Zing of Authenticity

Although last week marked the one-year anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings, to many the tragic even feels like yesterday. And with a World Wide Web overflowing with data, information of the trauma continues to pour out from its digital home.

"If journalism is the first rough draft of history, eyewitness reports captured on mobile phones and broadcast to the world are the first reports—scratchings, written hastily on Post-its, which later become an outline that eventually inform the first draft as well as the drafts to follow," stated a TIME Magazine journalist.

What a fascinating concept.

"They are hastily scribbled and stuck in the moment, but later, when a skilled storyteller comes along, they begin to take shape into a cohesive narrative. And, particularly the case of the Marathon Bombings, they take on a life of their own as a kind of meta-narrative—we get a sense of how we respond when tragedy strikes," he continued.

However, unlike Word document or paper-and-pen canvases, these "rough drafts" take place on the Internet, never to be erased from its digital database. 365 days and a Google search later, I can still relive that tragedy—as if I was there.

According to National Geographic, Bill Braniff, executive director of the National Consumption for the Study of Terrorism and Response to Terrorism, said social media does exactly this; it places people into a digital community "instantly spreading information far beyond the affected area" at speeds comparable to a wildfire.

But many argue that this digital spread of information isn't only quicker than a wildfire but also more dangerous.

The rapidity of social media provides a "high", or "zing," as Brooke Gladstone, On The Media Host, calls it. In her interview with Alex Goldman, OTM Producer and Chief Twitterer, Gladstone explained the "zing of authenticity" journalists (both citizen and professional) experience when publishing news.

The question remains about whether the "zing" of publishing something first is worth more than the "authenticity" of publishing something credible. In other words, is it more important to be the first to disseminate questionable information or more important to be the first to disseminate credible information?

Gladstone questioned Goldman's motives as he tweeted information about the Boston Marathon bombings while hearing them from the local police scanner. She asked: "Were you tweeting the police scanner compulsively, or did you have intent?"

Perhaps a follow-up question would have been, "Were you tweeting questionably or credibly?"

Goldman continued with his answer: "I feel like my intent was just to give a sorta snapshot of the confusion that was going on on the ground. I mean, a police scanner does not create a narrative; a police scanner is just a couple of people giving bits and pieces of information."

Bingo.

Bits and pieces of information.

That's where this "zing" thing is faulty. There's a "calculated risk", as Goldman said, to tweeting information as it's heard rather than as it's corroborated.

At least one journalist at Time Magazine realizes this. He stated: "Though there is plenty to praise—the excellent work of some eyewitnesses who truly became amateur reporters, the absolute immediacy of information—there's also much to worry about: the emotion-fueled speculation, the misinformation, the vigilante journalism."

LA Times restated the same point: "In a mad rush to be the first to identify the perpetrators, anonymous posters online began openly naming people they believed had planted the bombs. Caught up in the mania, some traditional media ran with that information."

Ah, there it is again. That word "zing". Oh wait—they said mania, not "zing". How could I confuse those two?

Well, according to NPR, even The Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal thinks social media users are a bit maniacal. "People...decided that they could help with the investigation by taking all the photos that had come out of the bombing, combing through them and looking for suspicious characters," Madrigal said.

NPR stated: "Even in the beginning, Madrigal compared what was going on to vigilantism."

However, according to CBS News, Lance Ulanoff, editor-in-chief of Mashable.com, said it was more of an adrenaline for social media users to catch the bombers before the FBI, rather than helping with the investigation.

"They became investigators," Ulanoff said. "Their stated goal was to find the bombers before the F.B.I....so they weren't necessarily saying, 'Let's help find the bomber's; they were like, 'We're going to beat them to it..."

Zing.

Social media has provided an amateur platform for citizen journalists to be the first. Do we really thrive on being the first? Does this "sort of zing of authenticity" boost our ego, make us feel better about ourselves?

Perhaps not when we mistakenly accuse an innocent Brown University student as a suspect.

Then why do we do it? Why do social media users continue to use these sites as a way to say whatever, blame whatever and... just...whatever?

USA Today addressed this: "Another challenge for social media users in the wake of a tragedy: figuring out what is appropriate to share and what is not. For instance, some social media users posted graphic images of bombing victims."

