Friday, May 14, 2010
A Guide to Internet Etiquette
While organizing my computer files, I ran across a paper that I had to write for an information systems class while studying abroad in France. Even though most of this was written a couple years ago, it still applies, and unless there is any great social change, these guidelines probably will still apply in the future. A lot of it is just common sense, but many people still have problems communicating electronically, which just boggles my mind in this day and age. So here it is:
Practicing Good "Netiquette"
The Internet is a community that spans social, political, and geographical lines. As a member of this community you'll interact with a wide range of characters—the good, the bad, and the despicable. The following guidelines are suggestions to ensure that your internet communications go smoothly.
Write Concise Messages
Some people receive hundreds of email messages a day. To help reduce the amount of traffic on the Internet and make life easier for the intended recipients of your correspondence, keep the length of your messages to a minimum. When replying to a message, only include the sections of the previous message that are relevant to your response.
Learn the Conventions of Communication
Even though you are free to express yourself in any way you wish, I would recommend that you learn some of the conventions of email communication. Abbreviations, like FYI (for your information), BTW (by the way), and emoticons like :-) (a smiley face) are used as shortcuts for conveying tone and feeling in messages.
Include Return Address Information
Any kind of correspondence, digital or analog, should include the proper return address information. You can accomplish this by properly configuring your email client to include the return email address you'd like to use. When signing a message, it is often appropriate to include alternate modes of communication, such as your telephone number or street address. Most email programs include the ability to create a "signature" file that automatically inserts your name and other pertinent information at the end of a message.
Make Subject Lines Descriptive
A message with a subject like "Help," or even worse, no subject line at all, will often be passed over by a recipient who gets a large volume of email messages. Better to come up with a short descriptive phrase that sums up the scope of your message: something like "BA5800 – Class Tonight 05/05/10" to describe a problem or concern you have with the class on the listed date.
When Replying, Reference the Original Message
If you are replying to a message, first edit out the unnecessary parts of the original, leaving the specific point(s) to which you intend to respond. Then insert your response after each related point. This makes it easier for others to follow the line of discussion.
Inquire About Compatibility of File Attachments
Don't send MS Word documents or other file formats without first making sure the recipient can handle them.
Acknowledge When You Have Received EmailBe diligent about notifying someone who has corresponded with you that you have received their message. Think of all the times you were wondering if a teacher or fellow student received your email, and you never find out if they did or not.
Check Your Email on a Regular Basis
Make a point to check your email account at a minimum of once a week, particularly after having sent a message to someone else. Others will expect that if you have sent them a message, you'll be awaiting a response.
Reply in A Timely Manner
You should get used to responding to messages immediately. Your mailbox will soon become unmanageable if you do not get in the habit of processing mail as you receive it. If you regularly receive a large load of email, you might want to consider a software product or add-on utility to help you manage it.
Don't Send Personal Messages via Newsgroup or Mailing Lists
If a message is meant for one individual only, do not send it to them via a newsgroup or list that goes to many recipients. Always look at the address line on the top of your message to make sure you are responding only to those person(s) you wish to receive the message. Avoid especially the dreaded Blind CC mistake, which will blast your email to everyone in your address book, or the Reply To All mistake.
Learn To Properly Convey Irony, Sarcasm, and Humor
Often, good-natured attempts to be witty are misconstrued. If you like to use a conversational tone in your messages, consider whether others who don't know you will understand your personal style of communication. There is no physical or verbal cues to indicate your mood when communicating electronically, so make sure you do so other ways.
Don't Publicly Criticize Other Users
Civil conversation usually yields more positive results than inflammatory or rude communication. If you have an issue to take up with another user that you feel requires a harsh response, consider communicating directly with that person, rather than starting a war of words on a public forum.
Learn To View and Process Your Mail On-Screen
Electronic communication offers the promise of reduced consumption of natural resources, yet the reality is that more paper often gets gobbled up, given the ease of printing from the computer. Learn to use the power of your computer to view, process, and archive electronic messages and files rather than relying on "hard" copies of all your correspondence.
