The "Informed" Cyberworld

We live in the age where the Internet is Big Brother –the all knowing and omnipresent. And it’s not just limited to Google. It's actually the social networking sites that feeds most of the netizens "information" at their clicking. In fact, according to Pew Research Center Facebook has become a driving force in the News arena - "Its role has evolved from a network for friends to share personal information to a way for people to share, recommend and link together all kinds of information, including news." The simple act of clicking "share" or "retweet" has made News into a social experience.

Image Source: http://www.journalism.org

However, with this clicking, re-tweeting, sharing (which has somehow become an auto-response programmed in the body of netizens worldwide) comes the issue of truth and authenticity of the things we read online. In today's fact paced world, most of us have been spoon-fed with too much information. We want things concise, brief and easy to digest. Just look at Twitter's 140-character limit! And with this compression comes misinformation. In her article, Lian Nami Buan, talked about the problem of spreading unverified news and points to some examples. She also points out that it is not difficult at all to verify online information and suggests that "the first step to achieving a properly-informed cyber world: Read More."

What does it mean to Read More? It's taking time to read the entire article rather than settling for more often than not hugely controversial headlines. It's learning the real issues and not getting caught up with hearsays of your social grapevine. It's being responsible in creating and sharing information on the web. 

Think before you click. Simple. Easy. Painless.

(You may read the complete article here:  Read More: Why you should really click this link )

------

Entry No. 16

Soleil Flores

[READ ALL OTHER ENTRIES]

No to twagarism!

[source]

Twittiquette requires Twitter users to credit the original authors of the tweets they copy or quote, lest they be accused of - wait for it - twagarism.

Twitter itself provides users with a way to credit properly with a Retweet button that allows you to display the actual tweet you want to retweet without having to copy-paste the whole thing and prefix it with "RT" and the originator's handle. Some still do it the old-school way, though, just so they could insert their own thoughts or reactions. Unfortunately, some don't cite the originators at all and try to pass the tweets off as their own. Hence the term "twagarism," which isn't an actual felony or a crime, and which, as Wall Street Journal columnist Sadanand Dhume has described it, "certainly sounds less serious than plagiarism."

[source]

Dhume was recently "victimized" by twagarism, when Miss Universe contestant Vasuki Sunkavalli was discovered to have tweeted an earlier tweet of his without attribution. Sunkavalli didn't deny the act, but said that she didn't know "the technical know how [sic] of retweeting."

According to the article, Dhume later "retracted his accusation of deliberate intellectual theft" and said elsewhere that twagarism should be taken less seriously than plagarism, explaining that "the twitterverse is much smaller than the universe and that we should keep a sense of humor about it."

My take on it: Besides being overwhelmed by number of words that have spawned because of Twitter (and its 100 million active users), I'm only a bit bothered by the existence of twitizens who don't retweet properly because, while I know the bottom line has to do with respect for intellectual property [plus the idea that one doesn't really need to go through an etiquette manual to know that sources have to be cited], I also agree with what Dhume said about keeping a sense of humor about it. That, and I'm actually more annoyed with users who suffer a bad case of twitterhea.

#

#12 - Somayyah Abdullah
[Previous posts: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11]

"Lift" me up.

Social networking sites have been an inescapable part of my life. From Friendster, Myspace, and Multiply, to Facebook and Twitter, and now Google +, there is no escaping the fact that these sites have changed the way people live their lives. I will go as far as saying that these sites, for better or for worst, has shaped humanity (instead of humanity shaping it) in ways that then seemed unimaginable. This is the influence that social networking sites have, and will continue to have in years to come.

But if I were made to choose between all these social networking sites, I'll choose Twitter, any day. I've stopped using Friendster, Myspace and Multiply for several years now, and I haven't jumped to the Google+ bandwagon. So it was toss between Facebook and Twitter. I've been a Facebook user since I was a college senior, and I see that you can reach most people through Facebook nowadays. You can post status updates, upload photos, then tag your friends on those photos. It has game applications. You can also share and upload articles, videos, and what have you. I also love how it now has the group feature similar to email groups but definitely more interactive. It's a one-stop shop. They might as well use ShoeMart's former tagline "We've got it all for you."

