In chronological order, here are the Webbys’ Top 10:

• Craigslist expands beyond San Francisco (2000): When the free classifieds site broadened its reach into nine more cities, it began a major shift away from newspaper classifieds, according to the Webbys. Craigslist now hosts listings in more than 500 cities in 50 countries.

• Google AdWords launches (2000): The Webbys say the launch of Google’s self-service ad program opened up the online marketplace, allowed advertisers to better target their customers and, in short, “turned advertising on its head.”

• Wikipedia launches (2001): The free, open-source encyclopedia now has more than 14 million articles in 271 languages with 20,000 of those coming in the first year. The Webbys credit Wikipedia with being an early example of strangers from around the world coming together to collaborate on projects.

• Napster shuts down (2001): Although the controversial file-sharing site bemoaned by many in the recording industry shut down in 2001, the Webbys note that it opened up the floodgates. Hulu, iTunes and other legal sites followed, as did downloading songs from less reputable sites and artists releasing their music exclusively online.

• Google’s IPO (2004): One of the largest stock offerings in history put the search engine on the path to becoming what the Webbys call “the most dominant and influential company of the decade.” Gmail, YouTube, Google Earth, Google Maps and Android would all follow.

• Online video revolution (2006): Faster bandwidth, cheaper camcorders and YouTube’s use of Adobe’s Flash 9 video player combine to make online video explode. “The trifecta led to a boom in homemade and professional content – the Diet Coke and Mentos guys, lonelygirl15, SNL’s Lazy Sunday, and Sen. George Allen’s “Macaca-gate” — that has reshaped everything from pop culture to politics,” the Webbys write.

• Facebook opens up, Twitter takes off (2006): In September, Facebook expands from only college students to anyone older than 13. Almost overnight, social networking went mainstream. Less than a month later, Twitter’s owners acquire the company, paving the way for the service to take off the following year.

• The iPhone debuts (2007): It was released on June 29, 2007, and by the end of the weekend a half-million had been sold. The phone from Apple has inspired a slew of other smartphones and an app for just about every aspect of modern life.

• U.S. presidential campaign (2008): The Internet “altered presidential politicking in 2008 much as television had forty years earlier,” according to the Webby list. “Obama Girl” and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons helped shape the debate, social networking helped mobilize volunteers and voters and online fundraising shattered records.

• Iranian election protests (2009): When Iran’s power structure announced dubious results from its presidential election, the opposition took to social networking and the “Twitter Revolution” was born. The Web let protesters beam images from the chaotic country at a time when mainstream media outlets had been severely hampered. Twitter became so fundamental in spreading news of the protests that followed that the U.S. State Department asked the company to delay a planned shutdown for maintenance, the Webbys note.

As a social network junkie I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel a secret rush when I find I have several new Twitter follows or I get a direct message from someone I respect. I have often been victim to this sense of anxiety over what Christine Rosen refers to as “status seeking” in the article “Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism”. I have experienced this feeling of urgency in wanting to brand myself a certain way on Twitter so I am prepared for potential networking opportunities that may arise or when asking for a flattering testimonial on LinkediN.

While a great deal of my SNS activity is self-induced, I feel it affecting my life differently than previously. While before my personal endeavors were more for personal satisfied now I feel pressure to perform a certain way. For example, I recently had an interview where the interviewer asked me how many followers I had on twitter. This was considered a serious qualification. Another interviewer added me on Facebook before we even met. This was uncomfortable because I felt like I was being seized up in an unfair setting. At times I have felt like I am just trying to stay afloat in the vast sea of my online entities. I have asked myself the most absurd, but sadly relevant of questions: What if my potential employee doesn’t like grunge or metal ? Will that effect if I get the job or now ? Will my favorite movie offend her ? The possibilities are endless. Like what if she finds this blog ? I even know journalism students who have been discouraged from displaying their religious or political views on SNS sites. Is the price for gaining “digital neighbors” too much ? I think this is even more damaging than misrepresenting oneself online, as Rosen argues.

