Retirement Homes = Jello, Fresca . . . and a bunch of old people using Facebook!

So the other day I stumbled upon an article about the elderly using social networking sites. It was awesome. Did you know they now have computer coaches and classes at homes for seniors! I had no idea how many older people used the internet, let alone SNS. Our friends over at the Pew Internet and American Life Project say that "the largest percentage increase in internet use since 2005 has been in the 70-75 age group... The survey found that 45 percent of that age bracket is online, compared with 26 percent in 2005"

ALMOST HALF OF THE 75 YEAR OLDS OUT THERE ACTIVELY USE THE INTERNET!

This boggles my mind. According one senior living community set up its own senior friendly kinda Facebook a year before it opened so that prospective residents could get to know other potential residents/neighbors. When the community opened in 2007, 70% of residents relied on the network "To check the daily calendar, offer suggestions to management, chat online with neighbors down the hall and share photos of recent parties". Other homes are offering Facebook classes... with long wait lists.

Like I said earlier, this is awesome. Why? Sarah Hoit, chief executive of MY Way Villiage, which designs online social networks for older adults, put it well "Social media are giving seniors a voice, and for a generation that has sometimes felt isolated and overlooked, that's no small feat" I don't the want the grand parents of the world feeling isolated (come on, who doesn't love their grand parents). And on a selfish note I don't want to be 80 and isolated!.

Anyway I just thought this was particularly interesting, because we have been talking about internet and social network use in pretty much every age bracket except for the elderly.

What’s wrong with a little free labor?

Trebor Scholz in his article “What the MySpace generation should know about working for free” talks about user generated content as free labor. That the seldom found “rags to riches” story (such as Tila Tiquila) has disillusioned many into thinking that their YouTube videos or MySpace will get them fame and fortune. This disillusionment serves as motivation for the hours of “labor” spend on their sites with the goal of attracting more hits/fans/followers etc., but in succeeding they are also getting hits (which translates into money) for the parent site.

What is wrong with this? These sites provide services, allow people put themselves and their content on the internet. If people want to spend their time using these [mostly] free services so be it, but why shouldn’t someone be rewarded in some way for these services? These sites provide [mostly] free services, and the creators are rewarded for their work and ideas monetarily (and when the site/company grows the employees investors etc as well). We live in a world where services provided are seldom free, and at least most of the “sociable web” is free for the user (minus some annoying ads).

Am I an old person?

In a generation though bred in a world were more and more people putting their private lives on the internet and living a private life in the public sphere has become acceptable, if not desirable (think the real world, or other reality shows of the sort) is it still considered voyeurism?

More and more my thoughts on this are changing. I guess I used to be “old school” in that I did think that this was bad, that I was the only one who cared about privacy, that I was scared for those vulnerable to all the evils of the net. As I think and write, my views are changing. Just because I don’t like giving the online world constant updates doesn’t mean that someone can’t want to.

The New York Magazine we read, “Say Everything” (http://nymag.com/news/features/27341), Emma Nussbaum illustrates the differences between generations. Honestly, at first it kind of made me feel old, for I understand and to some extent agreed with the views that willingly keeping your private life public was kind of unsettling. In an alternate reality, I could envision a bitter version of myself saying:

“Kids today. They have no sense of shame. They have no sense of privacy. They are show-offs, fame whores, pornographic little loons who post their diaries, their phone numbers, their stupid poetry—for God’s sake, their dirty photos!—online. They have virtual friends instead of real ones. They talk in illiterate instant messages. They are interested only in attention—and yet they have zero attention span, flitting like hummingbirds from one virtual stage to another.” (this an example of the “dismissive squawk” of the older generation, as Nussbaum puts it)

But the 3 changes, between my generation and the “older” generation, she gives all are things I either positively attribute to myself, or am trying to do: that they think of themselves as having an audience, they have archived their adolescence and that their skin is thicker than ours. – I think that the ability for people to gain an audience (which starts by people thinking they will have an audience) willl open up avenues of creativity: we are a generation that does not suffer from stage fright. Archiving ones adolescence is a no brainer: how many times have you looked back and wished you had some kind of record or pictures or what you had done (or simply the person you have grown out of? Finally, having thick skin: The ability to laugh at oneself and to roll with the punches. We feel embarrassment but absorb it, allowing the ability to take more chances, even at the risk of failure.

Now don’t get me wrong, all the fear from my previous post still exist but most, if not all, of those fears stem from being an older brother. My fear for the sanctity of my sister aside, I don’t see these changes between generations as detrimental to society. I would go as far as to say they make our generation better, but at the very least unique.

Jimmy Stewart is a Facebook stalker?!?!

So the other day in the Hitchcock class I am taking we watched “Rear Window”. For those not familiar with the film here is a brief overview procured from imdb.com : “Photojournalist "Jeff" Jeffries is confined to a wheelchair with a broken leg, and the entire story takes place in the courtyard adjoining the rear of his apartment, all events being seen through his eyes. Jeff believes that a murder has been committed by his neighbor Thorwald and sends his girlfriend Lisa and his nurse Stella to investigate. Written by filmfactsman”

Jimmy Stewart (Jeff Jeffries) has been home bored, so what does he do? Sits and looks out his window at other people (oversimplification at best). Immediately my mind began drawing links to social networking sites. Many people spend their time admittedly “facebook stalking”; essentially looking into peoples lives. Now, if this was confined to close friends, to check up on them or to say hi, that’s one thing. Most people I know that facebook stalk, are checking up on not only they friends, but their friends of friends, friends sisters boyfriends … you get the idea. This is crazy!! The world has become the apartment complex, our computers the rear window, and our MySpace and Facebook pages have become the means to see into our lives.

This hits especially close to home as I am a big brother. My sister is 16 years old (5 years my junior) and I am protective, naturally. It is a bit scary that my generation (and hers more so) are so comfortable with putting their private life on the internet. Now I’m not saying my sister is stupid or easily manipulated, but the thought all the naked photos, sexual predators and the like are enough to make me shiver. The article by Kevin Poulsen about the MySpace “bug” made my skin crawl (not for myself but my sister and all little sisters of the world). Where the voyeuristic aspect of “Rear Window” is meant to be unsettling (as well as societal take) in a world where private lives are public fodder, how do we distinguish the everyday “facebook stalker” from the sexual predators and perverts? Are the “private” setting enough? Quite frankly younger kids that equivocate facebook friends with popularity want to be seen, so why would they put it on private?

Yes there are laws in place and social networking sites are taking more an more measures, but it is the internet. If you upload it, it is there, and although it may get harder for predators and perverts (or simply people you don’t want) to view what people put online but , it is there and there are [apparently] ways for people to access what they want.