However, this device also has the capability of hurting society in the same way that it helps it, because it carries the same system barriers as any other piece of technology does, making the benefits temporary.  The IPod Touch, allows us to go above and beyond for a little while, but it is unreliable because it can stop working at any second. By then, individuals have already become impaired by it.  For instance, the IPod Touch is always being updated and improved.  This is good, except for the fact that people are constantly finding that their “old” IPods have no way of accessing all of the new features and technology like the new versions can.  If someone decides that they want to experience these new installments, they then have to buy a brand-new device, which can be costly.  I love that I am able to utilize the features and applications on my IPod Touch to do things instantly and efficiently, but at the same time, society continues to invest millions and millions of dollars into an industry that constantly needs to be updated and tweaked every couple of months. 

Technology has indeed shaped the way our world is today.  Not only have IPods given society the opportunity to compile and collect their favorite music, but its other useful features have also provided the option of staying informed and connected as often as possible. This piece of technology has truly become the cure for ignorance and the “not-knowing” because it always keeps our society “in the know.” But at times, I wonder what we would do without it.  The constant dependence on the IPod Touch is reducing the capability and strength of individuals to complete simple tasks; tasks that were once done by the individuals themselves.