This aside, Twitter still gets my vote. Why? The flow of information in Twitter is just so much faster. 240 characters is all you got, hence it allows people to place bite-sized chunks of information online. You get immediate responses as well, which make tweeting live and instantaneous. Unlike Facebook, there is no difficulty in looking at your wall because you only see the tweets of people you want to follow. Since I'm inclined to live a fast-paced lifestyle with the way our world works, it's perfect for me. I want information to be available when I want it. It's like a convenience store. It doesn't have everything, but it has everything that I need. Not to mention the fact that I can follow Twitter accounts of celebrities, politicians, basketball players and the like. People you are really not related or connected to. But Twitter bridges that gap for you and provides a venue to personally interact with these people.

So when I heard that there is an upcoming social networking site created by the geniuses behind Twitter, I naturally got excited. The name of the site is Lift. So I went to the website and entered my email account. Then I got a message saying "What is Lift? We're interested in ways new technology can help unlock human potential, especially through the use reinforcement. That's all we can tell you right now." Talk about a tease. Unlock human potential? Interesting.

According to ReadWriteWeb, it looks like Twitter, only with "more structure." which traced Lift back to something called Mibbles just a few weeks ago (that project's site, GetMibbles.com, now automatically redirects viewers to lift.do). The plan with Mibbles was apparently to allow people to track their daily goals and accomplishments with friends and sort of collectively chart everyone's progress.

I wonder how a social networking site will help "unlock human potential." Talk about shaping humanity.

Can't wait to get "Lift"-ed.

Source: http://techland.time.com/2011/08/24/meet-lift-the-new-social-network-from-twitters-founders/#ixzz1Vy1z0Vst

Entry #10

Mark Garrido

To Kill the (Twitter)Bird

They say that for every market, a submarket grows.

Introducing the Web 2.0 Suicide Machine! According to the site:

"This machine lets you delete all your energy sucking social-networking profiles, kill your fake virtual friends, and completely do away with your Web2.0 alterego."

Termed by Mark Gibbs as "Social Suicide", this application will "kill for FREE" accounts on Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn and Twitter in a mere 52 minutes, as opposed to 9.5 hours of DIY.

The aim of the machine is NOT TO DELETE the account, but to remove private content and friend relationships. By doing this, they hope to remove the data being stored (forever) and cached out of the servers of these social networking sites, which cannot be entirely done with just account deactivation.

web 2.0 suicide machine - untwitter from moddr_ on Vimeo.

The developers premise this application on the right of everyone to disconnect as opposed to the seamless connectivity these sites offer. While Twitter or FB Suicide might sound morbid and anti-social, the underlying issue being addressed here is the right to privacy.

This rationale finds support in the case of Olmstead v. United States (1928) wherein Justice Brandeis elaborated that the right to privacy, the right to be let alone as "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." While the case was decided almost a century ago, this doctrine proves to be true in the current information age we live in. The development of technology has posed numerous issues and gray areas which the law did not foresee and central to this is our inherent right to privacy. While we may be enjoying our "friends only" updates and tags; every time we hit that post/tweet/like button, it becomes recorded and stored for God knows how long. "Forever" is just another word to describe the unknown.

"Privacy is one of the biggest problems in this new electronic age. At the heart of the Internet culture is a force that wants to find out everything about you. And once it has found out everything about you and two hundred million others, that's a very valuable asset, and people will be tempted to trade and do commerce with that asset. This wasn't the information that people were thinking of when they called this the information age."

--"What I've Learned: Andrew Grove", co-founder and former CEO of Intel Corporation, May 1, 2000

Soleil Flores
Entry No. 10

Shaquille O'Neal announces his retirement – via Twitter!

The past NBA Season was one for the books. Not only did we recently witness an epic rematch of the 2006 NBA Finals between the superstar-laden Miami Heat and the eventual champion Dallas Mavericks, but we also bid farewell to one of the most dominant forces that ever played the game – Shaquille O’Neal.

Shaq, who has been called a myriad of names like “Superman”, “Diesel”, “The Big Aristotle”, “The Big Cactus” and lastly “The Big Shamrock” has decided to retire after playing 19 stellar NBA seasons, leaving a big imprint in the game of basketball with an impressive resume of 4 NBA Championships (3 with the Los Angeles Lakers and 1 with the Miami Heat), 1 MVP, 8 All-NBA First Team selections and 15 All-Star appearances. His retirement did not really come as a surprise after seeing the evident decline in his game for the past several seasons due to several injuries plaguing him. What was surprising, or historical, depending on how you look at it, is the way he did it. Shaq announced his retirement via the popular social networking site Twitter. And as always, he did it with style.

Shaq tweeted,“Im retiring.” Then he followed that entry with a 15-second video linked with the microblogging site, where O’Neal said “We did it. 19 years baby. I want to thank you very much. That’s why I’m telling you first. I’m about to retire. Love you. Talk to you soon.” Short but sweet.