SNS sites use to be places were people went to unleash their alter egos or strengthen/create friendships. Now these sites have evolved into places where people feel pressure to present their selves a certain way. With employers, co-workers, and other professional contacts start friending individuals on SNS sites that were previously used for social reason, these sites become volatile.

I am now feel like I am obligated to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of my online profile. If I put too many interests I may seem unforced or cluttered, but if I don’t put enough than I may appear one dimensional. This constant struggle of balancing a personal and professional image online is exhausting. This takes all the fun out the site. I know just feel like I am trying to sell myself, and it is not fun.

Don’t get me wrong, the networking that is available on SNS sites is invaluable, but I still am reluctant to forgo the personal aspects of my online profiles. I feel like I am being robbed of something because these awkward connections on SNS sites exist. For instance, I am friends with woman on a scholarship committee ( I am recipient of this scholarship), my mom’s friends, my ex boyfriend’s mom, and a previous supervisor. These are just a few examples of my uncomfortable online relationships. I am friends with these people to avoid outside hassles, but they force me to compartmentalize my online life. I am mildly bitter about this “evolution” , but I predict that I will slowly weed online the private aspects of my online life (as I have been) and shift more towards the professional.

http://mashable.com/2009/04/08/social-media-recruitment/

The Obama Administration is known for being technologically savvy and enlisting the masses through social networking tools. This legacy continued this weekend when the Administration moved the White House Web site to run on open source system. The White House is now running on the open source Drupual content management system and Apache Solr search server.

This will produce an even more interactive White House. Drupual will support blogs, comments, polls, and user profiles. This is a huge opportunity to engage citizens in interacting with the Administration. The social components to this switch allow for dialogue and conversation to ensue in an almost Democratic way. While in theory this open source switch seems like it will promote more access into the policy and government, it could be potentially restricting like we have seen with the evolution of Wikis.

Not everyone has access to a forms capable browser and language still presents a barrier. Even though the White House does have a Spanish version of their Web site, it lacks new updates and substance. Spanish speakers are the fastest growing population in the US so the White House Web site should reflect this.

Despite potential problems, the develop of open source is a step in the right direction for the government in terms of embracing new technology and engaging citizens in new meida.

“Now it is time to extend the power of individuals to stimulate the mission of government”

Perhaps you’ve noticed the their ad campaign plastered all over the metro recently. Adobe has taken on an open government campaign, and pledged to hold the current administration accountable for their promises of transparency. There is a lot of talk about government interference or regulation in the internet, but I think it is interesting to note a software that develops internet applications’ interference in the government.

Adobe has been responsible for much of the administration’s interactivity online. Hillary Clinton’s address to the European Parliament was broadcasted by the State Department and Obama’s Town Hall meeting in Turkey were both available online for citizens to watch, comment, and ultimately interact with through Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro.

* Screen Shots from Adobe Blog

Adobe is even hosting a free conference on election day in DC to promote open government.

I find this participation in helping government to achieve openness an interesting contrast to the usual concern about government’s big bother activity online. This action is in response to Obama’s memo on transparency in government being achieved through technology.

The purpose of this post is really to highlight a growing annoyance of mine that has been building for quick sometime: old people and their opinions/approaches to technology and web 2.0. When I say old people I don’t necessary mean geriatrics (picture aside), but more like middle aged (or younger) professionals. These people bother me because they act like technology is the source of all evil and refuse to utilize it. I do not understand their logic.

Senior staffer A of Congressman Blank gives me a project and hands me a 10 pound phone book. When I suggest that I look up the needed information on various Congressional data bases online she doesn’t go for it. Are you serious ? It would of taken 1/10th of the time that sifting though a dusty old phone book. Senior staffer B go on tirade on how all our energy problems come from kids listening to their Ipods. That was seriously his policy to energy reform. He also stated that technology is the reason that young people are unhealthy and lazy. 1) I’m not obese. 2) I can run circles around you (physically and professionally 3) Your party has been losing elections left and right in part to lack of technology. And I can’t even state how many people of a certain age call asking for so and so’s email address. It is office policy not to give out email addresses, so of course I have to state this over and over. I do not understand why they don’t just Google the person’s name. Their email address WILL COME UP. That is federal policy.

