Giants behaving badly: Google, Facebook and Amazon show us the downside of monopolies and black-box algorithms

After reading the article “Giants behaving badly: Google, Facebook and Amazon show us the downside of monopolies and black-box algorithms” by Mathew Ingram, I thought about the discussion we had in class Tuesday. We were given situations, voted and discussed if they were acceptable, unacceptable, or dependent. This article looks at three internet giants, Amazon, Google, and Facebook, and talks about recent times these companies have exposed their power. The article claims that each of these companies is monopolizes, or are doing something to monopolize the product. After reading each recent activity, I thought to myself, is this acceptable, unacceptable, or dependent on other factors?

The first post was on amazon, and how they use their power, to get better deals with book sellers. They make it difficult to find certain books, possibly based on the deals they have with those companies. The article discusses how some believe this is no different than physical stores doing the same things, in order to get better deals on product. However, it makes it even more difficult when the item isn’t physically able to be found. In this situation I find it dependent on a number of factors. Though the article gives a good argument, on how this should be deemed illegal, it seems that Amazon is simply using the laws put in place to their advantage. I would need more information on the deals, and how often this happens, in order to say I believe the action to be unacceptable. The next post talked about google, and their powerful algorithm they use. It discussed a case where a company suffered form an updated algorithm. This company relied on google for customers, and the new update forced their link down multiple pages. The company blamed google, however google denied this happened purposefully, and couldn’t explain how the new algorithm did this. I find this case acceptable, as I doubt google changed their entire algorithm in order to destroy this one company. There are other ways to succeed without google, and though it shouldn’t be on google to have that large of an impact, it seems google did something to improve their own brand, and unknowingly hurt another. The final post was on Facebook, and how their algorithm helps pave the way for users to view certain posts. This seems to be the most unacceptable, however I still believe it is dependent on other factors. Facebook shouldn’t be using code to have people view certain things over others. However it is just as much on the user, to avoid things they don’t want to see. Also there are a number of other platforms that could be used, if Facebook isn’t giving you proper content.

In the end the article discusses ways to avoid these companies, but in fact these companies are unavoidable. They are the gold standard, and use their power accordingly. This is no different than any other giant company, it just happens to be internet based, which most believe should be free. What I gained from this article, and class discussion, is there is a lot of grey area in these scenarios. They are dependent on a number of things, and though they seem intrusive, it is a matter of how the companies use these advantages.

The Problem Isn’t Over-Sharing. It’s Over-Following

In the article “The problem isn’t over-sharing. Its over-following,” The author Penny Drexler discusses the most frequent annoyances of Facebook and social media. She discusses the idea that many people dislike those who document their child’s every move, and even create profiles for their children. The idea isn’t that this is the true issue with social media, but instead discusses our want and need to complain as the reason we strongly dislike these types of post. The article mentions studies done that show the overall dislike for these types of post, and studies discussing why we continue to obsess over social media. The main idea is that the obsessive need to complain, and follow something that is strongly disliked is what is leading people to continue with these trends. The article discuses following every aspect of a relationship breaking down over social media, and the fact that we continue to read and can’t look away. This made me think of a similar example from my own experience. I am friends with someone who I have never met, from the town of my old roommate in New Jersey. After my friend showed me his page, and ridiculous opinions he spouted, I added him as a friend and began to follow his every post. Though I didn’t agree with almost all of his opinions, and many of his posts angered me with stupidity, I continued to read and follow out of pure entertainment. I had no connection to this person whatsoever, and became obsessed with his page.

My last post discussed how deleting the Facebook app off my phone, allowed me to stop relying on information from the page. By constantly refreshing and hoping for new information, my viewing became impatient, and unenjoyable. This idea can also be applied here. The obsession with complaining leads to constant checking of Facebook and other social media platforms. Following something disliked in order to connect and discuss later is what leads us to continue obsessing over these pages. Is this a good thing? Should we be okay with knowing that we obsess over dislike? My opinion is no we shouldn’t, and should look for better ways to spend our time. Though studies show complaining relieves stress that combined with the amount of time spent on social media is far too much. By deleting these apps off of phones, it allows for more time away from the device, and less time worrying about what others are posting. It also allows for finding others ways to find enjoyment, other than complaining about the posts of others.

Instant gratification is making us perpetually impatient

              With today’s technology, instant gratification has become the norm, as people no longer want to wait for information, unless it is quickly made available to them. When information, whether its news, videos, television, humor, or anything media produces, is given too late, it doesn’t get the same reaction, or effect on society today. The article “Instant Gratification is Making us Perpetually Impatient,” discusses how this idea of instant gratification, has made people extremely impatient, as they no longer want to wait for new content. Slow internet has become one of the most infuriating aspects of life, as waiting now seems unnecessary. Many aspects of technology have helped improve daily life. Apps for shopping, eating, information, and anything else offered makes life easier, and information easily accessible. This made me think of what can be done to help lessen the effect of instant gratification, and allow people to have more patience.

