"I read on the newspaper that sending text messages causes a radiation that is cancerous."

So far this semester, we have discussed what makes technology addicting, what we are addicted to, and how technology has altered our way of living. What started with a computer has ended with a TouchScreen E-Book. Once a person had to send a telegram, not they send a text message. Technology has quickly changed our preferred means of communication. The interesting part is what people do prefer when given an option. Simply: Phone Call or Text Message.

According to Aaron Smith of the Pew Institute, 31% of Americans prefer text messaging compared to a voice call. This means that, out of 100 people, 31 will more likely respond via text message over a phone call. Our dominant form of communication is beginning to change, and people are choosing the least personal means of communication.

What’s more, the majority of those who prefer text messaging are in the age group 18-24. These users send, on average, “109.5 messages on a normal day – more than 3,200 texts per month” (Gahran, 2011). For example, so far this morning, I have sent and/or received 15 text messages, meaning I do not fit the stereotype of a normal 18-24 text message user. However, when I consult a peer, their text number is in the 50s at 12:00pm. This person could very well-likely send another 59.5 messages in one day.

Is anyone truly surprised by these numbers? Well, of all the different types of social media, is text messaging not one of the safer options? Consider the following by Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, and Smallwood:

“Instant messaging and text messaging are both forms of technology-mediated communication that provide a way for individuals to communicate with one another and to create and reinforce social ties and friendships. Text messaging, however, is different from IM and many other forms of CMC because it is not anonymous. Because text messaging is usually facilitated through mobile phone technology, it is difficult to obtain a telephone number from an individual without at least having met the person or knowing their first name” (2006).

Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, and Smallwood are pointing out that text messaging is so widely accepted because it does have some degree of restraint. I do not post my number everywhere for the whole world (it’s in my email signature, but if I email you, I know you right). Unlike mediums that are online, text messaging is a safe alternative to F2F communication (although less rich). Users are simply choosing a different form of communication; the winner, text messaging.

My title, as it reads, introduces a joke. “I read on the newspaper that sending text messages causes a radiation that is cancerous.” That part is pretty basic. The author is making a joke at the expense of an aged form of communication. Now, the end: “That's why I have decided to stop - to stop reading newspapers.” Ultimately, the author has shown how we, as a thriving technological society, would prefer the dangerous, new-age over the safe, old-age. Although text messaging isn’t always dangerous, there’s got to be a reason for the new ban while driving. Connection—who knows?

Bryant, J. A., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Smallwood, A. M. K. (2006). IMing, text messaging, and adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), article 10. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/bryant.html

Gahran, A. (2011, September 22). One-third of Americans prefer texts to voice calls. CNNTech. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com

Smith, A. (2011, September 19). Americans and text messaging. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org

That "Ubiquitous Red Envelope" Endures

This morning, a Monday similar to any other Monday, I was sitting in my Methods of Teaching course, when one of my classmates stopped in the middle of everything to make a semi-serious announcement. “Did you get that email from the Netflix guy?” The conversation then proceeded to talk about the change in prices from $9.99 for unlimited everything to $15.98 for the same services. Apparently, for those users of Netflix, this event is a travesty. How could the company make this swap?

What students were not discussing was the economic standpoint for Netflix to make such as switch. Instead, it was all about how this devastates the students who are no longer going to use the company. It’s true that some users quit the service immediately and called the switch ridiculous. Netflix increased their price by 50% for the exact same service. Why not quit? Users of Netflix are also upset about the loss of Starz in February. Obviously, Netflix does not want people to be satisfied with their service any longer.

Is that the case? According to Milian (2011, September 19), Netflix is changing the name of their movie shipping service to Qwikster, although the “ubiquitous red envelopes will endure.” Additionally, the company will now ship video games in a similar format.

In our age of technology, everything is about the user and the dollar. Many times, these two factors do not coincide. In this particular case, Netflix is not upset about losing Starz, but those who watched movies through the service are enraged. Milian (2011) notes that stock for Netflix “plunges as subscribers quit,” making the whole issue very two-sided.

Now we ask the main question: Why should I care? I, personally, have never used Netflix. There is something about owning a DVD in hand that makes me happy (which is hypocritical as I just bought a KINDL). In short, this type of company alteration greatly affects the way a person views their current service.

As I have been saying these past five weeks, users of technology expect it. Many have become so used to Netflix; it becomes hard to go back to normal. Not saying that it is impossible, but it is not the ideal scenario, so many rebel against it (as we see with the quitting subscribers). Technology is a vital piece of our society, but at what point do we say enough? When is an addiction to technology classified as such? I am not insinuating that those users of Netflix are addicted, but to quit a service because of a company decision shows an inability to accept change. In a thriving technology society, change is as vital as the computer we type it on. That’s just how it is.

