Convergence

1.Convergence culture is basically saying the way we get our media, the way we interact with our media, and the way we redistribute media is always changing; media's distribution is possible through newspapers, radio, television, social media, and the internet as a whole. People are able to interact with media the more technology evolves. Media has essentially converged from a one-way communication to a two-way communication between media and consumer.
2. Creative engagement encourages people to think creatively and ultimately effects the way people interact and technological advances. For example, someone probably had the idea for Twitter by thinking outside the box and wanting to have a place where people could post their every though of the day and provide media and news a quick and cheap way to distribute content. So, the social media advanced to handle this creative idea and created Twitter.

Long Tail and Consumer Behavior

1. A business named "Puppy Loafers" sells shoes for dogs and cannot get any shelf space in places such as PETSMART and PETCO, because their target audience is very small. Puppy Loafers customers are in a small niche market that isn't satisfied by any stores. So, Long Tail: Puppy Loafers begins selling their product online so the small niche market looking to buy kicks for their dogs can be satisfied.
2. I am a "bargainer" internet user. I will look around the web as long as it takes to find the best deal on something if I am looking to buy. I'll check out most leads that pop up whilst searching and go for the best deal I can find. Of course, I will make sure the place I'm buying from isn't sketchy or seems like a scam, but those sites I typically avoid. When I shop online, I tend to look at more popular and trusted sites like Amazon and eBay, which also makes me a more analyzed user.

Response to Privacy and Enhanced Personalization

Here's the issue: people want things tailored to them, but don't want to give their information out to strangers on the internet. So what's being done is something called "privacy-enhanced personalization", which is trying to give people the personalization they want without having to know their social security numbers and where hidden moles are on their bodies. What's interesting though, is people don't know what they're clicking on, agreeing to, or submitting. People complain about their internet privacy, but clearly don't stop and think and/or read what they're actually doing. People tend to want things NOW and don't really think about what could happen later or who's reviewing all that information they sent out to order a new weave or whatever couldn't wait to properly check the site for authenticity and security. If someone's on a site they've never been on, looks rough, and hasn't heard anything good about it, they should look up reviews on Google or another search engine to see what comes up. Odds are if someone has been scammed. they're going to make a public fuss about it to see the scammers don't make more money, collect more illegal information, etc.

People want to know what websites are collecting about them and be able to view all of the information the sites are using to target products to them and see why their personalization is what it is from a particular site. This way, they can delete something they may not like anymore or add something the site doesn't know. Also, people are  more eager to give away information when they remain unidentified. It makes sense. If you're on a ship crew and get stranded on an island with an insane guy in charge who is going to get you all killed or possibly kill everyone, odds are you aren't going to speak up to him and tell him he's crazy. Now, in a heads-down and eyes-closed vote where someone besides the insane guy counts the votes for knocking him out of power, you're more likely to raise your hand high because you feel more protected from the wrath of the insane guy.

I think it's a good idea to be able to enter unimportant personalization information anonymously or through a persona on a website because it makes you trust the site; they're obviously not out to steal your identity. They're just trying to personalize your experience with their site. Knowing what information is available for your profile is very important. If I search for a cat one time for one particular picture I saw for a second on Facebook, I sure don't want cats all over my computer for the next couple of months. I also don't want anyone assuming I love cats, because I most certainly do not. If i was looking for something particular, I would like to be able to tell sites to show me different possibilities for my interests. This basically shifts advertising power in the hands of the consumers, which is great for us, because we can see ads that pertain to what we like.

One of the problems are people don't read what they're doing. If everyone would just read the terms and agreements and be more cautious of what sites they send their information to, internet privacy wouldn't be as big of a concern for most people. But of course, most terms and conditions are super long and we all just hit "agree" to move on with our lives. So, my question is if there's a possibility the next thing you sign up for is taking your personal information, will you check the security and terms or "agree" to some short-term benefits?

Also, people clearly don't like to read. I'm surprised if anyone makes it to the end of this. So, why isn't there a law that makes security, terms and conditions, personal information gathering, and everything you NEED to know when agreeing to things short and to the point so people will take some of the responsibility of keeping their information private?

New Media and Technologies

This article is a good thing to read for anyone who likes console gaming on Playstation in particular. Xbox already has ways of streaming television channels online from the console, and this is Playstation's way of competing. It's a good example of how television is shifting to internet and basically everyone is trying to find a way to stop paying for cable. It's important for internet communication because when things like this use the internet to reach users, the television shows and channels are able to reach a more specific audience because people will pretty much only pay for what they want to watch and not waste time on things they don't really like. This impacts the field of advertising as well, because businesses can be more effective reaching the people they want. Doing things like paying for certain channels through the internet instead of a broad delivery of television can help the act of communication on the internet by better connecting people with similar interests. More and more information and technologies are shifting to the internet because the internet is able to hold practically anything and the internet can and will be a one-stop place for all media, entertainment, and social interactions.

 http://www.technogigs.com/internet-news/sony-unveils-new-online-tv-service-the-playstation-vue

Network Laws

I most agree with Metcalfe's Law. It basically says a network is worth the communication between the network users. It explains how many people can connect to how many other people. For example, if you have 9 people on a network including yourself, you use the Metcalfe formula (network users minus one) 9 - 1, and you get 8. 8 is the amount of different connections you can make with other users on the network. Metcalfe's Law is pretty much saying the higher the number from the equation, the more valuable the network is. The law isn't fool-proof, because people may not find the communication connections as valuable as others and everyone's connection may not be equal. If your connection sucks, the network will have little value to you, even if your friend on the same network has a great connection and sees the network as important. What I don't understand is why it doesn't account for multiple connections, like if you connect to two people at the same time, wouldn't that account for another connection? Three people at a time? Four? Or have everyone connected and communicating at the same time.

I've seen these wristband projectors for cell phones, where you flick your wrist and your phone screen appears on your arm. You're able to access the internet and do everything on your own skin with your cell phone feet away. In 5 years, I see everything shifting towards this notion. Yes, you need to pay for the service, like having a cell phone and having an internet connection, but information is probably going to be even easier to access. Like with the wristbands, you may not even need to be near a computer, phone, or other electronic to access the internet. It may take more than 5 years, but the development will surely head towards a lazier future for internet consumers.

Response to "Why We Blog"

This article's purpose, obvious by title, is to see why people blog. Different people blog for different reasons. The people who may not like communication may blog to find a way to express their feelings or thoughts to someone else; people may use blogs to vent about their lives. Blogs are one-way communication. You could express anything you wanted to and not have to deal with a reaction or consequences. Blogs are a great place to express your feelings, dislikes, opinions, criticisms, and the occasional positive outlook on things, because chances are, no one is going to read them. Even if people read your blog about how a girl named Mildred made you mad this morning in class, you don’t have to deal with whatever that reader is feeling or thinking, unless they know you personally and come up to you and complain.

Blogs aren’t always used for personal posts; they can be used for community forums to keep people up-to-date on everything they need to know about what’s going on. There could be posts on the blog discussing anything from the latest town hall meeting to a fundraising event at a local elementary school. Blogs can be used for people to talk about politics and world issues as well. Pretty much all blogging is opinionated because it isn’t controlled or regulated by anyone.

Blogging may be a good way to let off steam if you are too afraid to tell someone to their face they are pissing you off or making your life hard to live, but I don’t see it being used for the right thing. If blogs could have a way to be more of a two-way communication, have more readership, and talk about things other than what you ate for breakfast, they could be used to debate with no fear and maybe solve issues.

Goldiglocks and The Bears