October 2011 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Fwd: [WikiEducator] Re: Survey/questionnaire used in researching social interaction
by gene loeb 21 Oct '11

21 Oct '11

I thought someone at air could help Benjamin. thanks,'Gene ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Benjamin Stewart <bnleez(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:55 AM Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: Survey/questionnaire used in researching social interaction To: wikieducator(a)googlegroups.com I'm looking for a survey or questionnaire that has been piloted and implemented in research that relates to social networking, PLN/PLEs, ICTs, etc. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Benjamin <http://wikieducator.org/User:Bnleez> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to wikieducator(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com -- With Sincerest Best Wishes , Gene Gene Loeb, Ph.D.

1 0

Short documentary on Internet infrastructure
by Ben Mendelsohn 21 Oct '11

21 Oct '11

"Bundled, Buried & Behind Closed Doors: Short documentary about economic geography of Internet infrastructure (Ben Mendelsohn)" Lower Manhattan’s 60 Hudson Street is one of the world’s most concentrated hubs of Internet connectivity. Set in the dense, mixed-use neighborhood of Tribeca, the building’s nondescript brick exterior conceals several network interconnection facilities where huge amounts of data are exchanged. This short documentary peeks inside, offering a glimpse of the massive material infrastructure that makes the Internet possible. Featuring interviews with Stephen Graham and Saskia Sassen, the video also explores why Internet infrastructure concentrates in some places and not others. Completed for a masters thesis in Media Studies at The New School. Watch it here: www.benmendelsohn.com Ben Mendelsohn New York City bamendelsohn(a)gmail.com