This is the first time that an NBA player, or a professional athlete for that matter, has chosen to announce his retirement first through a social networking/ microblogging site. While the traditional way is to just set-up a press conference, Shaq chose to break out from that mold by announcing the news first via his Twitter account, to the surprise of a lot of his followers (including the author of this article). It is interesting to note that Shaq is one of the major celebrities that hopped into the service when it was introduced to mainstream consciousness back in 2008, and is one of the celebrities that is actually engaged in it. After Shaq’s tweet, the announcement went viral, with several of his followers retweeting or reposting his retirement message. And this information was not limited to Twitter. It eventually reached other social networking sites, most notably, Facebook. By the time it reached the evening news and the newspapers the next day, it’s not really “news” anymore.

Shaq’s decision to announce his retirement via Twitter is a testament to how much social networking has grown over the years, to the point that major announcements and monumental events are relayed to the public with the use of such services. More importantly, it shows how the flow of information is streamlined and fast-tracked with the use of these sites. Gone are the days where you have to rely on tri-media (TV, radio, print) for the latest news and information. If you want fast communication or immediate information dissemination, the use of social media via the emergence of social networking sites is the way to go.

In the end, I believe that it is but fitting for Shaq to retire on such a “personal” note, and of course, with Shaq-ness.

Will always be a fan.

Entry # 1

Digital Response to Japanese Disaster

The 8.9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami that happened in Japan before last week ended was so strong it moved the Nippon country nearer to the United States and even tilted the earth’s axis and shortened the day. That is taking the scientific point of view. In terms of ICT, well, the disaster also takes the spotlight.

THE TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES. A Sydney Morning Herald article sums it best: “Google Inc. has an online ‘person finder’ for people seeking information about a missing person. Microsoft Corp. is offering free technical support and temporary software licenses to companies affected by the earthquake. It has also pledged $250,000 in cash. Twitter is trying to help organize the flood of information flowing through its system. It is suggesting people use certain tags for general earthquake information, requests for rescue and other related topics. Amazon.com Inc. and Yahoo Inc. have links on their home pages encouraging people to donate to the relief efforts.” (Click here for article)

Of course, these companies have since also been offering digital ways to donate to Japan's efforts at recovery. “Apple has set up an option on its iTunes software to allow registered users to donate from $5 to $200 to the American Red Cross simply by clicking a button for the chosen amount. The Red Cross has also launched a campaign on Facebook through the social media giant's Causes function…” Also, “Twitter was updating by the second, continually refreshing information and advice as well as directing people to resources on the ground and offering ways to donate to help survivors.” (Click here for full article)

THE PEOPLE. But the response is not limited to the tech giants because ICT is also giving Japanese citizens and other people the chance to help and, well, speak out. Twitter users are sending infinite streams of messages of support to survivors of the quake-tsunami disaster. Messages commending (some criticizing) Japanese leaders also abound. Zynga gamers are asked to donate money through the purchase of virtual goods in CityVille, FrontierVille, FarmVille and its other games for its Save the Children's Japan Earthquake Tsunami Emergency Fund.

If all is to be named, this blog will go on non-stop. So let this be finished with a THANK YOU for the blessings of ICT. And of course, my prayers for Japan and its people.

- Phebean Belle A. Ramos, entry #17

Image Source: http://www.jokelibrary.net/xOtherNtoZ/plane-supp.html

Sources: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110314/ts_yblog_thelookout/japans-earthquake-shifted-balance-of-the-planet; http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/japanese-light-up-twitter-on-govt-quake-response-20110316-1bw5b.html; http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/tech-companies-pitch-in-on-earthquake-response-20110315-1but4.html; http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/digital-ways-to-donate-to-japan-disaster-relief-20110314-1bub2.html

Social Media - A National Tool for Naming and Shaming

A retired archbishop goes on national television to insinuate that there are highly placed villains in government who are dabbling in the underground gambling world that the present administration has pledged to eradicate. A senate hearing is called almost immediately.

The spokesperson of the judiciary issues a media statement to the effect that it has no money and that the courts won’t survive if the budget isn’t increased post-haste. He threatens that if congress fails to remedy the deficiency, judges would go on mass leave. The media loves the story and has a field day. Hours later, the president sets a meeting with the chief justice.