The fastest growing demographic on Facebook is women over 55, and while it is awesome that my mom is on Facebook, (she has masted how to “like” her own statues and poke her high school boyfriends) she does not make public policy. Nor is trying to win a congressional campaign nor is she in the journalism business. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why many experienced professionals not only shy away from Web 2.0, but down right denounce it. I have heard countless testimonials against tools like Facebook and Twitter because they are useless and time wasting. Until recently, the GOP was light years away from their Democratic counter parts in terms of technology. One of the reasons why Obama’s campaign was so successful was because of his team’s use of the web and interactivity. My.barackobama.com allowed for campaign organizers to find another and communicate via web which saved the campaign a massive amount of time and money.

I have no tolerance for people who will not adapt to the changing tide. I do not know if it is because they feel threatened by the upcoming work force that will be their competition or if they are just resentful to technology in general, but it is extremely frustrating and ineffective. These people are leaders, and for the time being, have power and say. Not changing is unacceptable. The old South demanded to live in the past and look how that turned out.

These “old people” need to shape up.

“Facebook and other social networking sites like it have increasingly become places where college students live and, in some cases, die.”

Discussion in class lead to a group discussion about the social media phenomenon of online profiles turning into memorials for those who have passed away. I remember the first time I saw a tribute to someone who had passed away in the online world. It was in form of a “blogring”, which is similar to a group on Facebook. It was “RIP Person’s Name”. Like social media, social memorials have evolved as well.

I’ve seen several Myspace and Facebook profiles after a person passes away. And while at times it may seem a borderline disturbing or inappropriate, these profiles are serving as a digital, Web 2.0 version of a memorial service. I have seen people writing to their love ones months or years after they had died. To young people social networking sites are a focal point of life. They connect, laugh, and record their memories on these SNS so it makes sense that the profiles might continue after the people are gone.

Facebook memorials are parallel to our generation. There is even a how to guide on how to turn a profile into a memorial. People are able to express their grief and say goodbye in a familiar medium. After the Virgina Tech tragedies students urged their follow peers to update their Facebook statues if they were okay, and used the victims’ Facebook walls to express their losses.

Online memorials are becoming more mainstream and natural. The more time we spend online, and the more we integrate our lives into the webosphrere, the more it makes sense to memorialize our SNS after we leave this earth.

interesting link

In today’s world females are more likely than their male counter parts to complete bachelor degrees or accepted into law school. We know that women have been leaving men behind in the dust when it comes to higher education for quite sometime now, but but is this surge of girl power translated into the social web as well ?

According to data complied by Brian Solis from Google Ad Planner data (gmail account required to view) there is a strong overarching presence of women on social media sites compared men. Though there is some equality between men and women on sites like YouTube, DeviantArt, and LinkedIn, women dominate almost every other site. The only site that men do dominate over women is Digg (I wonder why). This data isn’t surprising. It also corresponds with the Pew Internet and American Life Project data which states that females are more likely than males to be on a social networking site.

Many of the responses from this finding state that women are naturally more social than men, and have more time of their hands to engage in social networking sites (stay at home moms, work from the home, etc), ergo they are more active online than men.

“I think overall, there’s less women that work outside of the home. More home time = more opportunity and desire to connect via social media. Many of my female friends are stay at home moms and many run businesses from home, like teaching piano lessons, selling art or crafts, some have consulting businesses, etc. Some men do too, but overall, most of my male friends work outside of the home.”

I actually find these responses quite condescending and very invalid. While it could be argued that women are more social than men, I think it is more than that. It is scientifically proven that women are better multitaskers than men. And that is my own personal hypothesis as to why women flock to modern media in higher percentages than men. Take for instance what I am doing right now: listening to itunes (one ear plugged in), writing this blog, looking for skirts online, drinking Starbucks, bbming, and talking to a friend across the library) Does this affect my attention span? Doubtful. I think it makes me more productive and thus more able to sync into the social media world. Observe: male sitting by me. Reading one book and taking notes. And I think he has been on the same page for the past 20 minutes.