General Tips
These last tips don't exactly fall under the category of etiquette, but they are good advice for network users anyway:
· Educate yourself about computer viruses and take the necessary steps so you do not introduce them to your systems or to others' systems.
· Observe standard copyright restrictions, which usually apply to electronic material in the same way they apply to printed material.
· Do not upload or download pirated software or copywritten music or movies, it's a federal crime.
Practicing Good "Netiquette"
The Internet is a community that spans social, political, and geographical lines. As a member of this community you'll interact with a wide range of characters—the good, the bad, and the despicable. The following guidelines are suggestions to ensure that your internet communications go smoothly.
Write Concise Messages
Some people receive hundreds of email messages a day. To help reduce the amount of traffic on the Internet and make life easier for the intended recipients of your correspondence, keep the length of your messages to a minimum. When replying to a message, only include the sections of the previous message that are relevant to your response.
Learn the Conventions of Communication
Even though you are free to express yourself in any way you wish, I would recommend that you learn some of the conventions of email communication. Abbreviations, like FYI (for your information), BTW (by the way), and emoticons like :-) (a smiley face) are used as shortcuts for conveying tone and feeling in messages.
Include Return Address Information
Any kind of correspondence, digital or analog, should include the proper return address information. You can accomplish this by properly configuring your email client to include the return email address you'd like to use. When signing a message, it is often appropriate to include alternate modes of communication, such as your telephone number or street address. Most email programs include the ability to create a "signature" file that automatically inserts your name and other pertinent information at the end of a message.
Make Subject Lines Descriptive
A message with a subject like "Help," or even worse, no subject line at all, will often be passed over by a recipient who gets a large volume of email messages. Better to come up with a short descriptive phrase that sums up the scope of your message: something like "BA5800 – Class Tonight 05/05/10" to describe a problem or concern you have with the class on the listed date.
When Replying, Reference the Original Message
If you are replying to a message, first edit out the unnecessary parts of the original, leaving the specific point(s) to which you intend to respond. Then insert your response after each related point. This makes it easier for others to follow the line of discussion.
Inquire About Compatibility of File Attachments
Don't send MS Word documents or other file formats without first making sure the recipient can handle them.
Acknowledge When You Have Received EmailBe diligent about notifying someone who has corresponded with you that you have received their message. Think of all the times you were wondering if a teacher or fellow student received your email, and you never find out if they did or not.
Check Your Email on a Regular Basis
Make a point to check your email account at a minimum of once a week, particularly after having sent a message to someone else. Others will expect that if you have sent them a message, you'll be awaiting a response.
Reply in A Timely Manner
You should get used to responding to messages immediately. Your mailbox will soon become unmanageable if you do not get in the habit of processing mail as you receive it. If you regularly receive a large load of email, you might want to consider a software product or add-on utility to help you manage it.
Don't Send Personal Messages via Newsgroup or Mailing Lists
If a message is meant for one individual only, do not send it to them via a newsgroup or list that goes to many recipients. Always look at the address line on the top of your message to make sure you are responding only to those person(s) you wish to receive the message. Avoid especially the dreaded Blind CC mistake, which will blast your email to everyone in your address book, or the Reply To All mistake.
Learn To Properly Convey Irony, Sarcasm, and Humor
Often, good-natured attempts to be witty are misconstrued. If you like to use a conversational tone in your messages, consider whether others who don't know you will understand your personal style of communication. There is no physical or verbal cues to indicate your mood when communicating electronically, so make sure you do so other ways.
Don't Publicly Criticize Other Users
Civil conversation usually yields more positive results than inflammatory or rude communication. If you have an issue to take up with another user that you feel requires a harsh response, consider communicating directly with that person, rather than starting a war of words on a public forum.
Learn To View and Process Your Mail On-Screen
Electronic communication offers the promise of reduced consumption of natural resources, yet the reality is that more paper often gets gobbled up, given the ease of printing from the computer. Learn to use the power of your computer to view, process, and archive electronic messages and files rather than relying on "hard" copies of all your correspondence.