---

With these events in mind, I’d like to point out an obvious perplexity in national affairs: a communication gap exists between supposedly coordinate branches of government; between the civilian and relevant government agencies. And this abyss, this void of miscommunication, is filled by an unlikely hero, villain and observer: media. Pleas are brought to this ‘unbiased’ Fourth Estate, rather than the pertinent government agency involved, due to two contiguous theories: one, media is much more effective in shaming the agency into action; two, government enforcement is usually unavailing when the camera isn’t aimed at the would-be enforcers. Considering therefore that (a) attention on the individual or (b) national shame is required to enforce government action (perhaps as a cultural byproduct of our post-Iberian heritage), I propose that a national shaming mechanism be employed to spur government proactivity in order to supplement, and even validate, the actions of traditional media.

The “name and shame” strategy, utilized by the Human Rights Watch (but yet to be effectively used by the UN’s Human Rights Council), is presently international law’s solution to the enforcement of human rights norms. Coincidentally, this is the exact same strategy employed by Mon Tulfo’s radio show where complaints against local government officials and policemen are aired live, addressed, and resolved on a daily basis. Now that social media is becoming the norm in Philippine society, perhaps this, too, can be employed as a medium to “name and shame” public institutions and officials on a national scale. Truly, if a government requires national shame and attention in order for it to function properly, perhaps this need should be addressed by our own efforts through the veritable medium of social media. This push to “name and shame” would not simply be a matter of voluntary contributions on the part of individuals but rather a collective drive, enforced as a matter of sound national policy, spearheaded by NGOs in conjunction with social media outfits. I’m pretty sure that Facebook, YouTube and Twitter would enjoy the corresponding title of being ‘progenitors of third-world change.’ Think of the Pepsi Refresh Project, turned-upside-down, adapted by Filipinos for a truly Filipino cause. Perhaps, taken in this light, social media, in its proposed task of “naming and shaming” government ineptitude, might do some much-needed social good.

---

Please see all entries by the same author in this blog:

• #01, Telconopoly, June 16
• #02, Government 2.0, June 23
• #03, In Defense of Twitter, June 30
• #04, Google, Apple and Nokia, July 7
• #05, YouTube and Government, July 14
• #06, The Problem of ICT Quality Control, July 21
• #07, The Mac or the PC?, July 28
• #08, Kindle: Victor of the Ebook Wars, Aug. 2
• #09, Of Team Coco, Wowowee and Contracts, Aug. 12
• #10, Resuscitating Law Journals, Aug.14
• #11, Moot, Zuckerberg, et. al. v. The World, Aug. 19
• #12, Ground Zero of the Tech World, Sept. 1
• #13, Evolution, Sept. 9
• #14, Snapshots of Software as Intellectual Property, Sept. 13
• #15, The Smartphone OS Slugfest, Sept. 17
• #16, Social Media - A National Tool for Naming and Shaming, Sept. 21

SC on Twitter and FB

Ms. Pau Duman's status tonight had me clicking a newsclip from Inquirer.net. Apparently, the most-of-the-time-old-fashioned-and-conservative Supreme Court has succumbed to the trend of social networking sites. The SC spokesperson said that they want the public to be informed of its latest programs and decisions, thus bringing justice closer to the people, just like how the SC's Justice on Wheels program did.

But then again, as I've learned in my Right to Information class, while it is true that access to information is important, it is equally(if not more) important that the information made accessible is credible, true, and in the SC's case, in accordance with the law. (De Castro and League of Cities, anyone?)

==========================


And, yes. The SC must certainly refrain from doing what that Utah Attorney-General did: using Twitter for self-publicity.

Twttrexecution

I was first introduced to Twitter by my friends a year ago. I don't have Facebook account, back then, so I was impressed with Twitter's usage of one-line status updates and its interactive reply features. I am quite fond of using one-liners so I immediately thought that it was a brilliant idea to have an account on the micro-blogging site. Unfortunately, my excitement was shortlived as I discovered that Facebook is like Twitter with more characters allowed (in its status updates) and more things and time-wasters to do (Mafia Wars, anyone?).

Last week, Prof. Quimbo touched on the subject of Twitter and its relevance to non-celebrities' lives. I immediately thought of this Japanese drama series I've chanced upon, about how Twitter brought a group of ordinary people together and helped them through a lot of tight spots. (Apparently, Twitter has this radar feature on mobile phones, allowing you to search Twitter users within your vicinity.)

With the good, also come the bad. Two weeks ago, I've come across a news article regarding how the Attorney-General of the State of Utah "tweeted" the execution (by firing squad) of a certain Ronnie Lee Gardner. Another news article even reported that the said officer followed-up on this tweet and said, "We will be streaming live my press conference as soon as I'm told Gardner is dead. Watch it at www.attorneygeneral.Utah.gov/live.html".

