Web address: http://www.users.muohio.edu/maherem/Erin%20Project/Website.html

• 48% of parents said their child began using a cell phone at age 5 or younger
• 80% said they were worried about online safety
• 26% said their children age 8 or younger were allowed to use the Internet by themselves
• 81% gave their children an email address to register for a site online
• 69% have uploaded a photo
• 59% have used instant messaging/chat features
• 7% of parents reported that they themselves buy the newest technology gadgets

The results of the survey indicated that the parents weren’t exactly using good discretion with their children’s technology usage.  Disney created a web site to help parents figure out what technology is age-appropriate for their children.

I navigated around Disney’s web site a bit to see what it was like, and it seemed like it would be pretty useful.  Their technology timeline tells parents a little bit about their child’s cognitive abilities at each age and what type of toys or gadgets would be appropriate to let them play with.  They also offer several articles on kids and online safety tips, the effects of gaming and technology on children, games and quizzes for both parents and children, and suggestions for kid-friendly sites.  I think it’s cool that Disney created this site; I hope it gets well-marketed and that parents find it useful.  From my experiences babysitting, I think more parents should exercise more control over the technology their children use.  I’m always stunned when a young child has a cell phone, gaming device they are addicted to, or only wants to watch movies all day.  When I was growing up, even though that wasn’t that long ago, we didn’t have most of that stuff.  My parents let my sister and I only watch 1 movie a day; the rest of the time we had to use our imaginations and play outside.  I think with the amount of technology available to children at younger and younger ages, it’s asking for trouble if parents don’t maintain tight control of their children’s usage.

Source:  Wired.com

After reading the article, I went to my own Facebook account’s privacy settings page.  I was surprised to find everything I had set up to be private was reversed to public and available to everyone… this upset me because I do value my privacy, especially online.  I don’t add anyone as a Facebook friend that I’m not actually friends with or care about, and I don’t want all of my information, status updates, and pictures available for the whole world to see.  I reset all of my options to as private as possible.  Hopefully Facebook won’t change that again…

Source:  Wired.com

Well, I hadn’t heard of Lala before this article, but I think that it could definitely bring about good changes for Apple and iTunes users. Lower costs and higher revenue is great for any company.  The article said that the Lala purchase will be the first major step forward for iTunes since it was created in 2003; I think it’s good that Apple is considering new features for iTunes.  As an iTunes user, I think it would be awesome to have cloud-based music storage and to be able to play my music from anything on the internet.  Sometimes when I’m at work in the newsroom I wish I could have my personal iTunes account on my computer in there.  Listening to my iPod isn’t really an option for me because I need to be able to hear what’s going on at work in case anyone has problems or needs my help.  Usually I resort to Pandora, but that’s not always as fun because you can’t demand that a specific song is played, and you can’t repeat it.  Also, cheaper music is never a bad thing!  I was kind of bummed when iTunes increased their pricing system this year from $0.99 to $1.29 for some songs/artists.  Not that that’s a huge price increase, but I tend to buy a lot of music and it starts adding up quickly.

Source: Wired.com

Initially, after reading this blog post, I thought the TwitterPeek was probably a dumb idea.  I still think so, actually.  At first, I couldn’t figure out why someone would be interested in having simpler devices that only do one thing, when there is the option to have simple devices that do everything (iPhone, for example).  While some smartphones may be complex, the iPhone is really pretty simple, and nothing says you have to add the apps for random little things that may make it more complex.

However, while I think the TwitterPeek is useless, I started to see how the Peek might be appealing to some after going to Peek’s web site and reading a bit about the company’s history and products.  Maybe that’s just effective marketing, but I can kind of see it being an ideal option for members of the older generation or people who are unable to afford conglomerate devices.  My grandparents, for example, do their best to keep up with technology.  They have cell phones, a few computers in their home, email accounts, use the Internet, and word processing programs.  My grandma even has a Facebook account, which rarely updates.  My grandpa is better at keeping up with technology than my grandma, because his job within a school system requires significant use of the computer, as do most jobs these days.  He’s proficient with checking and responding to email on a regular basis.  My grandma, on the other hand, rarely sends emails.  The computer scares and confuses her and it’s no good leaving her a voicemail on her cell phone because she never remembers how to check it.  But maybe the Peek would be a simple enough product so that people like my grandma would be able to stay in touch through email.

