Individuality on Buzznet

Whether it’s a new movie or the latest runway show during fashion week, Buzznet wants to know what the user thinks and less what the critics are saying. Buzznet users take a great deal of pride in being an individual and enjoy having the ability to express themselves freely, and without fear of scrutiny.  The level of importance that individuality has for Buzznet users became very apparent after the site underwent some renovations.  

One change in particular caused a lot of consternation within the Buzznet community; the change was renaming “Friends” and calling them “Followers.”  A user, who goes by the name “Futile Assayer,” illustrates the general consensus of the Buzznet community on the change when he wrote: “What made Buzznet (for me and the people I've talked to) different from most other social networking sites was the emphasis on community and how we all managed to make friends as opposed to gain followers. I apologize if I sound rude but this concept of ‘followers’ is, to put it bluntly, quite pathetic in its attempt to gain a farcical audience. The people I've met on Buzznet are not the sort I could ever categorize in the same idea of ‘followers’ on Twitter etc..”

Buzznet employees responded to this complaint by saying: "We had this same issue when we renamed 'buzzwords' to "tags". There were compelling arguments for each, but ultimately certain terms just become like "industry standard", and you want to use common language that everyone immediately gets."

Should Buzznet return to the term "friends" or stick to the industry standard term of "followers?" Is it more important to stick with a term that is considered industry standard or to use a term that the site's users prefer?

Cyberculture Report Draft

Buzznet: Cyberculture Report 

BuzzNet Badges

While researching BuzzNet for my report I noticed that some profiles had different symbols displayed next to the profile picture. As I delved further into the site I found and article that explained the meaning of these symbols. I learned that they are, what the site calls, Buzz Badges.  There are five different Buzz Badges which indicate varying levels of power within the site.  The first badge is the previously mentioned Buzzmakers badge, which appears on profiles as a green star on profiles.  The Buzzmakers are members who contribute to the site on a  daily basis.  According to the sites description of Buzzmakers, “they comment and actively participate within various Buzznet communities, and their posts and uploads are Buzzed by other users. They create some of the most fantastic stories, galleries, and blogs that the world has ever seen; they are the heartbeat and pulse of this community” (“Buzznet”).  The next is Buzznet Originals badge, which appears as a green heart with the “OG” written in the center.  According to the site, the "Buzznet Originals are featured members chosen by the Buzznet Originals group” (“Buzznet”).  The Buzznet Originals group consists of not only “founding members of the community, but they all are [also] honored with contributing original, unique content to Buzznet" (“Buzznet”). Then there is the Official Artist badge, which appears as a microphone.  The which lets viewers know that the artist, musician or celebrity member is "the real deal, and not a fake" (“Buzznet”).  The Buzznet Staff badge,which appears as a white lightning bolt, is for Buzznet employees.  The Buzzbomb badge, which appears as a megaphone, is "for an elite group of Buzznet users who are collectively devoted to promoting Buzznet and Buzznet music across the web" (“Buzznet”).  All badges may be viewed below.

How do you feel about a public display of hierarchy on sites? Would you prefer a social network site that allows members to infer hierarchy or one like Buzznet that openly displays and promotes hierarchy?

-- Buzzmakers Badge

-- Buzznet Originals Badge

-- Official Artist Badge

    -- Buzznet Staff Badge

    -- Buzzbomb Badge

"Buzznet Badges." Buzznet n. pag. Web. 01 Apr 2011. <http://www.buzznet.com/www/badges/#og>.

"Crowdsourcing Authority in the Classroom"-Davidson

Cathy Davidson teaches the course "This Is Your Brain on the Internet." After teaching for several years, Davidson couldn't "think of a more meaningless, superficial, cynical way to evaluate learning in a class on new modes of digital thinking (including rethinking evaluation) than by assigning a grade." Davidson also notes that "every study of peer review among students shows that students perform at a higher level, and with more care, when they know they are being evaluated by their peers.  In response to this she decided to use a point system that was supplemented by peer review and her own commentary. In other words, she was crowdsourcing grading and as a result, also crowdsourcing authority.

Davidson advocated this peer-to-peer grading system in one of her blog posts, and received an overwhelmingly negative response to her idea. In response to the negative feedback she received, Davidson writes: "I think it is because grading... exemplifies our deepest convictions about excellence and authority... If we 'crowdsource' grading we are suggesting that those without authority can also determine excellence." This type of crowdsourcing, however, is exactly what happens in the "non-refereed world" of the internet.

