Author: msf432

It was interesting to hear McLuhan’s take on the influence of media in 1928. While he couldn’t possibly have commented on today’s definition of media (mainly technology-based), there are rather clear parallels in his writing to media today. One of his points that I found most interesting was his view of media as propagating certain ideals and reinforcing those ideals as ‘intelligence.’ He writes, “Unaware of our typographic cultural bias, our testers assume that uniform and continuous habits are a sign of intelligence” (McLuhan 158). This point brought up two questions in my mind: how are we fed beliefs through media today? and how does media promote the repetition of these beliefs. I mainly thought about this through a political perspective and came to the conclusion that social media outlets reinforce the same ideals on both sides of the political spectrum. Social media, in essence, has taken away the necessity to think intellectual thoughts and formulate our own ideas. Outlets like Twitter and Facebook grant you the ability to simply ‘retweet’ or ‘share’ images or sentiments you agree with, with minimal thought as to what result you relaying this information will have on your audience. Additionally, we are more prone to share information that has already reached a level of recognition where we feel comfortable enough to pass it on: a video that has gone ‘viral,’ or an op-ed that’s by someone of merit. Thus, we are a product of a system that promotes the repetition of the same ideals.

To expand, media promotes sharing these posts that (more often than not) strengthen the divide between two political ends. This results in deviation from social media’s intent of facilitating conversations, and instead obscures the true beliefs of the other side to the nonsensical. Of course there are obvious exceptions where extremists do believe certain things that society declares problematic, but for the most part media propels false labeling of large groups. Further, it’s in the repetition and sharing of these ideals that people feel they are making contributions to society, but the reality is that passing on the same information doesn’t make you an intellectual. Rather, it’s through forming your own opinions in the face of your environment’s influence that true intellect comes through and media does its duty.

Below is the link to the about page for my website. Check it out!

http://imanas.shanghai.nyu.edu/~msf432/commlab/week1/

In Tim Berners-Lee piece, “Long Live the Web” he observes the internet today for what it is– constantly changing and ever powerful. Without question the internet has developed rapidly throughout time, and since the inclusion of the World Wide Web in December of 1990 the possibilities with the internet are breaking barriers, for better or for worse. He analyzes the evolutions of the web that, while unforeseeable, are now a part of our everyday lives. The limitless possibilities with social media, for example, continuously proves just how much we can and are willing to share with each other online. With that being said, the Web has brought about unprecedented, multifaceted, deep issues that go way above the user. The Web has brought about debates over human rights and internet monopolies. It’s allowed companies like google to decide what you see on the Web. It’s allowed governments and companies to access your information, both what’s done publicly and privately. It’s, in recent years, brought into question the importance of net neutrality in regulating internet speeds and costs. All in all, he concludes that it is still an “exciting time” and we have to remember “the goal of the Web is to serve humanity” (Berners-Lee 85).

Ingrid Burrington’s “Where Did the Internet Begin?” recounts her trip to UCLA to see the room that started ARPANET. At first I found it strange that she so meticulously describes the appearance of the room, including the replicated paint color and original furniture, but it didn’t take long for me to understand her intent. It got me thinking about what is worth preserving and memorializing and who decides that. Her article really highlights the disparities between the humble beginnings of the internet, one exact place at one exact time, to the ‘cloud’ that has no exact place to pinpoint through a landmark. She writes, “When we do commemorate, it is in search of a singularity where there may only be a series of convenient confluences, a statement of significance where there may only be a line in a log book.” I think this quote is true on many fronts, not just for her ARPANET vs cloud distinction. Memorialization often goes hand in hand with fabrication, i.e. recreating the spike in Utah, as she mentions. That is, really, the reality of the internet today: no exact place to call central, but a complex network of servers all around the world.

I’ve always found the idea of ‘the future’ to be intriguing. How there is nothing we can certainly say about what the future will be or look like, but can still predict certain things to a pretty high degree. Thus, Forster’s work naturally intrigued me. Many authors and artists throughout history have done their take on the future, almost always including idealistic or dystopian technologies beyond current comprehension. Forster’s work hits home more so than others because of just how much accuracy he has. While we are not, or may think we’re not, reliant on some all-knowing machine, we’re definitely more alike than not alike Forster’s future. It’s commonly known that companies and governments receive intel from our activity on computers and use this knowledge to further their cause in some way. Retail companies can use your browsing history to introduce you to a similar product, for example, or phone companies can recommend accessories because they know you bought a particular phone model. So much of our society today is based around technology and others doing things for us. We hear it all the time but technology is slowly taking more and more away from human interaction and deepening our reliance on devices to do our work for us. I found it interesting how throughout Forster’s writing he frequently prefaced sentences with “of course,” revealing the bizarre realities of his society to be common knowledge. While at first it struck me as odd to continuously have to prove what he says to be obvious, that in and of itself is a truth about technology today: things we’ve become so use to, we almost can’t imagine a world without.