1 0

Can an algorithm be wrong?
by Tarleton Gillespie 21 Oct '11

21 Oct '11

All, I thought this group might be interested, would love comment and feedback if you have any. Tarleton ~ ~ ~ Can an algorithm be wrong? Twitter Trends, the specter of censorship, and our faith in the algorithms around us Oct 19, 2011 originally posted on Culture Digitally: http://culturedigitally.org/2011/10/can-an-algorithm-be-wrong/ reposted on Salon as "Our misplaced faith in Twitter Trends": http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/our_misplaced_faith_in_twitter_trends/ The interesting question is not whether Twitter is censoring its Trends list. The interesting question is, what do we think the Trends list is, what it represents and how it works, that we can presume to hold it accountable when we think it is “wrong?” What are these algorithms, and what do we want them to be? It’s not the first time it has been asked.Gilad Lotan at SocialFlow (and erstwhile Microsoft UX designer), spurred by questions raised by participants and supporters of the Occupy Wall Street protests, asks the question: is Twitter censoring its Trends list to exclude #occupywallstreet and #occupyboston? While the protest movement gains traction and media coverage, and participants, observers and critics turn to Twitter to discuss it, why are these widely-known hashtags not Trending? Why are they not Trending in the very cities where protests have occurred, including New York? The presumption, though Gilad carefully debunks it, is that Twitter is, for some reason, either removing #occupywallstreet from Trends, or has designed an algorithm to prefer banal topics like Kim Kardashian’s wedding over important contentious, political debates. Similar charges emerged around the absence of #wikileaks from Twitter’s Trends when the trove of diplomatic cables were released in December of last year, as well as around the #demo2010student protests in the UK, the controversial execution of #TroyDavis in the state of Georgia, the Gaza #flotilla, even the death of #SteveJobs. Why, when these important points of discussion seem to spike, do they not Trend? Despite an unshakeable undercurrent of paranoid skepticism, in the analyses and especially in the comment threads that trail off from them, most of those who have looked at the issue are reassured that Twitter is not in fact censoring these topics. Their absence on the Trends listings is a product of the particular dynamics of the algorithm that determines Trends, and the misunderstanding most users have about what exactly the Trends algorithm is designed to identify. I do not disagree with this assessment, and have no particular interest in reopening these questions. Along with Gilad’s thorough analysis, Angus Johnston has a series of posts (1, 2, 3, and 4) debunking the charge of censorship around #wikileaks. Trends has been designed (and re-designed) by Twitter not to simply measure popularity, i.e. the sheer quantity of posts using a certain word or hashtag. Instead, Twitter designed the Trends algorithm to capture topics that are enjoying a surge in popularity, rising distinctly above the normal level of chatter. To do this, their algorithm is designed to take into account not just the number of tweets, but factors such as: is the term accelerating in its use? Has it trended before? Is it being used across several networks of people, as opposed to a single, densely-interconnected cluster of users? Are the tweets different, or are they largely re-tweets of the same post? As Twitter representatives have said, they don’t want simply the most tweeted word (in which case the Trend list might read like a grammar assignment about pronouns and indefinite articles) or the topics that are always popular and seem destined to remain so (apparently this means Justin Bieber). The charge of censorship is, on the face of it, counterintuitive. Twitter has, over the last few years, enjoyed and agreed with claims that has played a catalytic role in recent political and civil unrest, particularly in the Arab world, wearing its political importance as a red badge of courage (see Shepherd and Busch). To censor these hot button political topics from Trends would work against their current self-proclaimed purposes and, more importantly, its marketing tactics. And, as Johnston noted, the tweets themselves are available, many highly charged - so why, and for what ends, remove #wikileaks or #occupywallstreet from the Trends list, yet let the actual discussion of these topics run free? On the other hand, the vigor and persistence of the charge of censorship is not surprising at all. Advocates of these political efforts want desperately for their topic to gain visibility. Those involved in the discussion likely have an exaggerated sense of how important and widely-discussed it is. And, especially with #wikileaks and #occupywallstreet, the possibility that Twitter may be censoring their efforts would fit their supporters’ ideological worldview: Twitter might be working against Wikileaks just as Amazon, Paypal, and Mastercard were; or in the case of #occupywallstreet, while the Twitter network supports the voice of the people, Twitter the corporation of course must have allegiances firmly intertwined with the fatcats of Wall Street. But the debate about tools like Twitter Trends is, I believe, a debate we will be having more and more often. As more and more of our online public discourse takes place on a select set of private content platforms and communication networks, and these providers