General Tips
These last tips don't exactly fall under the category of etiquette, but they are good advice for network users anyway:
· Educate yourself about computer viruses and take the necessary steps so you do not introduce them to your systems or to others' systems.
· Observe standard copyright restrictions, which usually apply to electronic material in the same way they apply to printed material.
· Do not upload or download pirated software or copywritten music or movies, it's a federal crime.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Debate on Internet Censorship: Part 2
This blog post is in response to a question from Professor Sauter regarding my last blog post. I originally started it as reply to her comment on the relevant post, but by the time I finished it had grown into something more.
Well, it depends on the situation. I agree that when it comes to businesses and government offices, they should have some say over what goes in and out of their networks, not only for business reasons, but for security reasons too. At the same time, I don't think anybody should have their access to information limited. The way I envision it is that businesses can control what kind of file types can be downloaded using the business computer/networks. For example, there is no reason for an employee to be downloading music or videos (even if paid for) during business hours (unless that's what the business is in). Those are things that should be done at home. Factory workers or hospital staff should not be spending their time on the clock on Facebook or YouTube, they have a job to do.
When it comes to censorship and citizens of a country as a whole, there should be no censorship. I don't understand why the countries that still censor internet traffic keep fighting a battle that they seemed destined to lose. Looking at history, censorship efforts almost always fail. Even if you go back only 20-25 years ago, before the Iron Curtain fell, most of Eastern Europe, Russia, and the Middle East saw the effects of some kind of censorship under the Communist government. I know these governments see censorship as a form of control over the populace and a way of staying in power, but as history tells us, only a rare few manage to keep control for long periods of time.
I think that it is up to the public to decide what they want to see or do, and no government can control it. Look at the way TV turned out. Today, you can see almost anything on TV. Not too long ago, broadcasts were not allowed to use certain words or depict certain acts. They still aren't to a certain extent, but for the most part, especially on cable and premium channels, you get everything from violence, to drug use, to nudity. The point is, that if you are watching these channels, it is because you chose to do so. You turned the TV on, changed the channel, and stopped on a channel that looks interesting, and in some cases this is a channel that you are paying extra for. If you object to what is being shown, you can always change the channel. It is true that the worst of what you can find on TV doesn't compare to the worst of what you can find on the Internet, but, again, in most cases you have a choice of going to that site or not. The exceptions are pop-up ads which we have no control over, but presently, most pop-up blockers do a decent job of filtering out the worst offenders. But, other than pop-ups, you have a choice when browsing the internet.
If internet sites had clear rating standards for content, like TV broadcasts and movies already do, then accessing the internet would be safer, while preserving freedom of speech. For example, if each website had a label clearly visible upon entering whether the site is rated for minors or not, and the reasons for the rating, and a way of broadcasting this rating to filtering programs, then surfing the internet would be like watching TV. Parents could set a filter program to filter out anything that is rated above a certain age, kind of like they already do with TV now. There are ways to do this now, but they don't always do it effectively, and they mostly rely on white lists of websites, based on keywords, or other criteria that are fallible. One problem with this is that some filters are overly aggressive. For example, the network at my parent's house filters any websites related to torrents, blocking most websites where you can find these files. However it misses one major site, and blocks most search results (which I can get around by mistyping the word torrent as torent
A great tool that I use in addition to pop-up blockers is an extension available for most browsers called WOT: Wheel of Trust. The way it works is that whenever you visit a site you can rate its based on reliability, trustworthiness, privacy, and child safety. It takes all the ratings that users submit and aggregates them into a rating that is displayed next to links and next to the browser bar as a circle that goes from red to green. Green means you're good to go. Red means that this site is questionable, and you should be cautious before proceeding and giving out any information. But it gives you a clear choice: "Do you still want to go this site, or No". You aren't being denied access because someone thinks this site is objectionable, but rather you are being warned, and if you choose to proceed you are responsible for what you see or what happens. While this still isn't the best way to rate sites because it depends wholly on user ratings, so if a site isn't visited and rated it won't have a rating to display. However a system similar to this would ensure that we aren't bombarded with sites and information we don't want to see, while still protecting the freedom of speech.