One way I have been able to achieve this is my own personal life, is not relying on phone applications that can be on phone internet browsers. For example, recently I deleted both the Facebook and espn apps off my phone. These were where I spent most of my daily phone activity, and I saw it having a negative effect on my life. I would stay on the page, and constantly refresh it, hoping for new information to obtain. I found this distracting, and also upsetting when I wasn’t able to receive new information. By deleting these apps from my phone, I have begun spending less time looking at my phone, and using it for actual purposes, not just boredom. I can still go on the internet and go to Facebook or espn when I need to, but because it is no longer just a click away, I find myself not constantly going to the internet browser to do so. With the current speed of the internet, and how easily information is accessible, societal lives are being negatively affected, as we have become impatient. By ridding myself of unnecessary access, I have created more free time, and less reliability on information gained through new technologies.

9/11 and the power of the press

After reading President Bush’s address to the nation, in March of 2003, I was interested in viewing the speech, and seeing the different responses that each gave. After completing both the difference in responses is clear. When reading the address, it is clear how President Bush is trying to frame his decision. He is trying to place a gain frame on the subject by pointing out all the great things this move will do for the people of Iraq. He explains the intent is to “to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” The frame is trying to avoid the negative aspects of war, and focus on how this was a necessity of human rights. When watching the speech, the response is much different. The frame is more on emotion and how the president is speaking. President Bush’s tone is somber, but clear. This shows that this decision was tough, but had to be made. The frame is to humanize the president, but still show power.

These two examples exemplify the power of the press, especially after 9/11. There was a difference in opinion post 9/11 throughout the country, and media helped perpetrate the argument by sharing information. How certain media outlets chose to frame the news, in this case President Bush’s address to the nation in March 2003 effected how the viewer reacted to the news. In the Wikipedia page on Popular Opinion in the US of the Iraq war, it shows that in the same month as the speech, 54% of Americans favored an invasion, while just two months later, 89% of Americans believed the war was justified. This rise in numbers has a lot to do with the way media chose to portray the news. It was framed by certain outlets positively; therefor viewers began to view the war as justified. Other media outlets framed the war negatively, thus a number of polls had varying numbers of American’s support of the Iraq war.  

Priming: Enclothed Perception

I found the article on enclothed cognition extremely interesting. The article talks about the effect certain clothes, or the perception of those clothes, have on those wearing or seeing them. This theory can be seen firsthand on any basketball court. When a player is wearing a jersey, cool shoes, and other accessories seen in the NBA, they have higher confidence and often seem as if they are a better player to the opponent. By wearing gear that is worn also by famous NBA players, anyone will have higher confidence about their game, when wearing the same items.  This is not the case when a player gets on the court in normal street clothes. This has an effect on the players own perception, and their perception of others of the game being played. This is also affected by which player’s gear you are wearing. Wearing the items worn by LeBron James has a different effect on wearing generic basketball gear. By wearing these items even a terrible player can think they are a lot better than they truly are.

An effect on the opponent can also be seen, as the gear being worn can make the opponent think higher of the player wearing the clothing. By having a high number of gear, the opponent will assume that player has higher experience, and uses the gear properly to advance their game. The article talks about how the theory works with a doctor’s lab coat. They look at multiple factors including, how the person wearing it is perceived, and if it has any effect on their psychological processes. The highest improvement seen was in attention. On a basketball court, the same effect would be seen in the player’s strength and confidence in their game.

I stand by this theory first hand. Any time I play basketball, I put on a pair of Jordan’s, a jersey, sweatbands, and high socks and arms sleeves. This may not make me a better player, but it makes me think I am, along with putting initial fear in the opponent. I may be terrible at basketball, but wearing the proper gear makes even a nonathletic, out of shape, Jewish boy like me seem good at basketball.

False Memories

              Everyone is affected by false memories, even those with the best memories. After reading the article “Remember that? No You Don’t. Study Shows False Memories Afflict Us All,” I started thinking of my own experiences with false memories. A friend once told me a story in middle school about him zipping up his backpack without noticing someone’s hair got caught in the zipper. He ran off down the hall after a group of friends, and accidentally dragged the person along with him. We have laughed about this story for years. The only problem is our other friend swears it actually was him that ran off with someone caught in the zipper. Both have been retelling the story for years, yet neither can remember who it actually happened too. According to the article, these occurrences happen to everyone, but what causes these false memories to be triggered? In this scenario the one who it actually happened to, obviously told the other. From there the story was told by the other person so many times, that eventually it became his own. For years I believed that one person lied so many times that it became true to them, but after reading this article it showed that the memory was distorted throughout the years, as the brain couldn’t store the entire memory clearly.

             

             In the article, the researchers tested false memories by taking individuals with both strong and normal memories, and asked them questions that were designed to bate them into false memories. One example was talking to the subjects about video of United flight 93 crashing, which does not exist. 1 out of 5 subjects would say they remembered seeing the footage and would talk about it in detail. This reminded me of the Jimmy Kimmel Live segment, “Lie Witness News.” In this segment they find people on the street and ask them about fake news stories. The people will then respond like they knew about it, and give fake information about the subject. The beating of an individual into a false memory seems connected to what we have discussed in class about framing. The person asking the question is bating the person into the false memory, by framing how they ask the question. Whether it’s a question about an event that is well remembered or a fake reporter with a camera asking a seemingly legit news question, the question is framed for the person to believe whatever they see and/or speak.