turn to complex algorithms to manage, curate, and organize these massive collections, there is an important tension emerging between what we expect these algorithms to be, and what they in fact are. Not only must we recognize that these algorithms are not neutral, and that they encode political choices, and that they frame information in a particular way. We must also understand what it means that we are coming to rely on these algorithms, that we want them to be neutral, we want them to be reliable, we want them to be the effective ways in which we come to know what is most important. Twitter Trends is only the most visible of these tools. The search engine itself, whether Google or the search bar on your favorite content site (often the same engine, under the hood), is an algorithm that promises to provide a logical set of results in response to a query, but is in fact the result of an algorithm designed to take a range of criteria into account so as to serve up results that satisfy, not just the user, but the aims of the provider, their vision of relevance or newsworthiness or public import, and the particular demands of their business model. As James Grimmelmann observed, “Search engines pride themselves on being automated, except when they aren’t.” When Amazon, or YouTube, or Facebook, offer to algorithmically and in real time report on what is “most popular” or “liked” or “most viewed” or “best selling” or “most commented” or “highest rated,” it is curating a list whose legitimacy is based on the presumption that it has not been curated. And we want them to feel that way, even to the point that we are unwilling to ask about the choices and implications of the algorithms we use every day. Peel back the algorithms, and this becomes quite apparent. Yes, a casual visit to Twitter’s home page may present Trends as an unproblematic list of terms, that might appear a simple calculation. But a cursory look at Twitter’s explanation of how Trends works – in its policies and help pages, in its company blog, in tweets, in response to press queries, even in thecomment threads of the censorship discussions - Twitter lays bare the variety of weighted factors Trends takes into account, and cops to the occasional and unfortunate consequences of these algorithms. Wikileaks may not have trended when people expected it to because it had before; because the discussion of #wikileaks grew too slowly and consistently over time to have spiked enough to draw the algorithm’s attention; because the bulk of messages were retweets; or because the users tweeting about Wikileaks were already densely interconnected. When Twitter changed their algorithm significantly in May 2010 (though, undoubtedly, it has been tweaked in less noticeable ways before and after), they announced the change in their blog, explained why it was made – and even apologized directly to Justin Bieber, whose position in the Trends list would be diminished by the change. In response to charges of censorship, they have explained why they believe Trends should privilege terms that spike, terms that exceed single clusters of interconnected users, new content over retweets, new terms over already trending ones. Critics gather anecdotal evidence and conduct thorough statistical analysis, using available online tools that track the raw popularity of words in a vastly more exhaustive and catholic way than Twitter does, or at least is willing to make available to its users. The algorithms that define what is “trending” or what is “hot” or what is “most popular” are not simple measures, they are carefully designed to capture something the site providers want to capture, and to weed out the inevitable “mistakes” a simple calculation would make. At the same time, Twitter most certainly does curate its Trends lists. It engages in traditional censorship: for example, a Twitter engineeracknowledges here that Trends excludes profanity, something that’s obvious from the relatively circuitous path that prurient attempts to push dirty words onto the Trends list must take. Twitter will remove tweets that constitute specific threats of violence, copyright or trademark violations, impersonation of others, revelations of others’ private information, or spam. (Twitter has even been criticized (1, 2) for not removing some terms from Trends, as in this user’s complaint that #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend was permitted to appear.) Twitter also engages in softer forms of governance, by designing the algorithm so as to privilege some kinds of content and exclude others, and some users and not others. Twitter offers rules, guidelines, and suggestions for proper tweeting, in the hopes of gently moving users towards the kinds of topics that suit their site and away from the kinds of content that, were it to trend, might reflect badly on the site. For some of their rules for proper profile content, tweet content, and hashtag use, the punishment imposed on violators is that their tweets will not factor into search or Trends - thereby culling the Trends lists by culling what content is even in consideration for it. Twitter includes terms in its Trends from promotional partners, terms that were not spiking in popularity otherwise. This list, automatically calculated on the fly, is yet also the result of careful curation to decide what it should represent, what counts as “trend-ness.” Ironically, terms like #wikileaks and #occupywallstreet are exactly the kinds of terms that, from a reasonable perspective, Twitter should want to