Tags

Alright, another new “new new media” device to try out and play with. I must say, I thought DIGG was by far the most “beneficial” site, insofar as it supplies a vast array of information that is important for people to read. Their attempt to be democratic (with the Dug and Buried) is commendable, if not ultimately imperfect. However, I think it’s my rather asocial tendencies that prefer reading news reports rather than trying to be charming over 140 characters.

So now on to Google+. I certainly hope to get more “intune” with it, but I think I’ll try a TETRAD out right now with Facebook. I like the idea of doing multiple and briefer tetrads because I feel like they are, by design, versatile and malleable. So:

ENHANCES:

An actual feeling of connectedness. Maybe it’s just the “honeymoon phase,” but I feel like the people that I’m adding are actually people I’ll be communicating with. As opposed to Facebook’s increasing feel of casualness.

The “circles” also enhance organization. Since when did my mother belong with my college buddies?! Hopefully, never! So in that regard, the interface is definitely enhancing the overall feel of “user dominated.” Whereas sometimes I feel at the mercy of Facebook’s “timelines” and other varying (and perhaps arbitrary) changes.

Retrieves:

It seems to retrieve a sense of academia. This might be completely disagreed with (and I embrace all criticisms), but I feel like Google+ is a bit more scholarly. Perhaps its the design (which I find a bit more “elegant” than Facebook). It feels more “mature” and less spam-y. This may also be due to the general lack of advertising as seen on Facebook, which makes me feel like there are Secret Service Officers “breathing” on the other end of the internet, watching me.

Obscolesces:

This is a tough one for me at this point (which is why I like doing short ones, as a way to brainstorm without feeling like any of this is final). But right now, I must say, it feels like a bit of “trolling” has obsolesced. I’m not seeing any crazy/absurd/ridiculous statuses or links or videos. This may certainly be because I have only a select number of friends, but it seemed like I somehow “accidentally ran into” people I wasn’t friends with on Facebook who were outlandish/troll-like characters… I’ll keep my eyes peeled for this type on Google+… I know they’re out there.

I feel like the “circles” might actually (ironically, so perhaps this is a reversal) obsolesce the “friending” of unknown/barely known people. How many people will actually make a circle called “random strangers.” On Facebook, it seems to me, people are more willing to befriend “periphary” friends due to the extremely casual feeling of Facebook.

Reverses:

I could see Google+ reversing into a “dead academic tool.” If it strikes me initially as more academic and elegant, than it risks becoming less of a “social” (in the most immature sense, perhaps) media and more of a “networking” media (the difference between these two might only exist in my mind).

 

Again, this is by far incomplete, but I promise to keep modifying it and watching it grow. In the meantime, I’m going to read a bit more Deleuze and see if my paper topic can’t encapsulate “TROLLING.” Wish me luck and give me feedback!

Advertisements