In summary, censorship, and control over internet content and freedom of speech is not something that is black and white. In certain rare cases it is beneficial, and even highly recommended (e.g. military censorship of letters sent home from war zones, for security reasons). But it is not something that can be controlled by the government. The people should have a right to access any information they choose. Based on history, it is inevitable that the people will eventually win when it comes to government censorship and free speech. The only difference is whether that comes about as a result of a war or revolution, or as a result peaceful and open discussion about the issue.
Link to WoT website: http://www.mywot.com/
1 comments:
- Vicki said...
- Free speech is something we take for granted even though it is not so free in many other places. It has become more than a philosophical discussion now that governments are involved. Whom do you believe should decide such things?
- April 14, 2010 12:46 PM
Well, it depends on the situation. I agree that when it comes to businesses and government offices, they should have some say over what goes in and out of their networks, not only for business reasons, but for security reasons too. At the same time, I don't think anybody should have their access to information limited. The way I envision it is that businesses can control what kind of file types can be downloaded using the business computer/networks. For example, there is no reason for an employee to be downloading music or videos (even if paid for) during business hours (unless that's what the business is in). Those are things that should be done at home. Factory workers or hospital staff should not be spending their time on the clock on Facebook or YouTube, they have a job to do.
When it comes to censorship and citizens of a country as a whole, there should be no censorship. I don't understand why the countries that still censor internet traffic keep fighting a battle that they seemed destined to lose. Looking at history, censorship efforts almost always fail. Even if you go back only 20-25 years ago, before the Iron Curtain fell, most of Eastern Europe, Russia, and the Middle East saw the effects of some kind of censorship under the Communist government. I know these governments see censorship as a form of control over the populace and a way of staying in power, but as history tells us, only a rare few manage to keep control for long periods of time.
I think that it is up to the public to decide what they want to see or do, and no government can control it. Look at the way TV turned out. Today, you can see almost anything on TV. Not too long ago, broadcasts were not allowed to use certain words or depict certain acts. They still aren't to a certain extent, but for the most part, especially on cable and premium channels, you get everything from violence, to drug use, to nudity. The point is, that if you are watching these channels, it is because you chose to do so. You turned the TV on, changed the channel, and stopped on a channel that looks interesting, and in some cases this is a channel that you are paying extra for. If you object to what is being shown, you can always change the channel. It is true that the worst of what you can find on TV doesn't compare to the worst of what you can find on the Internet, but, again, in most cases you have a choice of going to that site or not. The exceptions are pop-up ads which we have no control over, but presently, most pop-up blockers do a decent job of filtering out the worst offenders. But, other than pop-ups, you have a choice when browsing the internet.
If internet sites had clear rating standards for content, like TV broadcasts and movies already do, then accessing the internet would be safer, while preserving freedom of speech. For example, if each website had a label clearly visible upon entering whether the site is rated for minors or not, and the reasons for the rating, and a way of broadcasting this rating to filtering programs, then surfing the internet would be like watching TV. Parents could set a filter program to filter out anything that is rated above a certain age, kind of like they already do with TV now. There are ways to do this now, but they don't always do it effectively, and they mostly rely on white lists of websites, based on keywords, or other criteria that are fallible. One problem with this is that some filters are overly aggressive. For example, the network at my parent's house filters any websites related to torrents, blocking most websites where you can find these files. However it misses one major site, and blocks most search results (which I can get around by mistyping the word torrent as torent
A great tool that I use in addition to pop-up blockers is an extension available for most browsers called WOT: Wheel of Trust. The way it works is that whenever you visit a site you can rate its based on reliability, trustworthiness, privacy, and child safety. It takes all the ratings that users submit and aggregates them into a rating that is displayed next to links and next to the browser bar as a circle that goes from red to green. Green means you're good to go. Red means that this site is questionable, and you should be cautious before proceeding and giving out any information. But it gives you a clear choice: "Do you still want to go this site, or No". You aren't being denied access because someone thinks this site is objectionable, but rather you are being warned, and if you choose to proceed you are responsible for what you see or what happens. While this still isn't the best way to rate sites because it depends wholly on user ratings, so if a site isn't visited and rated it won't have a rating to display. However a system similar to this would ensure that we aren't bombarded with sites and information we don't want to see, while still protecting the freedom of speech.