As aptly described by one Twitter user in one of the articles, I believe that the said tweet "will probably go down in history as the dumbest, most disgusting use of Twitter ever."

In Defense of Twitter

The utility of Facebook status updates is obvious. To avoid an in-depth discussion on a phenomenon that is approaching a state of ubiquity, suffice it to say that it’s simply “group SMS operated on a global scale, with or without a phone.” The usefulness of Twitter, however, was put in question during this class’ last session. “What is the non-public figure’s stake (what is the value that he derives) from sharing his ‘personal tweets’ to the world at large?,” the professor asked. Considering that I use Twitter more than Facebook, the question surprised me. And after thinking about it some more, I reached a personal conclusion - an answer, which may prove to be wrong, or perhaps unpopular.

To a non-public figure, maybe there is no value to a single, unimportant tweet. Save for the obvious need for self-expression (read: a little vanity), his thoughts about the weather, the World Cup, or the kind of fungus growing between his toes holds no significant value to himself. In fact, information of this nature might find a more willing audience in Facebook. At least there, there is a ready potential for conversation, recognition, and attention - a virtual replacement for human interaction. But if we accept the premise that tweets by a non-public figure are useless to the author himself, considering that it merely mimics a more definitive social network, why is Twitter still growing both locally and abroad? Why is Juan de la Cruz still tweeting? To say that it’s merely another fad or that it’s a minimized version of Facebook, is, to quote a former Justice of the Supreme Court, “not intellectually satisfying.”

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there must be a reason. Why does a “nobody” share his thoughts, unimportant as they are, with a world that could care less? If I were to proffer a guess, I think the value is not in this person’s tweet per se... but his access to all the other tweets, the billions of messages being shared in real-time by his “co-nobodies” around the world. The authored tweet, insignificant and unimportant as it is, is actually his contribution and not his gain. Thus, if Juan de la Cruz steps on cow-dung and voices his frustration of it, if Maria Clara hates her shampoo and tweets about it, these details form part of the collective - a universe of statements made by nobodies and somebodies around the world. When a non-public figure tweets, his 140-character message forms part of this global pool of thought. Is it useful? I think so. The value of one tweet may be insignificant, even laughable, but the value of a billion searchable messages whose contents stem from ordinary people around the world, which are to be archived by no less than the US Library of Congress? I think the value here is immense. Considering that we’re nearing a point where searches can be filtered by location, the value of Twitter could, despite it's present cult-like appeal, multiply exponentially.

On a local level, a search on “EDSA” or “Katipunan” on Twitter to determine the amount of traffic in the area would certainly be helpful. (Scratch that, if I knew traffic conditions on individual roads based on motorist complaints every 15 minutes, I’d even pay for the service.) A search on “Sony Vaio Z” could give me an idea of how others around the world view the laptop I’m thinking of buying. When I tweet about how a certain dish in some restaurant gave me gas the other day... it might be useless in the grand scheme of things but perhaps the same information could prove useful to a would-be customer or the manager of the same restaurant. This, I think, is Twitter’s importance as a platform: useless information by countless nobodies is converted to something of value. Thus, where Google has become the modern highway of the web, Twitter (as used by nobodies) is swiftly becoming an aggregation of online dirt-roads - unintentionally made but quite useful when found.

Government 2.0

initiating a paradigm shift from within

Print media is dying in the western world. The calling card, the scrapbook, and the diary have evolved; they’re now collectively known as Facebook. Politics and big business have started to tweet. The word 'tweet' itself, like 'google' of yesteryears, is in the process of becoming part of this generation’s lingua franca. We’re seeing a titanic shift in the way information is being shared. And the government of this Republic, based on the numbers below, should either adjust accordingly or lie forever trapped in it’s self-made quagmire of technological anachronism.

Most of our government websites today use technology that was considered state of the art in the late nineties. Considering that we’re still using boats and planes from WWII, this is not very surprising. Unlike these multi-million dollar acquisitions however, developing and improving our online assets is a much cheaper endeavor, produces immediate results, and, when properly utilized, can be more effective in delivering government services to perhaps 11.4 million RP citizens on Facebook alone. Note that this online Filipino demographic is, in all probability, the same community that actually pays for everything that government does anyway.