Milian, M. (2011, September 19). Netflix renames DVD-by-mail service, adds video games. CNNMoney. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com

Consider Yourself Hacked!

“The most powerless I felt was when I was watching people jump to their death on TV and there was nothing I could do about it,” said George W. Bush, reflecting on the devastating attacks which took place in our country 10 years ago. September 11, 2011, reverberates through the hearts of Americans all over. The nation stood united on the 10-year anniversary just as they did after the deadly attack took place.

Of course, we have evolved as a country. Even with such tragedy, life must go on, and we have developed since. This is especially true in the world of technology. Take a look at Facebook or Twitter, both appearing post 9/11. How has the breadth of technology changed the way we communicate, especially in a time of crisis? Cell phones were an intricate part of the 9/11 tragedy; had we had Twitter, what could have been posted? “I’m in a high-jacked plane #pleasesendhelp.”

However, during the 10-year anniversary, Twitter did make an appearance, and not one that many are exceedingly pleased with. A group called The Script Kiddies hacked NBC’s Twitter page and sent scare messages about a suspected attack on the Ground Zero site. Of course, this ignited panic, until NBC was able to shut down their page and calm any fears that arose.

This singular incident demonstrates how quickly social and new media can spread. Of course, this moment ended up being nothing and was quickly resolved, but what does that say for our society. (View the comments on the article from CNN to see how others responded.) Especially when something is negative or frightening, people will eat up the information because, if it comes from Twitter, it must be true.

I am not trying to beat any dead horses here on the dangers of social media or the over-use of new technologies, but when someone can spark panic in such a manner (through use of a sensitive issue), there is a severe problem on our hands. New new media has the ability to help us do so many great things, but it also has the potential--through hacking and hackers--to put us in danger.

Cyber bullying and sexual predators aside, new media connects people all over the world. If someone decided that their facebook status should read “Gonna blow up the castle,” there may be trouble. This status may refer to the Mario Brothers game (Bowser’s Castle), but to someone unaware, they may find it an attack on Buckingham Palace. Instant SWAT teams, FBI, and CIA investigations. Just because we have these technologies at our fingertips does not mean we should do the first thing that comes to our head. To quote Aunt May, “With great power (CPU), comes great responsibility.”

Ossad, J. (2011, September 9). Hacked NBC Twitter feed falsely reports NYC attack. CNNTech. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com

Conveneint or Convenient...Which is it?

At what point is a singular company too large? Too powerful? Too invincible from outside harm? At what point should we—the people—express concern for a company that can do anything? Does such a point exist? Well, technically, but who is to say that a company deserves such scrutiny.

In his CNN article, Matt Rosoff discusses a concept similar to this, except with a major added twist. Instead of the people deciding a company can do too much, the competitors are laying down the law. For instance, Bill Gates with Microsoft was attacked in 1998 for being too powerful of a company. Gates, of course, didn’t understand why people were attacking the company he worked so hard to create. After all, Microsoft was the winner “by being smarter and working harder” than the competition (Rosoff, 2011).

Flash forward: Google is like the new Microsoft. One man, Larry Page, can control every aspect of Google, deciding what to invest in, what to pull away from, and how many engineers to hire (he would like a million). The problem lies with the eminent power Page now holds. Google is a singular company that can offer hundreds of services. When Google acquired a company that offered a similar service to their own, they were required (by law) to sell it.

Ultimately, this all comes down to a supply and demand type of power structure. When we—the people—demand millions of services, a company will step up to provide them, at any cost. Google has developed into that company, understanding exactly what people want and what people don’t want in their Web 2.0 environment. On Google, one can blog (as I am right now), search and navigate maps, photos, scholarly journals, stream music, etc. The list is endless.

Does a solution exist? Not exactly. We have turned into a society where the quickest and most convenient method of delivery wins all. It no longer matters who has the best technology or who can create the best online environment. Now, it’s all about time and money. And really, that isn’t far from the truth. The following article provides a list of tech tips, all dedicated to making technology that much easier. Is that our new goal? Should technology be easy? My opinion, easy technology creates a lazy user. If I have a computer that can do everything for me, what will I learn? For instance, I spelled convenient incorrectly above (conveneint), but the word was corrected due to my spell check. I will not learn how to correctly spell the word because the computer does it for me.

While most laugh at technology making me lazy, others will understand the magnitude of such a claim. Does this stem from one company offering every program needed? Probably not, but the fact cannot help either. Google has become a beacon of technological advancement. Web 2.0 is Google’s domain (in more way than one). And while technology has become as essential aspect of all our lives, we need to learn to let go. I think, in a way, we all need to go back and learn how to spell conveneint [sic] the right way, or we never will.

Rosoff, M. (2011, September 1). The new Bill Gates: Google’s Larry Page. Business Insider. Retrieved from www.cnn.com.