However, it doesn’t seem to me that the older generation is much interested in tweeting, which is why I don’t think the TwitterPeek is a great idea.  I can see the TwitterPeek being a hit with a younger audience initially, but I don’t think it will be a lasting product.  On other technology blogs, I’ve read that a site called Foursquare may be on the way in to replace Twitter.  Additionally, I feel like the majority of individuals in a younger audience are more used to the conglomerate devices.  Even if someone can’t afford the expenses associated with the iPhone, the iTouch is cheaper and still has all the capabilities of the phone except for calling and taking pictures (there are applications that let you to text message others if you have Wi-Fi).

Source: CNN Scitech blogs

Source: CNNMoney.com

• 60% of 25 top-selling paid applications in the education section target toddlers and preschoolers
• parents let their kids hold/use their phones to keep them busy and entertained in line at the store, in the car, on airplanes, etc.
• if done the right way with appropriate limits, letting young kids play with smartphones may be good for the child’s development
• Handing an iPhone with appropriate apps for preschoolers promotes “anywhere, any time” learning
• Kids can see a picture of a symbol (starfish), and see the letters that spell the symbol, then watch a video of a starfish in its natural environment
• new generation of “mobile kids”: fluent with technology even while preliterate, expect that electronics are within personal control, expectations of instant access to everything
• iPhones are perfectly sized for little fingers
• the touch screen is easier for children to use than a joystick or computer mouse
• kids might want to spend more and more time with the phones
• has potential to close the digital divide between affluent and low-income kids (“Almost all children in the United States now have access to a cellphone, and more than half the world’s population owns one.”)

I can understand the perceived benefits of educational applications targeted for young children, however, I’m too big of a believer that the kids would want to play with it more and more and that using the phones would take away from experiencing and learning things in a natural environment.  Maybe it would get to the point where all they wanted to do was play with mommy or daddy’s cell phone.  Even if the games are educational, I’m not sure how much time I would let a child play with one.

I have twin cousins who are addicted to their PSPs …they bring them everywhere with them: in the car, at the dinner table, in restaurants, even to the movie theatre.  My aunt and uncle could exert a little more control over where their children are bringing them, but they misbehave so badly when they’re not preoccupied by the PSPs that it’s just much easier for everyone if they are playing the games.

The idea of “anywhere, any time” learning is great, but it doesn’t have to  be achieved only through electronic devices.  My parents used to play math games in the car with my sister while we were driving.  Parents can take their children to the zoo, or even on a walk through the neighborhood and point out things for them to learn.

As far as closing the digital divide, I don’t understand how smartphone applications would be able to do that.  Smartphones are pretty expensive and it would seem to me that the digital divide might even be furthered by a whole generation of affluent mobile kids playing educational games on iPhones, since there are quite a large number of individuals for whom it is not economically possible for them to even purchase such a phone.

Source:  Boston.com

Users earning over $100,000/year:
38% LinkedIn
23% Facebook
16% MySpace

Users earning less than $50,000/year:
28% Facebook
37% MySpace

Demographics:
Users part of more affluent communities: 25% more likely to be on Facebook
Users part of less affluent communities: 37% more likely to be on MySpace
MySpace users: middle-class, blue-collar neighborhoods; perhaps not college educated
Facebook users: upscale suburbs

Different explanations have been offered for these statistics. The first is that there was a “movement” from MySpace to Facebook consisting mostly of educated and upper-class users. Someone was quoted in the article saying she doesn’t use MySpace because it “is ghetto.”

Another blogger writes that users choose which social networking site to be a part of based on interests: those interested in music “will still be on MySpace” and those interested in applications use Facebook more.

 A third suggestion is that who uses which site has to do with how the site began: Facebook was started at Harvard and initially limited its users to college students, while MySpace has always been open to everyone.

The article also discusses users self-segregation as an issue on social networks. The study found that multiracial students had more Facebook friends than students of other backgrounds, and that they were the “sole connection between white and black circles.” An ethnographer in the article shares her concern about the repercussions of dividing ourselves online. She poses the question, “What happens when politicians go on Facebook and think they’re reaching the whole public? What happens when colleges only go to Facebook to promote?”

“Does your social class determine your online social networking site?” 

To answer the question posed in the headline of this article, I don’t think one’s social class necessarily determines which social networking site, but I do think people would tend to sign up on whichever site they knew most of their friends were members of.  If you’re an elementary school teacher making around $45,000 a year, you’re likely not to sign up on MySpace if you know most of your friends and family are on Facebook, and vice versa if you were a lawyer whose closest contacts all maintained a MySpace account.  Social class might, however, play a role  in which site you decide to join, but again, I think that’s based on the other people you know and are friends with offline.