show up as Trends. If we take the reasonable position that Twitter is benefiting from its role in the democratic uprisings of recent years, and that it is pitching itself as a vital tool for important political discussion, and that it wants to highlight terms that will support that vision and draw users to topics that strike them as relevant, #occupywallstreet seems to fit the bill. So despite carefully designing their algorithm away from the perennials of Bieber and the weeds of common language, it still cannot always successfully pluck out the vital public discussion it might want. In this, Twitter is in agreement with its critics; perhaps #wikileaks should have trended after the diplomatic cables were released. These algorithms are not perfect; they are still cudgels, where one might want scalpels. The Trends list can often look, in fact, like a study in insignificance. Not only are the interests of a few often precisely irrelevant to the rest of us, but much of what we talk about on Twitter every day is in fact quite everyday, despite their most heroic claims of political import. But, many Twitter users take it to be not just a measure of visibility but a means of visibility – whether or not the appearance of a term or #hashtag increases audience, which is not in fact clear. Trends offers to propel a topic towards greater attention, and offers proof of the attention already being paid. Or seems to. Of course, Twitter has in its hands the biggest resource by which to improve their tool, a massive and interested user base. One could imagine “crowdsourcing” this problem, asking users to rate the quality of the Trends lists, and assessing these responses over time and a huge number of data points. But they face a dilemma: revealing the workings of their algorithm, even enough to respond to charges of censorship and manipulation, much less to share the task of improving it, risks helping those who would game the system. Everyone from spammers to political activist to 4chan tricksters to narcissists might want to “optimize” their tweets and hashtags so as to show up in the Trends. So the mechanism underneath this tool, that is meant to present a (quasi) democratic assessment of what the public finds important right now, cannot reveals its own “secret sauce.” Which in some ways leaves us, and Twitter, in an unresolvable quandary. The algorithmic gloss of our aggregate social data practices can always be read/misread as censorship, if the results do not match what someone expects. If #occupywallstreet is not trending, does that mean (a) it is being purposefully censored? (b) it is very popular but consistently so, not a spike? (c) it is actually less popular than one might think? Broad scrapes of huge data, like Twitter Trends, are in some ways meant to show us what we know to be true, and to show us what we are unable to perceive as true because of our limited scope. And we can never really tell which it is showing us, or failing to show us. We remain trapped in an algorithmic regress, and not even Twitter can help, as it can’t risk revealing the criteria it used. But what is most important here is not the consequences of algorithms, it is our emerging and powerful faith in them. Trends measures “trends,” a phenomena Twitter gets to define and build into its algorithm. But we are invited to treat Trends as a reasonable measure of popularity and importance, a “trend” in our understanding of the term. And we want it to be so. We want Trends to be an impartial arbiter of what’s relevant… and we want our pet topic, the one it seems certain that “everyone” is (or should be) talking about, to be duly noted by this objective measure specifically designed to do so. We want Twitter to be “right” about what is important… and sometimes we kinda want them to be wrong, deliberately wrong – because that will also fit our worldview: that when the facts are misrepresented, it’s because someone did so deliberately, not because facts are in many ways the product of how they’re manufactured. We don’t have a sufficient vocabulary for assessing the algorithmic intervention a tool like Trends. We’re not good at comprehending the complexity required to make a tool like Trends – that seems to effortlessly identify what’s going on, that isn’t swamped by the mundane or the irrelevant. We don’t have a language for the unexpected associations algorithms make, beyond the intention (or even comprehension) of their designers. We don’t have a clear sense of how to talk about the politics of this algorithm. If Trends, as designed, does leave #occupywallstreet off the list, even when its use is surging and even when some people think it should be there: is that the algorithm correctly assessing what is happening? Is it looking for the wrong things? Has it been turned from its proper ends by interested parties? Too often, maybe in nearly every instance in which we use these platforms, we fail to ask these questions. We equate the “hot” list with our understanding of what is popular, the “trends” list with what matters. Most importantly, we may be unwilling or unable to recognize our growing dependence on these algorithmic tools, as our means of navigating the huge corpuses of data that we must, because we want so badly for these tools to perform a simple, neutral calculus, without blurry edges, without human intervention, without having to be tweaked to get it “right,” without being shaped by the interests of their providers. -Contributed by Tarleton Gillespie, Cornell University Department of Communication-