In summary, censorship, and control over internet content and freedom of speech is not something that is black and white. In certain rare cases it is beneficial, and even highly recommended (e.g. military censorship of letters sent home from war zones, for security reasons). But it is not something that can be controlled by the government. The people should have a right to access any information they choose. Based on history, it is inevitable that the people will eventually win when it comes to government censorship and free speech. The only difference is whether that comes about as a result of a war or revolution, or as a result peaceful and open discussion about the issue.
Link to WoT website: http://www.mywot.com/
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The Debate on Internet Censorship
Internet censorship is a topic that is drawing more and more attention recently. The debate centers around whether governments and other authority figures have the right to censor what internet users can and can't do or see online. Major examples of this seen in the news recently are the controversy surrounding China and its internet policies and Iran's blocking of Gmail.
China censors many websites because it vies them as a threat to the ruling regime or because of opinions or news that is contrary to the official party line. It does this in an effort to prevent dissenters from organizing and coordinating effectively. It not only censors websites, but also monitors individual access. Doing this allows the government to crack down on protests and anti-government propaganda before they have a chance to flourish or become a major headache for them.
Recently, Iran suspended access to Google's Gmail service, so that the countries leaders could unveil a new national email system for Iranians. This is a thinly veiled attempt to control the populations internet activities, through monitoring and censorship of email. Most observers speculate that this because of recent protests over elections and because of the release of Google Buzz, a feature integrated into Gmail which aims to put Google on the social networking map.
(Links to the story about Iran:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/10/technology/google_iran_gmail/index.htm?eref=time_tech
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704140104575057621649270154.html
)
Both of these examples illustrate some of the reasons why this debate has become a big issue. Internet users can access information anywhere in the world. This means that governments now have less control over what the general population sees. Before the internet, people had limited sources to get their news, usually newspapers or television. These are much easier to censor or block than material on the internet is. With the advent of the internet, one could get news and communicate with people anywhere in the world. Now it was much harder for a government to claim one thing to tits citizens, when the rest of the world said another. At the same time, businesses, schools, and other users of the internet were looking for a way to maintain productivity, by preventing users from accessing certain websites which were unnecessary for work or school. This benign goal led to technology that made it easier to control the flow of information. Now internet access could be limited through software or hardware solutions. Naturally, governments such as China or Iran would want such technology to make it easier to patrol the internet within their borders. Of course this led to the development of methods to get around these blocks. Since then, the debate over free speech on the internet has grown to epic proportions.
There are other parts to this debate as well. Should companies be allowed to limit employees' access to certain websites? Should schools be allowed to block objectionable or offensive material from its networks? Should internet providers limit bandwidth, so as to prevent network slowdowns? Should governments be allowed to monitor individual internet access? Should people be allowed to say racist or inflammatory things online? Should the internet access of certain criminals be allowed?
There are no clear answers to any of these questions. What is clear is that there are pros and cons to both limited and unlimited access to information on the internet. Institutions such as schools and government offices argue that they need to protect internet access because otherwise their networks and security could be compromised. Businesses claim that without blocking some internet access, worker productivity would fall. Everyone is worried that objectionable material such as pornography or racist websites will be viewed in inappropriate places such as work or school, or that such material will be accessed by unsuitable users such as children or criminals. Most of the debates center around the need to protect users and networks from malicious software or objectionable material against the need to protect free speech rights. These issues are key drivers of the internet censorship debate. Resolving these issues will require a lot of give and take and both sides, which neither side seems willing to do. Until a compromise can be reached, this debate will rage on, wasting time and money of all those involved or affected by these issues.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" - The Atlantic
Is Google Making Us Stupid? - Magazine - The Atlantic
This is an interesting article I came across while doing some research on Google itself. The main idea of the article is the author's belief that Google and other technologies are changing the way we think. He writes that since the advent of Google, he has had more and more trouble with staying immersed in long readings. He says that he used to be able to sit down and read a book for multiple hours at a time, but now he has trouble making it through a couple chapters. And he isn't the only one who has experienced this; he includes a couple anecdotes of friends of his who have experienced the same problem. After reading this article, I noticed that I share these experiences. I remember being able to sit and read half a book or even more in one sitting. Now, I can only read a few chapters, before I feel like I have to move on to something else.