ABC News also emphasized this: "Everything from photos of blood covering the ground to a six-second Vine of the actual explosion was circulated, giving people a truer image of what happened."

While some, like ABC, might argue that these images are true, others disagree. With Photoshop and other editing programs, who's to say what's true and what's not?

Yet, I can't take my eyes off those photos. I can't stop playing and replaying the video. Why? Because it gives me that "zing". I can be one of the firsts to see it. I can be one of the firsts to have this unauthentic "high"—a high that today we crave like any other drug.

ABC News stated: "According to Topsy, a Twitter analytics company, at around 4:10 p.m. (less than 90 minutes after the bombings on April 15), there were more than 300,000 mentions on Twitter of 'Boston explosions'. At around 4:30 p.m., there were more than 700,000 mentions on Twitter of the 'Boston Marathon'; the hashtag #prayforboston trended on Twitter, and Topsy reports that from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., more than 75,000 tweets mentioned 'Pray for Boston'."

What a high, right?

Gaming

While Jane McGonigal's TED Talk is inspiring (I took three full pages of notes), I found another article equally inspiring (or rather depressing) that counters her arguments. 

CNN's 'The Demise of Guys': How video games and porn are ruining a generation discusses how gaming in itself is a real-world problem. According to the article, "...young men become hooked on arousal, sacrificing their schoolwork and relationships in the pursuit of getting a tech-based buzz."

McGonigal refers to this “tech-based buzz” as a high that people of the world should be feeding off. She says gamers feel a sense of urgency, fear, concentration and deep focus while playing games—something the world needs more of to solve its problems.

When gaming, McGonigal says we become “the best version of our self”, “the most likely to help at a moment’s notice”, “the most likely to stick with a problem as long as it takes…to get up after failure and try again”.

Yet, according to CNN’s article and the research therein, “the best version of our self” during gaming is essentially, the best version of our self during gaming and nothing more. We aren’t applying our gaming “high” to conquer the world, as McGonigal would like us to believe.

The CNN article continues: "The excessive use of video games and online porn in pursuit of the next thing is creating a generation of risk-averse guys [and girls] who are unable (and unwilling) to navigate the complexities and risks inherent to real-life relationships, school and employment.”

McGonigal states that when playing a multi-player video-game, characters trust each other without even knowing each other. “Characters are willing to trust you with a world-saving mission, right away,” McGonigal enthuses. She refers to this level of trust as collaborative.

But other researchers are finding gaming to be destructive rather than collaborative.

“Stories about the degeneration are rampant: In 2005, Seungseob Lee, a South Korean man, went into cardiac arrest after playing ‘StarCraft’ for nearly 50 continuous hours,” CNN states. “Norwegian mass murder suspect Anders Behring Breivik reported during his trial that he prepared his mind and body for his marksman-focused shooting of 77 people by playing ‘World of Warcraft’ for a year and then ‘Call of Duty’ for 16 hours a day.”

McGonigal argues that time like that spent gaming is time well used.

“When we talk about how much time we’re currently investing in playing games, the only way it makes sense to even think about it is to talk about time at the magnitude of human evolution, which is an extraordinary thing,” she says. “But it’s also apt because it turns out by spending all this time playing games, we’re actually changing what we’re capable of as human beings—we’re evolving to become a more collaborative and hearty species.”

Hearty might be one way to explain it, or, maybe, heartless.

CNN states that “…video games also go wrong when the person playing them is desensitized to reality and real-life interactions with others”, relating the disconnect between virtual-worlds and reality, where people aren’t given a “level-up” every time they do something good or given another life every time they do something bad.

However, our TED Talker and CNN may have finally reached a consensus on one thing: gaming is a way to “escape real-world suffering…to get away”, McGonigal says.

And that, too, is how I view gaming. That it’s neither a bad thing nor a good thing. It’s just another world—no different than finding yourself lost in a good novel or motion picture, no different than finding yourself lost in social media or the internet, no different than losing track of time talking with a friend or spending a day at the park, carefree of any troubles.

It’s just another world. Adults still play make-believe.

Abstinence

48 Hours

As my husband and I drove through Zion National Park last month, slowly leaving behind the bustling city of St. George, I thought I'd have no trouble going 48 hours without technology at Zion Mountain Ranch—but I was wrong.