1 0

Fwd: [ciresearchers] FW: 3 minute movie about the commons.
by gene loeb 21 Oct '11

21 Oct '11

This makes you think about sharing resources. Gene ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: michael gurstein <gurstein(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:02 PM Subject: [ciresearchers] FW: 3 minute movie about the commons. To: ciresearchers(a)vancouvercommunity.net, cracin-canada(a)vancouvercommunity.net, ci-research-sa(a)vcn.bc.ca Cc: Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml(a)communisphere.com> ** Well worth a look... M -----Original Message----- *From:* Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml@communisphere.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:22 PM *To:* Alex Smirnow; Robert Pollard; Michael Gurstein; Michael Johnson; Jeffrey Lowenhaupt; John Moran; Patti Lowenhaupt *Subject:* 3 minute movie about the commons. It's been suggested that the .nyc TLD is a commons. See this 3 minute movie about the commons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7jaSjkd0jM Best, Tom -- With Sincerest Best Wishes , Gene Gene Loeb, Ph.D.

1 0

Internet Mutations: Resistance and Control CfP
by Tessa Houghton 21 Oct '11

21 Oct '11

Please distribute as appropriate: *CfP: Internet Mutations: Resistance and Control * *Editors:* Erika Pearson (University of Otago, NZ) Tessa Houghton (University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus) *Contacts:* erika.pearson(a)otago.ac.nz tessa.houghton(a)nottingham.edu.my *Dates:* Chapter proposals (title + 300-word (max) abstract + brief CV of the author/s) are sought by 12/12/ 2011 for consideration by the publisher (Springer). The internet is contested: issues as diverse as censorship, connectivity, digital divides, hacking and hacktivism, grass-root resistance in virtual worlds and even what apps you can buy from an online store all affect how people as individuals, as consumers, and as citizens engage both with and on the internet. Utopian and dystopian ideals have now given way to an experience of the internet which has scope for everything from grassroots communication and social mobilization through to totalitarian regimes attempts to shutdown citizen access to these tools. Acts of resistance and acts of control utilize the same tools and sometimes even the same modes of communication and interaction, and often it is only a matter of perspective as to what is ‘resistance’ and what is ‘control.’ This book brings together multiple perspectives on the internet as a contested and contestable space, and in doing so, we highlight the complex interplay of social, technical, economic and political factors that construct the digital landscape of the twenty-first century. This book will focus its attentions on struggle: the ways the internet is used as a site of debate and tension, resistance and control, and is thus itself contested. Furthermore, this book will situate itself within the Asia-Pacific context as exemplifying the global contestations, and raise and explore issues of resistance and control that particularly impact internet users and online producers from the region as they extend out into cyberspace, and extend the internet into their everyday lives. This call is seeking potential chapter submissions from any disciplinary area related to the themes of this book. Possible chapter topics include (but are not limited to): • Censorship • Copyright and intellectual property • Online activism & political dissent • Access & equity • Grass-root resistance in virtual worlds & gaming • Privacy & security • The role of the state/private interests • Changing paradigms of education and training • Issues of transnational information flows • Mobile technologies and nomadic access ----------------------------- Dr Tessa J. Houghton<http://www.nottingham.edu.my/Modern-Languages/People/tessa.houghton> Assistant Professor in Media and Communication School of Modern Languages and Cultures The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus<http://www.nottingham.edu.my/index.aspx> Malaysia ph: +60 3 8924 8704 e: tessa.houghton(a)nottingham.edu.my <tessa.houghton(a)gmail.com> twitter: @TidgeH <https://twitter.com/#%21/TidgeH> "If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles." - J.B.S. Haldane

1 0

Survey of Comm Tech College Classes
by CarrieLynn Reinhard 20 Oct '11

20 Oct '11

I'm a first-semester assistant professor at a small private university that wants to expand its comm tech courses for undergraduates. I'm trying to get an idea of the current state of the field of college classes that talk about new media and other communication technology. I do so to know what to say to my department as to what is going on out there -- not to steal anyone's trade secrets. I'm interested in finding commonalities: what are others teaching about this phenomena doing that we could consider to be standards across the various courses? What are some challenges teachers are facing preparing and conducting these courses? What are common ways of teaching about the media in our students' lives? Are there things we teach in common? And how do we handle the ever-changing nature of the subject we teach? CarrieLynn D. Reinhard, PhD