As users and possible promotors of the "non-refereed" nature of the internet, why would bloggers be so upset about Davidson's grading methods? What does this tell us about the way people are handling the changes in communication and hierarchical structure that the internet has brought?

BuzzNet- How to get your posts featured

For my cybersubculture report I chose to focus on BuzzNet. BuzzNet is a social network site that  describes itself as “a community of pop culture addicts, music lovers, and trendsetters who come together to share content around topics they are passionate about, particularly music and music fashion” (“About,” 2010). In my research I stumbled across a page, created by the BuzzNet team, that told users "How to Get Featured on BuzzNet."

The team lists things such as creating a catchy title, making an interesting layout, and content that is timely. original, and funny. If your post is selected for feature the team adds that, "the Buzznet Editorial team may punch up a title that will help more people see your incredible post, and we might capitalize something or add in a period here and there." While basic editing is reasonable and understandable this statement left me  wondering to what extent my post would be changed. I also don't believe that I would be okay with someone else editing and publishing their edited version of my work without my knowledge or consent.

As a social network site that is founded on the idea of being able to express your individual voice do you think it is acceptable for site moderators to modify users work without their consent? If so, do you believe that computers and the lack of face to face communication they bring enable these boundaries to be crossed?

eXistenZ

In the film "eXistenZ," Allegra Geller has created the ultimate video game. Her game "eXistenZ" blurs the line between reality and virtual reality.  After playing the game characters are no longer able to distinguish between what is and isn't real.  Ted describes his experience in the game as having an element of "psychosis."

In order to play "eXistenZ," players must have a bio-port. Bio-ports are fitted directly into the spinal column and allow users to hook directly in to the meta-flesh game pods. One thing that I found to be particularly interesting was that the game pods were grown from amphibian DNA. At one point in the movie we see a pod having surgery and the inside of it looks like an actual animal or living organism. The pods bleed and are also able to get infections from spores, which add to their life-like nature.

The pods, I believe, are just a small example of how the movie blurs the line between reality and virtual reality. To make the pods they are actually taking the "real life" of some amphibian and using that to create a portal into virtual life. Do you think killing a living thing (animal or human) in the name of technology or virtual reality is acceptable?



Also, check out this eXistenZ meta-flesh pod iPhone charger-- weird!

"The New Digital Divide"

In Marica Stepanek's article, "The New Digital Divide," she tackles the idea that the internet is limiting the exchange of information and ideas. When the internet first began many innovators "predicted it would spawn a more open and democratic society" (Stepanek). According to Stepanek, however, this idea is being "strongly challenged."(Stepanek)

On of the main causes for this challenge is due to the fact that many sites are using "sophisticated filters to decide what information we consume online"(Stepanek). Stepanek argues that the filters are "threatening to hamper civic engagement" and that they also "keep us from being exposed to a surge of new information and ideas--and chiefly, viewpoints that may differ from our own" (Stepanek).  The type of filtering Stepanek speaks of isn't new, however it is very different from the types of filters used in the past.  The new filter bubbles are invisible, have a higher degree of personalization, and they choose you.

At the end of her article Stepanek asks her readers: "Does the surge of online social networks and corporate use of net filters to segment consumers of their products make it harder for people to engage with one another-- in or out of the workplace?" (Stepanek).
One reader's response I found to be very interesting: "What I like about Twitter is that it lets me choose my own news sources. It isn't trying to second guess me (yet). Of course I mostly choose to follow people with whom I feel and affinity. (Well, I'm human, right?) But there is nothing to prevent me from seeing, or following, people with entirely different view points." (Stepanek)

This response reinforces the point I was mentioning in class. We are human and as humans we naturally search for the path of least resistance (most of the time). By associating and communicating with those who have similar views and backgrounds we are able to make several shortcuts. One, we are able to make sociological predictions that allow us to both reduce uncertainty in our communication and communicate more efficiently. Two, people actively attempt to eliminate cognitive dissonance, because it creates a complex combination of mental anguish, negative affect and physiological arousal. Through selective exposure we actively choose to expose ourselves only to information that is supportive of our current beliefs, rather than non supportive information (which, presumably, could arouse dissonance). This allows our beliefs to remain intact and dissonance to be kept at a minimum.

Is the problem filters, or is human nature to blame?
If filters are the problem: How can we eliminate the issues they're causing?
If human nature is to blame: Do you think people will get to a point where we learn to accept dissonance and branch outside of our own beliefs?