When we arrived at our cabin, we found ourselves "camping" comfortably, with a fireplace, running water and, here's the kicker, cable TV. We crawled into bed and cozied up with the gas-burning fireplace blazing in the corner and the TV beckoning our name—it was March Madness after all. Though my husband wanted to turn on the game, we shut off our phones and caught some shut-eye. 

And then we woke up and showered, drove to the restaurant down the street for breakfast and headed back to the cabin for some buffalo grazing. I whipped my Canon out of its bag and began documenting the beautiful animals and our surroundings. We went about our day, consisting of more driving around admiring the national park, hiking for beautiful pictures and grabbing treats at tourist shops to snack on throughout the day.

We settled back into our quaint cabin that night, ignored the beckoning TV and caught some shut-eye.

The next morning we woke early and met with a friend for some shooting. We put on our electronic hearing protection and listened to the muffled sound of our bullets hitting our targets. After a couple of hours, we hopped back into the truck and rolled down the windows for some fresh air. We grabbed lunch at a nearby restaurant before heading home.

"I did it," I thought. "I went 48 hours without technology."

But I was wrong. I had used technology when I warmed up with the fireplace, I had used technology when I had a hot shower in the morning, I had used technology when I drove to the restaurant, drove around the park, drove back home. I had used technology when I captured photos on my camera and when I stopped for lunch at the restaurant. I had even used technology when I replaced traditional orange ear plugs with 60 dollar electronic ones.

The only technology I really didn't use was my phone. 

And I thought I had gone 48 hours without. 

To say I met the requirements of this assignment might be a lie. But to say my eyes were open to all the technology that I take for granted is nothing shy of the truth. How naive of me to think that by shutting off my phone and avoiding the "on" button on the TV, I was going without technology. I never thought of a gas-burning fireplace as technology. I never thought of running water as technology. I never thought of a car as technology, or a DSLR or hearing protection or eating at a restaurant. 

I was so wrapped up in not using my phone, that I didn't even recognize just how much I was using technology—in all of its forms.

Convergence Presentation

YouTube: the video-sharing site valued at $45.7 billion - and that was two years ago.

"People have a lot of different experiences out there, and they want to share them. That's what we're about. We're the ultimate reality TV, giving you a glimpse into other people's lives." 

- co-founder Chad Hurley as cited in USA Today

Brief History

left to right: Hurley, Chen, Karim

source: World TV

According to Wikipedia and USA Today (as well as many other sources) YouTube was founded February 14, 2005 by former PayPal employees Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim. However, it wasn't until May 2005 that a preview of the video-sharing website was made public and had its official debut that following November. Early headquarters for the company were above a pizzeria and Japanese restaurant in San Mateo, Calif.

early headquarters

source: Wikipedia 

current headquarters in San Bruno, Calif.

source: Wikipedia

Wikipedia states that in November 2005, venture firm Sequoia Capital invested $3.5 million in the company, which initially began as an angel-funded enterprise. (Sequoia-backed companies are now collectively worth more than 20 percent of the total value of NASDAQ.) Then, in 2006, Sequoia and Artis Capital Management put an additional $8 million into the company. 

According to Business Insider and Film Creations (and other sources) what sparked the idea for YouTube was Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at the 2004 Superbowl Halftime. However, even though the video can be easily found on YouTube, it was not the first video posted to the site. The first YouTube video was posted by co-founder Jawed Karim and is a brief clip of him at the San Diego Zoo.

Other important dates (see Daily Infographic)

• October 2006: Google buys YouTube for $1.65 billion
• June 2007: launched in nine countries
• December 2008: HD video launched (720P HD)
• October 2009: Channel 4 partners with YouTube to start showing catch-up TV
• November 2009: full HD launched (1080P HD)
• May 2010: 2 billion daily views (That's 11,574 per second.)
• December 2010: True view ads launched
• May 2011: 3 billion daily video views (That's 34,722 per second.)
• December 2011: First major redesign
• go to Web Archive to see what YouTube used to look like
• January 2012: 4 billion daily video views (That's 42,296 per second.)
• December 2012: First video hits one billion views: Gangnam Style by Psy (see Film Creations)

YouTube now (well, as of a year ago)

• 800 million + monthly visitors 
• 72 hours + video uploaded per minute (That's over a decade of content every day.)
• No. 2 search engine (bigger than Bing, Yahoo, Ask and AOL)
• 4 billion hours of video viewed each month (That's over 450,000 years of video viewed monthly.)