1 0

Two positions: social media and communication technology
by Greg Wise 20 Oct '11

20 Oct '11

The Division of Social and Behavioral Sciences within the New College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences at Arizona State University has embarked upon a strategic effort to build scholarly and pedagogical expertise in social media and communication technology. As part of this initiative we are seeking faculty from across the social science disciplines who examine communication technology and social media in a variety of contexts and settings. These positions represent the initial hires devoted to this strategic effort. More information about the Division of Social and Behavioral Sciences can be found at http://newcollege.asu.edu/sbs/. Social Change and Communication Technology The division seeks an associate or full professor with expertise in social change and communication technology. The successful candidate will be able to develop courses, teach, and conduct research that examines the role and impact of communication technology in society. Of particular interest are scholars who explore the impact of social media on society, organizations, and social change and those who investigate the societal shifts that result from new communication technologies. Required Qualifications include: a PhD in Sociology or a closely-related discipline; evidence of an ongoing research program and level of publication consistent with tenured associate or full professor rank; evidence of successful college/university teaching; ability and willingness to teach undergraduate and graduate degree courses within the division; and relevant administrative experience. Application procedure: Send the following items electronically to Jamie.Howell(a)asu.edu<mailto:Jamie.Howell@asu.edu>: 1) a letter of application, 2) a current curriculum vitae, 3) three samples of scholarly work and 4) the names and contact information for three references (references will not be contacted without candidate notification). Application deadline: November 14, 2011; if not filled, every other Monday thereafter until search is closed. New Media and Media Campaigns The division seeks an assistant professor with expertise in new media and media campaigns. The successful candidate will be able to develop courses, teach, and conduct research in the areas of new media, social media, and communication campaigns. Of particular interest are scholars who explore the use of social media in public campaigns and social movements including but not limited to health campaigns, political resistance, and civil discourse. Required Qualifications include: a PhD in communication or a related discipline by August, 2012; evidence of an ongoing research program and level of publication consistent with experience; evidence of successful college/university teaching; ability to teach undergraduate and graduate communication degree courses. Application procedure: Send the following items electronically to Jamie.Howell(a)asu.edu<mailto:Jamie.Howell@asu.edu>: 1) a letter of application, 2) a current curriculum vitae, 3) three samples of scholarly work and 4) the names and contact information for three references (references will not be contacted without candidate notification). Application deadline: November 14, 2011 Division Statement/Gen Info Members of our division are committed to excellence in teaching and research and SBS is proud of the accomplishments of our faculty, students, and graduates. We are a research-oriented division where our priority is the discovery of new knowledge and understandings about human behavior, social issues and cultural processes; the application of that knowledge to the betterment of physical, mental, and social health; and the transmission of that knowledge to our students and the community of Arizona. Students have the opportunity to participate in faculty-student collaborative research projects, explore cross-cultural and global perspectives in their courses, access the latest computer technology for projects and assignments, and apply what they have learned in a variety of community-based internship sites across the Phoenix metropolitan area. All offers of employment are contingent upon the successful outcome (as determined by the university) of the pre-employment screening activities, including a criminal history check (or a fingerprint check), under Arizona Board of Regents policy 6-709. Arizona State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. ASU's complete non-discrimination statement may be found at: https://www.asu.edu/titleIX.

1 0

Assistant Professor opening in School of Journalism At University of Texas
by Johnson, Thomas J 20 Oct '11

20 Oct '11

The UT School of Journalism has another faculty opening. Please pass this along to anyone you think might be interested and a good fit for the job. Here are the details: The University of Texas at Austin’s School of Journalism invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position at the rank of assistant professor, beginning Fall 2012, to join our faculty of distinguished scholars and professionals as we launch our new converged curriculum in our new facilities in the Belo Center for New Media. Candidates’ research interests should be relevant to the vital issues of the day concerning the evolution of journalism and its contributions to a democratic society, including the changing economics, professional roles, and institutional structure of media and/or the impact of the emerging new media on journalism, citizenship and the public sphere nationally and globally. Additionally, applications are encouraged from those with interests in qualitative methods, issue-driven reporting, visual media, or cross-platform journalism; candidates with diverse training and methodological approaches; and candidates with relevant professional experience. Applicants should have earned their PhD in Journalism or a related field by August of 2012. Successful candidates will demonstrate a commitment to sustaining a vigorous program of original research and publication with potential for external funding; show promise of excellence in graduate-level teaching and mentoring (both M.A. and Ph.D.); and demonstrate the capacity and commitment to teach undergraduate journalism context courses and/or professionally-oriented journalism skills courses. Other desirable qualifications include the ability to work collaboratively within the School and College, and with scholars in other disciplines on campus and internationally. The School offers the B.J., M.A., and Ph.D. and is housed within a top-ranked College of Communication, which includes the nationally regarded Departments of Advertising & Public Relations, Radio-Television-Film, Communication Studies, and Communication Science and Disorders. Applicant Instructions: Screening of applicants will begin November 15, 2011 and will continue until the position is filled. Send curriculum vitae, names and contact information of three references, and a statement of interest in the position to: Thomas Johnson, Search Chair; School of Journalism; University of Texas at Austin; 1 University Station A1000; Austin, TX 78712-0113; email applications accepted at: tom.johnson(a)austin.utexas.edu<mailto:tom.johnson@austin.utexas.edu>. The School is committed to achieving diversity in its faculty, students, and curriculum, and it welcomes applicants who can help achieve these objectives.

