Last Assignment: Where to Put it

After finishing the third major assignment, a huge weight was lifted off of my shoulders. In addition, I was faced with a new issue. Where could I put this production so it could reach my intended primary audience of Millennials and my secondary audience of employers? With various social networking sites and blogging readily available, I have a lot of options. I chose to post my production on Facebook as well as Twitter, to share with my friends and followers who are mostly Millennials. As for getting to the employers, I decided to post it on YouTube so it can get to more of a general audience.

Both Facebook and Twitter as well as YouTube are considered Web 2.0 locales as Danah Boyd points out in her writing on Web 2.0 and how the spread of content and information is being altered due to Web 2.0 emergences. Web 2.0 has unique characteristics, including the interaction aspect and the concept of networking versus the broadcasting of information. Social media like Facebook and Twitter are prime examples of this.

The only real difference in the two types of websites is that Facebook and Twitter are more networking sites since only my friends and followers can see my posts. The majority of these people will see my posted video whether they like it or not.  YouTube on the other hand, makes videos viewable to everyone in the world who has access to the Internet. They only thing is that people have to consciously search for it.

As Henry Jenkins says in his “Why Participatory Culture is Not Web 2.0,” this concept known as Web 2.0 exists to “capture and harness the creative energies and collective intelligences of their users.” He describes Web 2.0 as a business model instead of a theory of pedagogy, or the study of the methods and practice of teaching.

Although I am mainly informing the audience about my exigency of what separates Millennials from other generations and why it may affect the future workplace atmosphere, there are no limits to the digital production I created. After posting it on Facebook and Twitter, I literally cannot control where it goes or who sees it from there. They may share it with friends via the “share” button on Facebook, or “re-tweet” it to their followers. By allowing and initiating this great spread of information, my audience will view it at the very least. They may go on to respond or create their own exigency as well. The options are essentially endless once it goes viral.

According to a post on Navarrow Wright, “TechCrunch recently reported that Facebook accounts for 38% of sharing information online." Facebook developer Isaac Sailer-Hellendag writes about the share option on his Facebook Developer blog.  As he states, this sharing option is “one of the most powerful and simple ways for users to share articles, pages, video or Flash content,” which ultimately opens up the way information is spread on the Internet. Hopefully the Millennials who view my production on Facebook will utilize this unique option, and share it with the rest of their Facebook friends so my audience can be broadened even more.

In a way, sharing this production via Twitter and Facebook is a way of “harnessing collective intelligence,” as Tim O'Reilly says in his article. This way, I can share what I’ve researched and learned about so others across the country and the world can learn from it and pass it on. I am, as O’Reilly says, adding to the “global brain.”

By selecting Facebook, Twitter and YouTube as my online Web 2.0 locales for my digital media production, I am advertising and sharing my creation with the online world, specifically my friends and followers, as well as anyone who consciously or unconsciously searches for it. Because most of my friends and followers are my primary target audience of Millennials, this seems appropriate. It’s harder to target my secondary target of employers, but by posting it on YouTube, hopefully I can overcome this barrier.

Huh. Gaming > Playing Outside?

As a kid who grew up in the late 90s and early 21st century, sure, I was surrounded by video games. However, my parents never really saw the value of them, and consequentially I was one of the few kids in the area without an Nintendo 64 or Playstation. Would I complain about it today? Heck no. I've never really truly been into the whole gaming thing, with the exception of a few Harry Potter or Lego Racers computer and Game Boy games back in my day.

Instead, I was a kid who grew up outside, playing kick the cone or cops and robbers with the neighbor kids. Looking back on it, I do remember spending a few days or evenings on a friend's couch, playing Donkey Kong or Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4 (or whatever it was). It wasn't a common occurrence though. I was more often found goofing around, blowing off steam with friends or family outside in backyards.

After reading Henry Jenkin's "Artform for the Digital Age," I was slightly upset with what he said in the last few paragraphs. He described games of today as being a big part of children's lives, since they "no longer have access to the real world." This upset me. How can it be that today's younger generations are growing up without being actual kids and getting outside to goof around with neighbors or friends? Are they really sitting on their little butts, staring at screens like Jenkins suggests?

After considering the difference in digital technologies and medias from today's world and the world I grew up in, I guess I could see that. Video games do in some way spark creativity or imagination as Jenkins says. Will Wright got at the same points of how children learn and channel their inner creativity through gaming in his article "Dream Machines."But simply playing "house" in a backyard on a bright summer day can achieve the same thing in my eyes.



Because of how I grew up, I still don't have a great interest or passion for video games. They're fun every once and a while, but not on a regular basis for me. I will say that I played my roommate in the latest COD game last week at our guy friends' house. I don't think I've ever seen those guys laugh so hard as they did when I couldn't figure out how to not shoot the ground or the sky. And hey, I got a good laugh too, but I'm definitely still not a gamer. And sorry to say, but my kids will be growing up outside, not behind a screen.

I'm no expert

Call me out of the loop, but I've only heard of Web 2.0 after reading the assigned readings for this week's class. I realize that people may be chuckling or in disbelief after reading that, but it's true! I'm not really informed when it comes to all this computer talk. Yet. I hope to improve that soon.

That being said, I still don't quite understand all the Internet or web jargon. Terms like servers, platforms, browsers are just a few I'm a little lost on. I tried to look them up and get more background information on them, but this proved to be just as difficult considering each term has several other unique terms of which I still don't understand. This may take awhile for me to understand completely. I'm sure class will help tomorrow, as always.

What I did get out of this set of readings was the difference between broadcasting and social media and how it may be affecting how we get information. In Danah Boyd's writing on streams of content and the flow of information, it is apparent that social media and media sharing has been becoming more and more popular over the past few decades. Because of this, broadcasting has been pushed out of the way.

It only makes sense, looking at everyone's Internet activity today. Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Blogger and Tumblr are only a small sample of the social media sites that almost everyone seems to be on these days. Because of this, people are starting to get news and other information from status updates, tweets and pins, instead of from the TV news stations, newspapers or radio.

I can relate to this. The last time I looked at a website like NBCnews.com, or even my home state of Minnesota's primary newspaper, StarTribune.com, was...well...I honestly can't remember. In fact, I remember seeing a Facebook status on a recent fatal car accident right by my house in MN and from there, I went to StarTribune.com.

The way we get information and news is changing. Boyd also makes an interesting point about how "networks are homophilous."This also makes sense to me. I only search things on the Internet that pertain to me, whether on my own time, or on school projects. Boyd is wary about our culture becoming more prejudice and ignorant because of this idea. I'm only friends with people on Facebook who I actually know (and whose statuses I can somewhat tolerate...). I only follow people on Twitter who I like, or can relate to. I bookmark sites that I visit most, like Facebook, Skinnyski, Gmail and Blogger. I don't diversify my Internet use intentionally. And I know I'm probably not alone.

As a whole, it's obvious that our culture is changing due to social media sites, as Boyd points out. The way we get news is going from broadcasting to networking. In addition, our views and diversity may be altering for the worse, as we spread and receive information faster and more efficient than ever.