What to Think of ChatRoulette

By: Steve Retka

Imagine how many times you’ve changed the channel on your TV after 2 or 3 seconds, or how often you’ve hit the shuffle button on your iPod less than 5 notes into a song.

That’s the essence of ChatRoulette: the website pairs you with a random videochat partner. You can stay with who you’re paired with, or click “next” to be reconnected with another random person. There are no filters, no censors and no recording or documentation...which means the site offers more than its fair share of nudity, sexual acts and other obscenities.

Almost every major news network has christened ChatRoulette as the next big thing on the Internet. And most of these networks, including Fox News, have called it a “predator’s paradise,” and one of the worst websites out there.

Sam Anderson of New York Magazine wrote a great article last month that really dove into both the good and bad that ChatRoulette has to offer, concluding that it may indeed be the future of social networking.

But before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s look at the stats. The website is just a couple of months old, and in November 2009 had less than 500 unique visitors. Granted, that number has spiked from the heavy media attention, jumping to roughly 63,000 in January and February.

To put that number in perspective, Twitter has 24 million visitors, while Facebook has 134 million. I could continue to give example after example of sites with more hits than ChatRoulette, seeing as how it’s ranked somewhere around 30,000 or so.

My point here is that CNN, Fox News and other media outlets will continue labeling ChatRoulette as a dangerous viral sensation, while the blogosphere and social media fans will continue to argue that it’s pioneering how we connect with people.

Is it shocking and intriguing? Sure. Does it have the potential to corrupt young people? Of course. Is it innovative and creative? Without a doubt. But instead of arguing back and forth about it’s impact, remember that’s just a website.

ChatRoulette has created a legal outlet for exhibitionism and free speech, and that of course means there will be those who take advantage of it. And whether you’re delighted or disgusted by ChatRoulette, keep in mind the one trump card of the online universe: you don’t have to use it.

Norway ‘Wears the Pants’ in Vancouver

By: Steve Retka

Now that the 2010 Winter Olympics have come to a close, we’re left with a lot of lasting images. We saw a game-winning goal in overtime from Team Canada for the gold medal in hockey, and figure-skater Joannie Rochette win the bronze while dealing with the death of her mother. But there was one image in particular that captivated many people throughout the games...the checkered pants worn by Norway’s men’s curling team.

But are pants even worth discussing? Well, considering a quick Google search of “Team Norway’s pants” garners nearly 1.5 million hits, it’s worth examining. Facebook even has a Fan Page dedicated to the pants. Even more surprising, the page has over 580,000 fans, and that number continues to grow.

These huge numbers show that these pants have not only become a cultural sensation, but that they have pushed the sport of curling into the spotlight. Curling, which in the past has had to endure both limited national attention and being the butt of many jokes, received a big media boost due to the pants.

To tell the truth, I myself had never watched a single curling match before these games, and was really only interested in seeing the pants which seemed to be dominating the headlines. But once I started watching, I actually became fascinated with it and watched all of the remaining curling matches. And while this is of course just one example, it does show the power of the media.

Team Norway’s Chris Svae, who picked out the pants himself, feels the pants have been an overwhelming success, saying “It's bringing attention to curling back home in Norway more than usual."

So while the pants may just be a gimmick, it’s proven effective in raising awareness of the often-overlooked event. It will be even more interesting to see how social media embraces events like these in future Olympics.

YouTube U

By Steve Retka

As spring approaches, many high school students will really start to focus heavily on the ever-frustrating college application process. It’s a time of essay questions and standardized test scores. But aside from filling in the seemingly endless stream of bubbles on the SAT or ACT, Tufts University is turning to YouTube to offer applicants another option.

Yes, college hopefuls can now supplement their applications to Tufts with one-minute YouTube videos. Aside from the running time, the videos themselves don’t seem to have any guidelines. Lee Coffins, the dean of undergraduate admissions at Tufts, told the New York Times that the videos “let them share their voice.” The 1,000 videos reportedly already submitted have ranged from simple conversations with the camera to day-in-life videos to clips showcasing various talents.

I myself have mixed feelings on this development, but I’ll start with the positives. I agree with both the Mashable.com and New York Times articles that this is a very creative addition to the application process. I also agree that these clips can help show a different side of an individual not seen in test scores or essays.

However, let’s not forget that there are some potential pitfalls here. While the YouTube service is obviously available to anyone regardless of their economic state, video production equipment and editing software isn’t quite as easy to get your hands on. Granted, most laptops and computers come equipped with iMovie or FinalCut Pro, but there are better programs out there with better editing capabilities. Not to mention an applicant’s video will look much better shot with a fancy, high-definition camera versus their parents’ camcorder from 1993.

Now I know that there isn’t a ton of weight placed on these optional videos, and that the university has stated that not submitting a video (or submitting a bad one) won’t hurt an applicant’s chances, but it’s possible that someone with the money to buy a state-of-the-art camera or editing software will get in, who otherwise wouldn’t quite have enough to make. While that alone isn’t all that bad, what about the student who they edged out?

I would just hate to see students who work hard throughout high school not get accepted while students who slack off or don’t take it seriously get in due to a popular or well-put together video. I’m aware that this isn’t a huge concern right now, since this is the first university to officially offer this option, but this is a growing trend in the application process and should be considered.

Regardless, this goes to show that not only has YouTube become an online phenomenon in it’s brief 5-year history, but that it continues to influence the visual culture we live in today.

Google Continues to Energize 2010

By Steve Retka:

Google has refused to allow itself to be pushed out of the limelight in 2010. The media storm started in January when Google surprisingly aired a commercial during the Superbowl, and gained even more steam with the successful launch of its social network Google Buzz on February 9th. The very next day Google raised eyebrows with its announcement that it would offer ultrahigh-speed Internet access in some communities to test the possibilities of faster broadband networks in the United States.

And it appears as though the storm is about to surge again, because on February 18th, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has given Google subsidiary Google Energy the thumbs-up to buy and sell electricity in bulk like any other utility company.

Now before we hail Google as the next great empire of our generation, we need to take a step back and really examine the repercussions of this latest weapon in Google’s already potent arsenal.

Does this mean that Google is going to be our new power company? Not necessarily. Many large corporations have done the same thing Google is doing, with the intention being on better regulating their own energy consumption. Google has many data centers, and the immediate impact will focus solely on better controlling them.

So while the FERC decision isn’t too shocking by itself, the real news is based on what Google Representative Niki Fenwick said about Google Energy in January in regards to its pursuit of energy access:

“We don’t have any concrete plans. We want the ability to buy and sell electricity in case it becomes part of our portfolio.”

This is what makes this story important. No, Google isn’t going to be controlling our power anytime soon...however, Google hasn’t outright denied that it’s a possiblity. It will be very interesting to see where the search engine giant goes from here, and to see if 2010 continues to be a big year for Google.