1 0

IRB and social media follow-up
by Shelia Cotten 20 Oct '11

20 Oct '11

Hi everyone. I just wanted to follow-up on the use of social media for my grad Survey Research Methods class project. I appreciate all the comments, suggestions, and support provided! I took the advice of several people and talked with our IRB rep and the IRB agreed to let us use social media. Their main issue was of people identifying themselves as respondents. Unfortunately we can't control that but we've included some wording to hopefully help (per the IRB). I'll be posting the contact info and link to the survey soon and you'll be able to see the information that we had to provide/note. Once again, I thank everyone who offered support, advice, etc. I conveyed the feedback to my students and they were really impressed with the speedy feedback and the support! I hope you'll all respond to the survey and also forward it to others in your social networks! Shelia *************************************** Shelia R. Cotten, PhD Professor Department of Sociology University of Alabama, Birmingham 460N Heritage Hall 1530 3rd Ave S. Birmingham, AL 35294-1152 205-934-8678 cotten(a)uab.edu Twitter: @shelia_cotten

1 0

New Book: Internet and Surveillance: The Challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media
by Christian Fuchs 20 Oct '11

20 Oct '11

Fuchs, Christian, Kees Boersma, Anders Albrechtslund and Marisol Sandoval (Eds.). 2011. Internet and Surveillance: The Challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-89160-8. EU COST Publication. 332 pages. http://fuchs.uti.at/books/internet-and-surveillance-the-challenges-of-web-2… With contributions by: Anders Albrechtslund, Thomas Allmer, Mark Andrejevic, David Arditi, Roberto Armengol, Kees Boersma, Miyase Christensen, Christian Fuchs, David W. Hill, André Jansson, Deborah G. Johnson, David Lyon, Thomas Mathiesen, Marisol Sandoval, Iván Székely, Monika Taddicken, Daniel Trottier, Kent Wayland, Rolf H. Weber The publication has been supported by EU COST – European Cooperation in Science and Technology and the EU COST Action IS0807 “Living in Surveillance Societies“. This book is the first ever published volume that is dedicated to Internet surveillance in the age of what has come to be termed “social media” or “web 2.0″ (blogs, wikis, file sharing, social networking sites, microblogs, user-generated content sites, etc). The Internet has been transformed in the past years from a system primarily oriented on information provision into a medium for communication and community-building. The notion of “Web 2.0”, social software, and social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace have emerged in this context. With such platforms comes the massive provision and storage of personal data that are systematically evaluated, marketed, and used for targeting users with advertising. In a world of global economic competition, economic crisis, and fear of terrorism after 9/11, both corporations and state institutions have a growing interest in accessing this personal data. Here, contributors explore this changing landscape by addressing topics such as commercial data collection by advertising, consumer sites and interactive media; self-disclosure in the social web; surveillance of file-sharers; privacy in the age of the internet; civil watch-surveillance on social networking sites; and networked interactive surveillance in transnational space. This book is a result of a research action launched by the intergovernmental network COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). -- Prof. Christian Fuchs Chair in Media and Communication Studies Department of Informatics and Media Uppsala University Kyrkogårdsgatan 10 Box 513 751 20 Uppsala Sweden christian.fuchs(a)im.uu.se Tel +46 (0) 18 471 1019 http://fuchs.uti.at http://www.im.uu.se NetPolitics Blog: http://fuchs.uti.at/blog Editor of tripleC: http://www.triple-c.se Book "Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies" (Routledge 2011) Book "Internet and Society" (Paperback, Routledge 2010)

1 0