Jaigris Hodson conducted a discourse analysis, which is described as an analysis of language, of Google’s weblog from 2006 to 2011.  Hodson found that Google leaders constructed the company in two ways.  One was “the company as a provider of valuable (commodified) information, and the second construction was the company as a public service or an information utility provider.”  Hodson also determined that Google values information over anything else with the “Strong belief that technology is the source of human progress and that technological development is inevitable . . . the unspoken subtext suggests that if people can only get access to the information they need, when they need it, via Google’s search product, then they will be happier and more successful.”  By making information a commodity to make money off of advertisements Google marginalizes the workers who create the technology and the users of their product.  One way this happens is by prioritizing search results with Google companies at the top.  This ultimately results in two classes of people, “those who control information via their command of technology, and those who rely on others to do it for them.”

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/95524836/google-me-discourse-analysis-worlds-leading-search-engine

Derrick Kerckhove conducted an interdisciplinary study based on specific case studies rooted in social sciences, System Engineering Technology, Data Representation, and Science of Networks Complexity in order to create a set of comprehensive features that shape the personal and social sense of digital selfhood and identity.  These features are working towards defining the digital persona and represent its complex nature.  Kerckhove asserts that there is no inclusive definition of the digital persona at this time due to issues that arise from the four agents that affect the digital persona.  These four agents are personal agents, technological agents, institutional and legal agents, and civic agents.  The definitions that exist today do not take all of these agents into account and are missing a European Framework which is described as “a point of reference at the EU level regarding digital persona that includes identification, authentication, legal and ethical subjective identity management.”  Kerckhove outlines his issues with the current definitions and promises his continued research to build on these findings and provide a comprehensive definition that includes all layers and sectors of the digital persona.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/ta/2013/00000011/00000003/art00011?crawler=true

Colin Sparks explains that “The term ‘digital divide’ is used to cover a broad range of social differences in access to and the use of digital equipment and services, most notably personal computers, and the ability to access the internet in terms of both physical connection and facility of use.”  The issue is relatively new and has increased with the immense importance of the internet itself.  There are many ways to approach the study and analysis of the “digital divide”, its causes and effects.  Sparks goes over the three main approaches.  He also explains patterns of physical access that correlate limited access to the internet to the socio-economic status of an area.  Spark asserts that the most important future implications of the “digital divide” will take shape around how social life itself will revolve around the internet.  A society’s limited access to personal computers and the internet will prevent the society from becoming “fully networked” in knowledge, experience, confidence, and opportunity to sustain an acceptable standard of life.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/88216074/what-the-digital-divide-why-important

#tic104

This article I found very interesting.  The authors describe the impact of internet when searching for a mate.  This is interesting because of the rise of internet dating, communicating on social media and having relationships online have recently become a relatively normal thing.  The author argues that since there are more people online it might make it easier to start something rather than to pick from the limited pool of people that you have actually met in person.  Another issue that the author states is the problem of the search.  Where does one find the mate? Of course the internet makes this easier as well.  For example, just look at Facebook.  You can search anyone and get general information about people along with looking at there pictures, without the other person even knowing about it.  In my opinion there are positives and negative to this social impact that the internet created.  On a positive note, you have more opportunities to talk to people that you may never see and you have more choices.  On the other side, a relationship should have face to face communication.  If interested in reading more about it here’s the LINK.

I thought we had some very good discussions for the social/cultural/economic impact topic. I think we addressed some important economic issues with future jobs and also some good social issues to talk about like cyber bullying. I found an article online that is about a gun company that is now taking bitcoin as a form of payment. Here is the article. We did not really talk about bitcoin’s impact, but it will definitely impact the economic and cultural aspects of the web.

Last class we discussed how technology is affecting the future of jobs. Here is an article from The Economist that you might find interesting. It talks about how we have adapted to innovations in the past but how the technology revolution is something that no one is prepared for and how the future of jobs doesn’t look so bright from their perspective.

One cultural and economic phenomena I have experienced on the web, and has directly effected my life, is Amazon.com and the birth of online shopping. It’s allowed me to not have to leave my room to buy something I need. In fact, its become so good most of the time their prices are cheaper, practically […]