To me the idea of a child under the age of 13 having a facebook is a scary thought. Why is social media needed in a child’s life, when they are just begining to learn how to share in general?
One article I found written in the Vancover Sun was about a young boy named Bryce who at the age of three was given an IPod Touch. He watches movies on it, plays games and apps on it, and most importantly is capable of going online. His mother says that she has not yet made a facebook page for him, but his younger cousin does have one.
This article goes on to discuss the high perecentages of children who are born with facebook pages, and adapt to Twitter, and other social media websites, from day one. According to the article the security company AVG conducted research and found that, “84 per cent of Canadian children have an online presence by the time they are two years old.”
This thought scares me. Yes, it is nice to have records of your children and their milestones. And yes, it is nice to be able to share these records with family and friends, but is it nice to have these photos and pictures public to everyone on the internet?
As time has shown, no social media site is safe enough for everything to be completely private to unwanted people or for people to get past the securities that are put up.
Times are moving fast, and the generation ahead of us will grow up immune to the internet, but does that mean they will grow up more safe from the dangers of the internet? I don’t think so.
I was reading recently about a webby award nominee, Draftfcd.com. This company created ads/anti-drug themes based towards teens to be placed on music websites.
Their thinking behind it: teens listen to LOTS of music, so why not help them realize drugs aren’t cool? They had to be discret about the exact mesage about the campaign, because afterall a lot of artists today have drug references in their music, but this discret messaging actually made the campaign more effective.
Draftfcd asked artist Aaron Kraten to come up with 4 pieces of work that were related to music and anti-drug topics, and the company turned these into animated web banners and ads.
I thought these ads were interesting to look at, creative, and smart. By making them artwork that teens are interested in looking at, Draftfcd along with the websites like MTV and Pandora that hosts these messages, were sending out a positive message that worked.
After discussing interactive marketing on the internet I had to think.. how has one website or company gotten me to click on their add?
Whenever I see those adds on the side of Google or Facebook, I rarely click on them because everyone knows that they only want you to buy something. Pop-up adds are extremely annoying and so are email ads.
Youtube and Huloo are about the only websites that can make me watch adds, because if i want to see a show I have to watch the commercial.
One of the most memorable ads I have seen and still love to share today was by Myspace, and was, believe it or not, a banner ad.
I think it is hilarious.. it may not be the most interactive ad in the world, but it go me to remember it, look it up to see it again, and then share it with my friends.
Now that’s pretty good marketing.
Over the past week I have been researching the social media LinkedIn.
There hasn’t really been anything out of the ordinary. People have expressed having a hard time learning how to use it, and that it does not work the way it tries to convince people it does.
Instead of having friend requests,
LinkedIn makes it so you have to have one person that both of the parties know introduce you to another. After reading tons of reviews I have found that this is mainly a negative feature because it creates an automatic association or bias of the person. If something happened between the the person who introduced you, and the person you met, even after you have developed a “relationship” with them, it still creates an unprofessional bias that is hard to get away from because they only met you on the website.
There are other crazy reviews that this website has received.. but I’m saving those for class.
When I frist heard about the tool known as “reblog” I thought, well that’s weird, you are basically copying another person’s blog and calling it your own. Why reblog when it’s already out there?
BUT then it hit me.. what do fashion designers do? How are trends started? Why is fashion so accessible? IT COPIES.
With everyone in Senate discussing fashino copyright laws it only makes sense to put it in a more simpler way: reblogging. There is only so many 200 ways to design a t-shirt, and the same goes with there are only so many pictures and quotes to reblog in the world. Also, how do you think people will find out about the cool photo, or funny joke? One person, on one small blog can only go so far. Same with the fashion industry, sure everyone can watch the runway shows, but can everyone make their own clothes? And what if they like the style, now they are limited from wearing it because they cannot afford to buy the look?
Overall, copyright laws for fashion design are just as silly as copyright laws for blogging.. they just don’t make sense.