Before Google was invented, to do research you had to spend time in the library, looking through books and magazine articles, often taking weeks to complete a research project. When you found something you could use, you had to read through most of the book or article to find what you were looking for. After Google was invented, you could find what you were looking for in a very short amount of time. Not only that, now you can find excerpts or even entire books on Google Books, and without having to read the whole thing, you can find the relevant passages. On Wikipedia, you can click through to the source links and usually find more on the topic, such as an entire report or article about the subject. Many students realized that projects that took days or weeks to do, could now be done in a couple days or even less. Many people in my age group that I have spoken with have noticed that since Google came about, they have allotted less and less time to research. I wouldn't say that Google is making us stupid, since it provides us a wealth of information, but I think that at the very least it is changing how our brains are wired to concentrate and focus for long periods of time, and at the very worst it is making us lazier. I say this because if something isn't immediately found in Google or elsewhere on the Internet, then, in my experience, a lot of students tend to either give up, or claim they can't find anything about the subject. Ways to avoid this could include classes that teach how to use different research sources and materials effectively. If it were made part of the general college curriculum, or mandatory to high school seniors about to graduate, then I believe that an increasingly larger part of the population would have skills that can be used in most jobs.
This is an interesting article I came across while doing some research on Google itself. The main idea of the article is the author's belief that Google and other technologies are changing the way we think. He writes that since the advent of Google, he has had more and more trouble with staying immersed in long readings. He says that he used to be able to sit down and read a book for multiple hours at a time, but now he has trouble making it through a couple chapters. And he isn't the only one who has experienced this; he includes a couple anecdotes of friends of his who have experienced the same problem. After reading this article, I noticed that I share these experiences. I remember being able to sit and read half a book or even more in one sitting. Now, I can only read a few chapters, before I feel like I have to move on to something else.
Before Google was invented, to do research you had to spend time in the library, looking through books and magazine articles, often taking weeks to complete a research project. When you found something you could use, you had to read through most of the book or article to find what you were looking for. After Google was invented, you could find what you were looking for in a very short amount of time. Not only that, now you can find excerpts or even entire books on Google Books, and without having to read the whole thing, you can find the relevant passages. On Wikipedia, you can click through to the source links and usually find more on the topic, such as an entire report or article about the subject. Many students realized that projects that took days or weeks to do, could now be done in a couple days or even less. Many people in my age group that I have spoken with have noticed that since Google came about, they have allotted less and less time to research. I wouldn't say that Google is making us stupid, since it provides us a wealth of information, but I think that at the very least it is changing how our brains are wired to concentrate and focus for long periods of time, and at the very worst it is making us lazier. I say this because if something isn't immediately found in Google or elsewhere on the Internet, then, in my experience, a lot of students tend to either give up, or claim they can't find anything about the subject. Ways to avoid this could include classes that teach how to use different research sources and materials effectively. If it were made part of the general college curriculum, or mandatory to high school seniors about to graduate, then I believe that an increasingly larger part of the population would have skills that can be used in most jobs.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Staying in Touch, Then and Now
As you go through life, you meet people, whether it's at school, or at work. Sometimes, these people become friends, and you want to stay in touch with them. The methods to do this are something that has changed quite rapidly in recent years.