The history of advertising on YouTube (see Mashable Infographic)

• June 2007: YouTube mobile site launches, drastically changing how video is distributed
• March 2009: YouTube signs Disney parternship
• April 2009: Shows and movies launch with hundreds of movies and thousands of full-length TV episodes
• October 2009: Livestream of U2 concert
• February 2010: Global livestream of President Obama's YouTube interview

monetization

• 94 of Adage's Top 100 advertisers run campaigns on YouTube 
• The number of advertisers using display ads on YouTube increased 10 fold in the last year

partners

• signed more than 10,000 partners to date (2011), including Disney, Turner, Univision and Channel 4
• hundreds of partners are making six figures a year

mobile

• No. 1 video viewing mobile website in the USA, with 7.1 million unique monthly users

traffic

• more video is uploaded to YouTube in 60 days than the three major US networks created in 60 years
• 70 percent of YouTube traffic comes from outside the US
• YouTube is localized in 25 countries across 43 languages
• YouTube's demographic is broad: 18-54 years old

Convergence: home videos to YouTube

Marketing Specialist Stephen Wilson said it perfectly: "Part of what makes YouTube somewhat unique is this wide spectrum of diversity. Today, YouTube is used for just about every reason imaginable. You can quickly find videos from media giants like CBS or children’s piano recitals for grandparents and relatives to watch worldwide."

What used to be family gatherings around a TV set has turned into much less private and much more accessible individual viewings around the world.

However, a major factor is no longer sharing sweet moments with grandma or grandpa; now, there is a much larger community who is more obsessed with popularity, such as the number of views, "likes" and shares a YouTube video gets. Personal home videos have converged into public entertainment.

see PBS video Generation Like:

Tyler Oakley
 (see time 9:30-10:25)

Oakley explains that he started his YouTube channel to keep in touch "in my own little way". He explains how surprised he was when one of his first videos received 100 + views. He said, "I do not have 100 friends."

Steven Fernandez aka "Baby Scumbag"
(see times 22:40-23:18 and 24:28 to 25:20)

Fifteen-year-old Fernandez initially rode to YouTube fame on his skateboard, but that isn't the only way he's retaining his fame. He now goes by the name "Baby Scumbag" and posts videos of him doing, well, "scummy" things. 

Best Device: Goji Smart Lock

The Goji Smart Lock is "an electronic locking system managed from your phone", set to release June 2014. Data is transferred from your Goji Smart Lock to your phone via an application. As of now, there is no information available about whether the app is free or an additional cost. In other words, your smartphone acts as your "key"; when the app is open, the user holds the smartphone in front of the Goji, and the Smart Lock opens if recognition is a match.

For a quick introductory to the Goji Smark Lock, watch the short video above.

The emerging market for the Goji Smart Lock is communication. The device allows the user to communicate with a locking system, assuring that only the approved people enter and leave the house. Similarly, as explained in detail below, the alert system communicates with users, explaining who enters or leaves the house and at what time. This can act as a parental control, alerting parents whether their child makes curfew, comes home during school hours, and so on. It can also send alerts to a user who is away from the home but has allowed a neighbor access to check on the house or care for a pet. As illustrated directly below, the Goji Smart Lock also sends picture alerts - a technological peep-hole, per se.

This new device acts largely in its consumer values: convergence, consumerism and interactivity. 

Convergence

access, utility, fair value

The Goji Smart Lock provides an individualized locking system, accessible to essentially anyone who can afford the almost $300 price. The device's utility relates directly to communication, as stated above, and there is large potential in its fair value; would you pay $300 to better secure your home AND have control while doing so? More and more people are thirsting for control in an otherwise technological driven world.

Consumerism

choice, convenience, performance

Most personal homes have a door lock and deadbolt, both requiring a standard key. But now consumers can choose to go the traditional route or venture a new route and try the Goji Smart Lock. A majority of people allows carry their phones, oftentimes in a back pocket of a pair of pants or inside a shoulder bag. Essentially, everyone always has their phone. Phones have already transformed into computers and cameras, so why can't phones be keys? With Goji Smart Lock, they are. Now that's choice, convenience and performance right there, and that's only the beginning.