I found this article really interesting.  I stopped using MySpace around the end of high school because more and more of my friends were switching to Facebook, not really for any other reason.  I was surprised to hear of the study’s findings because I would not have guessed that there would be a socioeconomic disparity between social networking sites.  Like the blogger suggested, I assumed users would have chosen which social networking site to be a part of based on the features they offer and depending on which site most of their friends joined.  I didn’t expect there to be a link between income and which social networking site people join. 

The ethnographer quoted in the article expressed a concern that I thought was insightful and valid: what happens when politicians get onto a site and think they’re reaching the whole public?  Her question made me think of this past presidential election.  I also think that’s something important for colleges to consider, if they are placing advertisements on either site, or actually, any company placing an advertisement for that matter.

Something I didn’t agree with too much was self-segregation being a huge issue; maybe because I view segregation as a deliberate action, and I can’t imagine that users are only friending people of their own race on purpose.  The ethnographer was concerned about the self-segregation being extended from online interactions to relationships away from the computer.

 Source: CNN

The new guidelines stem from various cases where companies give free products to bloggers to review, and advertisers pay these bloggers for positive reviews that promote the product.  “Endorsements on blogs appear to be ‘word of mouth’ but that is not always the case” (CNNMoney.com).  The new guidelines mandate that celebrity endorsers must publicize their relationship with advertisers before promoting a product on a blog, social networking site, or even in an interview.  The same goes for those who maintain an independent blog, or Facebook users with mass amounts of friends (most often, celebrities).

An article from CNET News uses the example that if a celebrity or someone with an excessive amount of Facebook friends received a free product in exchange for becoming a fan of a said product on Facebook, that person could be found in violation of the new guidelines.

Enforcement of the new rules, however, may be tough.  The FTC is not hiring new employees to specifically monitor blogs.  Due to this, the FTC said they are more likely to go after advertisers than individual bloggers.

Some thing to think about:

• Facebook’s Rights and Responsibilities say users are not permitted to use their profile for their own commercial benefit, for example, selling your status to an advertiser

I personally support the overall goal of these new rules, but I don’t think it’s practical to regulate.  I’m also not sure how many everyday users this will impact; it seems that celebrities and advertisers are the target population of this.  The FTC said that they won’t be hiring new personnel responsible for regulating these new guidelines, and that their primary goal for right now is to educate people.  I’m not sure what good it even does to have a set of rules that there’s not a practical way to implement or regulate.
Do you think this is the beginning of an attempt at tighter government control over the Internet?  How practical do you think enforcement of the new rules will be?  How will this impact everyday users of social networking sites?

Additional sources:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10367464-93.html

*The results of this study were originally published in the CyberPsychology & Behavior Journal, and can be read in full here.

“Poll: Men Spend 8 Minutes Per Day Stalking Partners on Facebook”
 An Aug. 28 blog post on Gizmodo reports the following statistics, as determined by a poll among 2,000 men in the United Kingdom:

• Men spend 8 minutes/day “stalking” partners on Facebook
• 15 % had updated their Facebook status to make current or ex-partners jealous
• 48% had read their partners’ emails to check for cheating.

Is Facebook to blame for ruining relationships?

I included the above statistics as a complimenting element to the article, because I found them interesting and semi-related, but I’d like to focus mostly on the topic of Facebook’s imapct on relationships.  One of the things that immediately comes to my mind is that we cannot place 100% of the blame (if any, really) of failed relationships on Facebook.  I view Facebook as more of an enabler than an actor (think: “guns don’t kill people…people kill people”).  Its users should be held responsible for their online actions and offline reactions, including the success or failure of their romantic relationships.

The first article claims Facebook may be the root of increased jealousy among college students in romantic relationships (therefore making it responsible for ruining those relationships), however…one has to wonder a few things about the users.  As far as the individual in question goes, he or she would most likely not assume the role of  ”individual in question” without posting something worth questioning.  For the questioning partner, he or she most likely would not be suspicious without a legitimate reason.  These two basic principles are influenced by the following factors: each individuals’ personality (are they easygoing, or jealous by nature?), past relationship history (have they consistently been loyal to past partners?  have they been repeatedly betrayed?), and the overall levels of trust, security, and communication in the relationship.

The major issue is that couples are abusing Facebook’s ability to connect with other people.  There is a difference between using it to keep in contact with long-lost or long-distance acquaintances, and using it to dig up dirt on your significant other.  Bottom line: it’s inappropriate to “Facebook stalk” anyone, even more so your significant other.  Doing so is bound to create unnecessary tension and distrust, which will probably ruin your relationship.  But if that happens to you, don’t blame Facebook.