J I B B E R - J A B B E R

So here's the deal.

As fellow Gen Yers or members of the digital natives clan, we are constantly surrounded by social media of various different kinds.

So much so, that we rely on it.

I mean, I know of some people who refer to social media as their drug, so addicted that they can't imagine a world without it.

I don't know if I could do it. To be honest, when away on a holiday, I was checking Facebook EVERYDAY. But then again, maybe it was because I was in Canberra!

So what makes me think this? Two reasons.

1. I saw how much influence it has in the lives of myself and of all those around me (with only a handful of people being unaffected by it)

2. As a result of the riots in London, people are suggesting that social media should be banned during times of unrest. David Cameron, UK PM, suggested a total ban.

The second point really stimulated my thoughts, as I already talked about in my previous post, social media was not the 'cause' of the spread of the riots!

And on top of that, TWITTER is aiding in the cleaning efforts in London!

So why ban social media when it was not really the cause?

And what would happen if that were to happen?! If you get what I mean.

There would be a whole lot of withdrawals, that's for sure. And God knows what else. We are only beginning to really understand the potential in social media. For it to be subjected to a ban would allow for things to run wild and the truly ugly to happen. Which would cause more problems, and more knee-jerk solutions from the authorities.

So can you do it?

Vote on this poll! It'd be interesting to see.

Comment below. Tell me, what would you do if all forms of social media were banned. How would you cope?

To be quite honest, I was uninspired this week. Usually, I have something that catches my attention, and so I jump at the opportunity to blog about it.

Not this week.

So I put out a call for help on Facebook, and this is the response I got.

The one that really caught my attention out of all the feedback was the comment regarding Facebook Places and deals.

Clearly a new avenue businesses to market themselves online through Facebook.

So the general gist of it is that businesses can offer deals to visitors or fans through their pages (which is a practice that is already in place) and Facebook Places, something that Australia has just decided to adopt now. Facebook outlines the categories in which the deals can be obtained.

I think this is particularly useful, especially for the retailers in light of their recent problems relating to sales. In conjunction with this, apparently Facebook Places has been in 'Struggle Town', therefore, the two combining together allows for the retailers to increase traffic in their stores, and for the Facebook Places function to be used more often.

So far there have been four brands that offer deals to celebrate the launch, those being 7-Eleven, Commonwealth Bank, Westfield and KFC.

I think this is also another great way for businesses to engage with their consumers. This will also help generate more customers as often people will need to do something in exchange for the deal. Like the Commonwealth Bank is giving away free movie tickets to all those who open up a new Everyday Account with them. Here are the deals other brands are offering.

I have no doubt in my mind that businesses will jump to this opportunity, I mean the only costs that they will be incurring is that of any discounts, but the benefits are numerous!

I think it's time for me to get an iPhone to utilize this app, the stingy Asian in me is telling me to do so. But then again, I'm not willing to jump on THAT bandwagon just yet. Maybe I'll just upgrade my phone.

What do you think? Will you be making the most of this?

Moral Panic. A term coined Stanley Cohen in the study of criminology and defined it as disjointed episode, whereby society is subjected to moral panics in which the values and principles within society are potentially jeopardized. He elaborates on this concept by stating that these episodes are amplified by the mass media, exaggerating the facts and turning them into a bigger issue than what it may actually be.

So why am I bringing this up?

In my recent criminology classes, we were discussing the effects of moral panics and their effects on society including the stereotypes they introduced and were implemented into society. We discussed different types of moral panics that have occurred in the past, including the mods vs. the rockers in the 70's and the HIV/AIDs threat in the 80's. Then we were asked to think about modern examples.

And after seeing a news report on the London riots earlier that morning, I thought of social media.


Of course, this definition of moral panics was written 40 years ago, a long time before the introduction of the internet and the www and definitely a long time before the social media sites. However, a contemporary moral panic that is occurring currently, and that has been a moral panic is social media itself. The definition has been expanded to include not only 'a condition, episode, person or group of persons' but also to include social media. I guess that's what you would call it right?