Interactivity

individualism, control, security

Interactivity is encased in the above two consumer values. The user has complete control of who enters and leaves the home and knowing when they're doing so. For less than $300, the user is allotted an individualized, secure and personally controlled device. Better yet, the Goji is even personalized with the user's name, welcoming "John" to his home when no one else is there to do so; in a way, Goji is always there; the user is never alone. 

The camera sends you a picture of who's at the door.

24-hour support

Lose your phone? Goji's support team will suspend action from that phone; they're just a call away (hopefully you have a backup phone), 24 hours a day. 

Goji locks and FOBs

A single Goji lock can be pre-ordered for $278, twenty-one dollars cheaper than the soon-to-be retail value. A duo pack of Goji locks can be pre-ordered for $525, retailed at $598. Goji locks also come in three colors (silver, gold, copper) to match your door perfectly. As CEO and Founder Gabriel Bestard said, ."..state of the art in technology and design."

According to the Goji blog: "Goji FOBs are small yet powerful. They can hold an unlimited number of electronic keys allowing one FOB to open multiple Gojis easily. Give them to children, family, or friends that don’t own a modern smartphone, or loan them to long-term contractors, housekeepers, or babysitters."

Goji is compatible with iPhone and Android apps. 

Other information

• No more digging in your purse or pockets to find your keys. Keyless access allows the user to have his/her smartphone in a pocket or purse. Simply position your purse or pocket in front of the Smart Lock for the door to unlock.
• Do you have visitors that don't have a key? No problem. Access can be sent to different people and received via the application. This is ideal for instances such as when the user is out of town and has a house sitter, a babysitter is sent to care for the kids, etc. Such access can be recurring or single use.
• Unsure about people having access to your house? Access alerts are sent to the user, outlining what time someone uses the door. Alerts can also be used as a parental control, alerting when a child leaves or enters the home.
• The Goji Smart Lock system is battery operated and has a step-by-step DIY installation.

The Goji Team

About the Goji team

Gabriel Bestard-Ribas, CEO and Founder

Gabriel has more than 15 years of experience leading innovative technology projects for telecommunications and consumer goods companies in the United States and Spain. In 2011, he won the National Marketing Award in Innovation for the launch of the first Social CRM in Spain. He holds an MBA from top international business school IESE in Spain and a BS from Southern Illinois University.

Lloyd Seliber, VP Product

Lloyd has more than 30 years of experience in the lock industry, developing the most successful cylinder lock products in the United States for industry-leading brands such as Ingersoll-Rand and DORMA. He has also led consulting security projects internationally. He holds a BA from Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania. Lloyd holds multiple patents on lock technology.

Steven Bakondi, VP Engineering

Steven has more than 15 years of experience developing enterprise software, user interfaces and search applications for numerous large companies including Wells Fargo Bank, Symantec and MTV Networks among others. He studied electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

All information above found at www.gojiaccess.com. All information below found at the Goji blog.

Below is a visual example of the Goji Smart Lock. Although it is not required, users can choose to use Goji and its partnership with Staples Connect Hub, an additional $99 which provides a larger platform of devices on which the Goji can share information, such as tablets and PCs, as well as the usual smartphone.

                    

Goji Smart Lock Selected as Partner for Staples Connect

We’re happy to announce that the Goji Smart Lock has been selected as a partner for Staples Connect™ from Staples, joining its ecosystem of connected devices that can be controlled through the Staples Connect Hub and App with any smartphone, tablet or PC.

The Goji Smart Lock joins a select lineup of certified home- and office-automation products from brands such as Lutron, Philips, GE, Honeywell, Yale and First Alert, among others.

“Staples customers will appreciate the many extra features the Goji Smart Lock offers—especially the picture alerts—to help them feel more confident and secure knowing who’s coming and going from their home or office,” said Peter Gerstberger, Director/DMM, New Business Development, Staples.

Unlike large system-based solutions, Staples Connect allows users to add only the devices they want. The Staples Connect Hub, powered by Linksys, is available online and in a limited number of Staples stores for $99.