Growing up in St. Louis, I remember how me and my friends stayed in touch outside of school and other daily activities where we saw each other. The only way to see what a friend was doing, was to pick up my home phone (cell phones were still something mainly for Very Important People back then, they were just beginning to see mainstream use) call my friend's house, usually ask if he is home, and then talk to him. Now, I can whip out my phone and in about 5 or 10 minutes send my friend a text, check if he's online on Facebook, AIM, or any other instant messenger, and send him a tweet, which will go directly to his phone. Of course, I could have just called him.
Then came the internet. Soon, kids everywhere were using AOL to talk to each other more conveniently. Now we just had to wait a couple minutes for the modem to connect (I still remember the beeps, and static, and all the other noises a modem made, making it impossible to get online at night without waking half of the house), and soon we could see who was online, and talk to multiple people at once. This made staying in touch over long distances easier. This phenomenon soon took hold, and we saw an explosion in the movement to make communication more and more instantaneous.
In the fall of 1997, my family moved to Poland for two years, because my Dad got a promotion which involved moving there. This wasn't a problem, since my family is Polish, and we knew the language, but now I would be separated from all my friends by an entire ocean. The internet made things easier, allowing me to talk to my friends (as long as I could work around the time zone issues). I also used letters and postcards. You had to remember to send those early, if you were sending them for a birthday or other special event. Communication wasn't as instantaneous as it is today. By the time we came back to St. Louis in 1999, the internet was the dominant source of communication in my life.
Recently I had a chance to spend some time studying abroad. I went to a university in Strasbourg, France as part of a study abroad program as an undergraduate at UMSL. Then a year later (2008) I returned to Strasbourg as a graduate student doing the first year of UMSL's International MBA there. During this time, I met many students from many different countries. Many of them became close friends. However after a year together we would be dispersed throughout the world, returning to our home countries to finish our studies. Not even 20 years ago, keeping in touch with all those people would have been much different. I still have somewhere in my room my old address book, which had entries for most of my friends and family. Each entry had a home address and phone number, and sometimes and email address. Now my digital address book consists mainly of phone numbers and email addresses for all my friends and family.
In today's world keeping in touch with my friends from my stay abroad is much easier. Between Facebook, Skype, Twitter, email, and various instant messenger programs, we have no excuse to lose contact between each other. And the use of these technologies is growing more and more prevalent.
These technologies came about as a result of two converging forces: the Internet Explosion, and Globalization. The internet quickly grew in popularity and soon almost everyone had access to it. The internet didn't change our need to communicate with each other; it facilitated that need. . People around the world loved it. Businesses embraced it. The internet allowed for corporations in different parts of the globe to communicate more quickly, without having to wait for the right time to call, or for a response by mail. Soon, the smarter people saw where this was going, and began to address the human desire to stay in touch with members of our social circles. As a result we have things like Facebook, Skype, Twitter, and so on.
Now we are able to talk to each other anytime, day or night. This can be both good and bad. There are countless stories of texts or emails sent under the influence of alcohol, which are later regretted. Sometimes we want privacy, which can be hard when there are so many ways to reach somebody now. This can be good too, as seen in emergencies, through the use of mass emergency text systems or email alerts. There are things I like and dislike about Facebook, Twitter, and other technologies. For example, privacy can be hard to control, unless you are very diligent. If you don't want people seeing certain things, you really have to pay attention. Also, some people post too much information, which can be annoying. This can be controlled in your settings, but that also takes some effort.
However the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Using Facebook, Skype, and Windows Live Messenger, I have been able to stay in touch with my friends from Strasbourg. We update each other on our lives, plan trips to see each other again, and help each other out. For example, one of my friends from Mexico has asked me on a couple occasions to proof-read letters her company sends to American companies to makes sure the English is correct. For that matter, when I needed help with information about the Brazilian stock markets, I called my Brazilian friend on Skype and talked to him.
All in all, I think that our current communication technology fulfills the human need to stay in touch with his fellow man. There are some disadvantages, but the benefits outweigh them. It is hard to imagine life without Facebook or Twitter, and it is equally as hard to predict what we will be using in 10 or 20 years.