Yeah sure, Facebook and the likes have very little to do with crime. However, the hype that has surrounded the whole social networking phenomena has been controversial, with the younger generation embracing it and most of the older generations unable to comprehend it (a characteristic of moral panic, the youths of society embrace it, whilst the older people worry over it).

When I was watching the report on the London riots, I had next to no knowledge that it was happening, and it shocked me when I realized that it was entering it's 4th day. What amazed me in the report was that there was no mention of the alleged cause (which I discovered later having to Google it that an alleged police shooting had occurred which led to the youths rioting), merely stating that there was unsatisfied minors within the community and that social media was the real cause.



And I thought, how? The Daily Mail claims that the violence was fuelled when photos of a burning police cars were re-Tweeted 100 times on Twitter, and The Sun writes about how Twitter was used to increase their numbers. However, it turns out that Twitter did not fuel this riot, it was the Blackberry Messenger.

Another case of mass media targeting social media? Most likely.

You see, there are a lot of older people out there who are scared of the unknown, and social media is one of them. I think it is hard for them to comprehend the size of it, the ability for one to simply post something up and have everyone see it and to be able to engage with hundreds of people in front of a computer screen.

I also think that traditional forms of media are scared of this new media, as discussed in a recent Electronic Marketing seminar. These older forms are going out of business and in an attempt to save themselves, they have resorted to tarnishing the name of social media sites so as to decrease their popularity.

Such examples are children under 13 being allowed to gamble on Facebook and paedophiles preying on children through MySpacce and Facebook, just to name a couple of the more recent examples.

Then I sit on the other side (in front of the computer screen), and I think to myself, it is really not that bad.
Sure, there may be some paedophiles using Facebook or MySpace as a route for their disgusting behaviour, but how many?
Sure there are some children who may have seen an advertisement on Facebook for a gambling game, but how many have actually played?

 I think it was about a month ago that I was invited to Google+.

Eager to join the new online phenomena, I quickly joined up and was a little confused by the layout of everything. I think a lot of people whose interests did not lie in IT or broadening their interactions with different forms of social media were put off, with a friend saying "I would use it if it looked more like Facebook".

And many others must have been thinking the same thing as sites such as this allow people to convert the Google+ layout to the Facebook one to make the transition easier.

Until very recently I have re-entered the Google+ website and tried to understand the different concepts, and have realised that it IS a WHOLE lot better than Facebook.

Using circles allows yo to follow people without requiring the acceptance from that certain someone. But circles also allows you to be selective about who gets to see what, a tool that is especially useful allowing for me to engage online in a manner that doesn't make me feel so restricted. On Facebook, before updating your status or posting up images, I usually consider who might see it. Family and work colleagues that are my friends on Facebook stop me from going all out when I want to state how I feel.



I still want to try out the Hangout function, got some friends on standby waiting for a free moment so we can try it out! Will update on that when I get the chance to do it!

So, have do you have Google+, and what do you think?

Follow me! Cause I'm awesome :)

I'm also wandering whether Google+ will offer the same ability for businesses to promote themselves online (like fan pages, but I guess in this scenario, members would just follow the particular business). Does anyone know?




RANDOM:

I was talking to my cousin who works at NextGen Networks, a provider of data services about a recent meeting she had with her elderly superiors. The topic? Introducing NextGen to the social networking websites to increase their exposure.

This situation was a clear portrayal of the digital immigrants and digital natives that reside in modern society. Especially when the 'wannabe' digital immigrants were clinging to every word of the digital native's words regarding their interaction with sites such as Facebook.

The funnier thing about this whole situation is that these superiors didn't want their customers to be interacting with them i.e. commenting on their Facebook fan page. They only wanted another route to communicate information to their customers. Which defeats the purpose of the whole situation...

Right?