App Review: Epicurious

Epicurious: Recipes, Menus, Cooking Articles, and Food Guides

History

Epicurious is produced by Condé Nast Digital.

About Condé Nast Digital "Condé Nast Digital is the leading creator and developer of upscale lifestyle brands online, providing enjoyable, useful services that tie in to and build upon the heritage of the world's most prestigious magazines. Today, Condé Nast Digital owns the deepest online brands in the vertical categories of food (Epicurious.com), travel (Concierge.com), and fashion (Style.com). Based in New York, Condé Nast Digital is owned by Advance Publications, Inc., a privately-held media company."

According to a January 21 press release, "Epicurious, the most award-winning digital food brand... introduced the all-new Epicurious Recipe & Shopping List mobile app with a highly visual and advanced design built for iPhone and iPad. The first Epicurious mobile app, introduced in 2009, has been downloaded over 7.5 million times on the App Store..."

Epicurious has 11 editors, who produce content alongside food journalists, cookbook authors, and member submissions. Carolyn Kremins is the senior vice president and general manager of Epicurious, since June 2013.

Awards
The most recent awards listed on Epicurious are from 2012 and include:

2008 Webby Awards: Winner Social Networking 
2009 The Daily Telegraph: 101 Most Useful Websites
2010 ASME: Winner Mobile Media
2011 Time: 50 Best Phone Apps

Pros

• easy to function
• visually appealing
• colors
• grid-like pattern
• can search for what you want or search categories

     

• can add recipes to a recipe box
• can access recipe box on mobile phone while at store
• lists ingredients needed for a recipe
• can add ingredients to a shopping list
• check and uncheck items if you need to buy them

• voice activation
• can command your phone to scroll up and down or to go to "ingredients" or "preparation"
• can see others' ratings and reviews

• gives serving sizes
• can sort searches by relevance, rating, photo, A-Z, or  ingredients
• can share on Facebook, Pinterest, email and text message

Cons

• takes you to top of Homepage anytime you press the back arrow, instead of taking you to where you last were
• advertisements are always at the bottom of the app
• "Help" is only a list of FAQs
• no where to search for help
• must email if your question isn't on the FAQ list
• I personally couldn't get the voice activation to work

Assessment 1

"I don't hate your family, so why do you hate mine?" was a question posed by my friend, Matty Jacobson, on a sign he held during the "Let it Stand Rally" at the state's capitol last month. After a photo of him with the sign was posted on Facebook, it received 49 likes and three shares.

A Facebook event named "GOV. HERBERT: LET IT STAND!" was created to invite people to attend the rally. The data on the page showed the following: Going (2,358), Maybe (783), and Invited (25,478). Out of 25,478 people, only 2,358 had made a commitment, at least via Facebook, to attend.

I remember seeing a post someone wrote on Jacobson's Facebook wall. It said something to the extent of, "Gay marriage in Utah: When pigs fly or hell freezes over." His friend, like a lot of the social media world, were overcome with excitement and disbelief that Utah was the eighteenth state to legalize and begin performing gay marriages, a legal right that was taken away less than a month later.

According to Fox 13, "The U.S. Supreme Court halted same-sex marriages in Utah while an appeals court considers whether the state's amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. The full court, in a unanimous order... temporarily blocked same-sex couples from getting licenses. It also put more than a thousand couples in 'legal limbo', Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes said." (This story received 925 likes on Facebook and 47 shares on Twitter.)

Jacobson described the feelings he had when the right to marriage equality was made, only to be suspended 17 days later. According to The Independent, Jacobson explained: "I was elated for the whole time. I don't think anything could have brought me down. But then, when they put it on hold — it's hard to describe. The feeling of being equal and then becoming unequal again — well, it's interesting." And, according to two petitions put together by Jacobson and activist Tim Wagner, there were at least 56,000 people who agreed with him. (This story was viewed online 91 times and had three Facebook likes.)

According to the same article, "Wagner said he didn’t expect much of a response to the petition, which he posted 15 minutes before going to bed last Friday night. 'When I got up that Saturday morning, there were more than 3,000 signatures. That Saturday night, literally 12 hours later, we had about 30,000,' he said." Now talk about the power of new media! While it might've been possible to obtain 33,000 pencil-and-paper handwritten signatures, the chances of it happening as quickly as it did via the use of the Internet are slim.