Big business has already taken its initial steps in engaging consumers via web services and social media. Bringing government into the picture should not be difficult considering that it already has a willing and ready audience. Imagine the BIR answering questions in Facebook regarding the process of paying capital gains tax. Imagine the Province of Palawan doling out cheap promos for both foreign and local tourists on Twitter. Imagine avoiding EDSA traffic via a Google-MMDA partnership that provides real-time updates of the metropolis in transit. Imagine filling up a government form online and this being processed so that all you have to do when you get to the agency’s office is pay and sign for the transaction.

The possibilities are endless. The costs, relatively negligible. The efficiency and time saved, unmatched. The will and the initiative to jumpstart a paradigm shift that will eventually modernize the bureaucracy? Maybe after we buy another chopper. A newer one, of course. One that saw action during the Vietnam war.

Res Ges(Tweet)

Social networking site Twitter is in the spotlight once again with the newsworthy account of a man in Bangalore who tweeted while trapped in the burning Carlton Hotel with six others awaiting slow and painful rescue from the blaze. He was besieged with interviews afterwards, tweeting that he was tired and lost count of them. When he was asked why he was tweeting while his life was in danger, he answered that 'We were trapped in a corner where there was nothing to do but wait. Only a moron would tweet when they should be running.'

This piece of news reminded me of another Twitter-related incident that ended in a tragedy. On December 17, 2009, a mother (Military Mom) lost her 2-year old son to an accidental drowning in their pool at home. She came under fire for tweeting about her son's accident and again, 5 hrs later, to tell her followers about his death and even posted a photo of him.

While she received condolences from her tweeps (her followers), she was also besieged with an outpouring of rage from all over the world. Mostly accused of being a negligent mother and a Twitter addict, the most painful accusations perhaps were the ones that blamed her for the death of her son. Momblogger, a Filipina political web commentator and founder of aboutmyrecovery.com came to her defense while many, or even most, found her tweeting horrifying and shameful. The issue was hotly debated when it first came out, with social media analysts quick to defend Military Mom's tweeting habits versus reactions that social networking sites are taking over people's lives to the point that these tragedies happen.

I wondered how this incident would have played out had it happened in the Philippines. At the height of Ondoy, when most of our telecoms fell apart, people received news, were saved and rescued through Facebook and Twitter. Bayanihan manifested itself even in cyberspace as people used social networking sites and other web tools to gather and disseminate vital information to aid rescue efforts. So, where I'm coming from, Twitter is not necessarily as destructive as angry critics are making it out to be.

The difficulty in Military Mom's situation is that she craved the comfort and sympathy of a virtual community with whom she interacted constantly, a large group of online followers (5,000) that possibly outnumbered her real-life friends. Unfortunately, the very same community she had hoped would help her through a difficult time in her life turned on her because they found her tweeting and reaction to the tragedy appalling.

If Military Mom were in the Philippines, perhaps she would not be as lonely as army wives are in the US (given our "hospitality" and accomodating nature). She would probably have her fair share of neighbors who would gladly help her watch her son or even just be there at her house chatting and playing with her son. Most likely she would have texted or called people within the vicinity to help her, since she would not rely on the police or the ambulance to get to her house in time to save her son. She might not even be tweeting at all because she would either have other things to occupy her time or she might not have internet connection available to her.

At the end of the day, we ask, what good would it have done that she could have tweeted to her 5,000+ followers about the unfortunate incident as it happened when none of them (as they were mere virtual friends) could have really helped her, and worse, blamed her and called her names for her son's untimely death? It seems that technology moves so fast that it forgets to carry along its passenger - real and actual or physical human relations.

Entry no.12

You’re just being creative

How many hours do you spend in a day in front of your computer, sifting through tons of email, patiently approving Facebook invitation of some kid who sat behind you while your kindergarten teacher read Jack and the Beanstalk twenty years ago? (Or, for that matter, disapproving the invitation of the guy who stole your pencil case in grade school?)

And how often do you feel the pangs of guilt immediately kicking in, forcing you to regret not having spent the time reading your cases for the next day’s class?

Here’s something to make you feel a little bit better. According to an article from Wired, “humans weren’t designed to maintain a constant focus on assigned tasks. We need periodic breaks to relieve our conscious minds of the pressure to perform — pressure that can lock us into a single mode of thinking. Musing about something else for a while can clear away the mental detritus, letting us see an issue through fresh eyes, a process that creativity researchers call incubation.”

I guess when you’re spending that much time on Facebook and Twitter, you’re not wasting your time. You’re just being creative.
_____
13th Entry
Ralph Vincent Catedral