Growing up in St. Louis, I remember how me and my friends stayed in touch outside of school and other daily activities where we saw each other. The only way to see what a friend was doing, was to pick up my home phone (cell phones were still something mainly for Very Important People back then, they were just beginning to see mainstream use) call my friend's house, usually ask if he is home, and then talk to him. Now, I can whip out my phone and in about 5 or 10 minutes send my friend a text, check if he's online on Facebook, AIM, or any other instant messenger, and send him a tweet, which will go directly to his phone. Of course, I could have just called him.
Then came the internet. Soon, kids everywhere were using AOL to talk to each other more conveniently. Now we just had to wait a couple minutes for the modem to connect (I still remember the beeps, and static, and all the other noises a modem made, making it impossible to get online at night without waking half of the house), and soon we could see who was online, and talk to multiple people at once. This made staying in touch over long distances easier. This phenomenon soon took hold, and we saw an explosion in the movement to make communication more and more instantaneous.
In the fall of 1997, my family moved to Poland for two years, because my Dad got a promotion which involved moving there. This wasn't a problem, since my family is Polish, and we knew the language, but now I would be separated from all my friends by an entire ocean. The internet made things easier, allowing me to talk to my friends (as long as I could work around the time zone issues). I also used letters and postcards. You had to remember to send those early, if you were sending them for a birthday or other special event. Communication wasn't as instantaneous as it is today. By the time we came back to St. Louis in 1999, the internet was the dominant source of communication in my life.
Recently I had a chance to spend some time studying abroad. I went to a university in Strasbourg, France as part of a study abroad program as an undergraduate at UMSL. Then a year later (2008) I returned to Strasbourg as a graduate student doing the first year of UMSL's International MBA there. During this time, I met many students from many different countries. Many of them became close friends. However after a year together we would be dispersed throughout the world, returning to our home countries to finish our studies. Not even 20 years ago, keeping in touch with all those people would have been much different. I still have somewhere in my room my old address book, which had entries for most of my friends and family. Each entry had a home address and phone number, and sometimes and email address. Now my digital address book consists mainly of phone numbers and email addresses for all my friends and family.
In today's world keeping in touch with my friends from my stay abroad is much easier. Between Facebook, Skype, Twitter, email, and various instant messenger programs, we have no excuse to lose contact between each other. And the use of these technologies is growing more and more prevalent.
These technologies came about as a result of two converging forces: the Internet Explosion, and Globalization. The internet quickly grew in popularity and soon almost everyone had access to it. The internet didn't change our need to communicate with each other; it facilitated that need. . People around the world loved it. Businesses embraced it. The internet allowed for corporations in different parts of the globe to communicate more quickly, without having to wait for the right time to call, or for a response by mail. Soon, the smarter people saw where this was going, and began to address the human desire to stay in touch with members of our social circles. As a result we have things like Facebook, Skype, Twitter, and so on.
Now we are able to talk to each other anytime, day or night. This can be both good and bad. There are countless stories of texts or emails sent under the influence of alcohol, which are later regretted. Sometimes we want privacy, which can be hard when there are so many ways to reach somebody now. This can be good too, as seen in emergencies, through the use of mass emergency text systems or email alerts. There are things I like and dislike about Facebook, Twitter, and other technologies. For example, privacy can be hard to control, unless you are very diligent. If you don't want people seeing certain things, you really have to pay attention. Also, some people post too much information, which can be annoying. This can be controlled in your settings, but that also takes some effort.
However the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Using Facebook, Skype, and Windows Live Messenger, I have been able to stay in touch with my friends from Strasbourg. We update each other on our lives, plan trips to see each other again, and help each other out. For example, one of my friends from Mexico has asked me on a couple occasions to proof-read letters her company sends to American companies to makes sure the English is correct. For that matter, when I needed help with information about the Brazilian stock markets, I called my Brazilian friend on Skype and talked to him.
All in all, I think that our current communication technology fulfills the human need to stay in touch with his fellow man. There are some disadvantages, but the benefits outweigh them. It is hard to imagine life without Facebook or Twitter, and it is equally as hard to predict what we will be using in 10 or 20 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)