Sean P. Means, journalist for The Salt Lake Tribune, wrote: "For the weekend, at least, it was thrilling to witness — via the news or social media — the outpouring of joy and amazement across Utah, not only from gay and lesbian couples but anyone who wishes them well. As dozens of couples rushed last Friday to the Salt Lake County Clerk’s office, where before 3 p.m. District Attorney Sim Gill had given the green light to issue marriage licenses, those couples couldn’t wait to tell the news via Twitter or Facebook — essentially inviting the world to come to their impromptu weddings."

As Marshall McLuhan said, "the audience wants to get into the action. They all retire inside to watch the news and then come outside to participate in covering the news and acting it out themselves." McLuhan's statement is ever as true today as it was when he said it in 1970. With the power of new media today, citizen journalism is increasing with rapidity. I don't have TV cable at home, so I found all of my information about Utah's Amendment 3 and the state's allowance of gay marriage via the Internet, first through citizen journalists on Facebook, later through professional journalists on news' websites.

If only for a day, people of all backgrounds joined together to support one cause — marriage equality. As mentioned above, "When pigs fly, or hell freezes over" was the manner in which most content was posted on my social  media feed the day U.S. District Judge Robert. J. Shelby stated "that the law passed by Utah voters in 2004 is in violation of the rights of gay and lesbian couples to receive due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment." Most people posted in excitement at the disbelief, while a select few posted negative comments.

According the same article, "Equality Utah, a Utah gay rights group with a strong presence in Southern Utah, posted this message on their Facebook page in response to the news: "Love conquers all! Even in Utah..." (This article was viewed online 151 times. No stats were given for the number of "likes" or shares received via social media.)

KSL posted an article titled, "Defending Amendment 3 may cost Utah $2M". It received 2.1k Facebook shares and 32 Tweets. When I typed in "Utah constitutional amendment 3" on YouTube, there were 6,260 results. I searched the following hashtags on Instagram with these results: #Amendment3, 25 posts; #equality, 893,305 posts; #equalityutah, 361 posts; #lgbt, 1,741,621 posts; and #marriageequality, 152,075 votes.

Because I was witnessing different comments on my own Facebook feed, than, say my husband, I know my opinions about the event were shaped differently than his because his feed consisted of different content, as our friends differ in their interests. Similar to the saying, "You are what you eat", I think today you are what you "feed", the word being used in the sense of a Facebook feed, Twitter feed or other social media feed.

It's much like the idea that you are who your friends are. As we've discussed in class, a majority of people delete their friends from Facebook or unfollow others on Twitter, Instagram, etc., whose opinions are not in line with their own. So, we are being "fed" only what we want to "eat". My views on Utah marriage equality are that Judge Shelby's decision was right and the decision of Gov. Herbert to take away marriages that were performed is wrong. Do I feel this way because I have friends who are a part of the LGBT community? Yes. Would I feel this way if I didn't have friends who were a part of the LGBT community? Probably not. Because my life and views would be entirely different, as would my social media network of friends and family.

According to the 2011 textbook, Understanding Digital Culture, by Vincent Miller, "It is important to reiterate that technologies themselves do not determine society, but instead emerge from a context of socially constructed needs, wants, and priorities, as does the way in which technology is adopted" (p. 96). Technological Determinism is further defined in the textbook: "It is often said, especially in the initial stages of the adoption of a particular technology, that the technology will generate social change based upon the implicit values, virtues, or vices possessed by that technology" (p. 134).

In reference to the right to marriage equality and the use of social media to petition for or against the right, I let the technology drive me because I was using it to repeatedly to understand the situation. I didn't check my emails regularly, or make frequent phone calls to get the information I wanted, I was logging into Facebook on my phone. If I was "hungry" for information, I tuned into my Facebook "feed" to eat. And, like Sean P. Means said, people were using social media to outpour joy and amazement, to invite others to come to their "impromptu" weddings to share those feelings. As I said earlier, how else would 33,000 signatures be generated in less than 12 hours if it weren't for the Internet? Now that, that is technological determinism.