Kiva

I remember the first day I was introduced to Kiva.org, a micro-credit lending site that seeks to help alleviate problems due to lack of capital that entrepreneurs face in third world countries. This organization really hits home for me as I am an entrepreneur myself, but fortunately when I needed funds and or capital I had family and friends who were more than willing to help. Since then I have started my own business that has been quite successful, and has set me onto the right path for continued success in life. What sets Kiva apart from all other non-profit organizations is that it just doesn’t beg for money from the supporter and give it to the needy for items such as food or water, even though those hand-outs are vital for survival, their effects can only be observed in the short-term. Kiva seeks to help in the long term by providing enough capital for entrepreneurs to fulfill their dreams and support their families. What makes it even better is that the donor or lender in this case, gets all his or her money back. So how did this revolutionary nonprofit organization set up a supportive base to make a change? Well, it was also through another revolutionary medium; social media.

            First of all Kiva is an organization that is strictly built for the internet, as lenders sit behind a computer and initiate micro loans to selected entrepreneurs after going through their profile on Kiva’s website. This in my opinion is one of the main reasons why Kiva has been so successful. Because it gives lender information on to whom the money goes to and what the money is going to be used for, it gives the lender a feeling of connection to the person he or she is helping. It then comes as no surprise that Kiva is a big user of social media to bring awareness and incite participation from the community. I recently read “The Dragonfly Effect” by Andy Smith and Jennifer Aaker which goes in depth revealing all the topics an organization should consider to properly utilize social media to further improve and advance to the next level. The book is split into 4 “wings” or another way I would like to put it is the 4 main steps to use social media for a social change.
            The first wing emphasized the importance of settings goals and objectives for your organization. First Kiva’s goal can be easily found under their “About us” page stating that their goal was to “connect people through lending to alleviate poverty.” Kiva also emphasizes variations of its goals (micro goals as Aaker or Smith would say) on their Twitter such as a certain amount of money lent out in a certain time period. Kiva also seems to have taken on another more specific goal and that is the lending of funds to women entrepreneurs in third world countries. After going through their twitter (https://twitter.com/#%21/KIVA) it seems that multiple posts made by Kiva bring the issue up.
            Besides setting up their goals and broadcasting it over social media Kiva has spent enormous amounts of time and effort in grabbing attention and creating awareness. Kiva and its CEO Matt Flannery are strong believers in Twitter to promote the organization. When asked what was the key in using the social medium to create awareness Matt Flannery answered. “Twitter helps me understand where people are coming from and helps other people understand where I am coming from. ForKiva, it helps demonstrate that we are not some big impersonal organization; we are just a group of human beings showing up and trying our hardest every day” (Link to Q & A can be found here http://tinyurl.com/7ucu3pf). Matt Flannery and his team have made a connection with their audience through Twitter, giving them the “personal” vibe versus the detached corporate vibe. According to Aaker and Smith “personal interaction builds an emotional connection” and in that emotional connection is what most people act on when giving or contributing to a cause. Kiva has also used other social mediums such as Google + and Facebook, but according to Flannery in the Q&A neither has been as successful as he has “too many friends” claiming that is no longer “as personal anymore”. Making a cause personal is definitely one of the most important methods of sustaining and progressing ones organization. Most people like to know where the money goes to, and when people and organizers are hiding behind a big company logo or name, it’s harder to illicit that personal connection.
           Kiva has also started events that take place in the real world such as Kiva’s sixth anniversary using social media. In these celebrations Kiva aims to empower its lenders around the world by giving them the freedom to organize their own celebrations that help create awareness for the brand. These lenders create teams to spread the word on their celebrations creating awareness and introducing the organization to people who do not know about Kiva. Kiva is promoting participation of the contributor’s yet again building on the whole “personal” theory. Kiva’s goal is clear as its written on its website and continuously posted on its Twitter as it strives to alleviate poverty. By creating these micro goals of lending within a certain time to a certain place it allows consumers to act in helping the progression of the goal by lending $25.00 at a time. Kiva also keeps everyone updated about the status of these goals with a meter on their site, which is very intuitive and interactive. Contributors can follow up on the status giving them a sense of involvement as opposed to contributing and never hearing anything about it again.
            Reaching out and interacting via social media is a powerful phenomenon. It is a very unique and effective way in building awareness. From president Obama to non-profit groups such as Kiva, social media has helped many with their goals and purposes.

BLOG POST 2 : TIBET VS CHINA

A fight that has been going on for over fifty years, a fight that pits David vs Goliath, a fight that is passed down from Generation to Generation. All these point to one struggle, the struggle of autonomy by Tibet from the large and powerful People’s Republic of China. The lineage of this movement stems back from the signing of the seventeen points agreement, which guaranteed Tibetan autonomy. Autonomy— the becoming of a self-governing country — has been the main cause of the 50-year movement called the “Free Tibet” movement. The face of the movement is the 14th Dalai Lama who continually strives for peaceful and nonviolent means of solving the issue between China and Tibet. The Dalai Lama fled Tibet in the late 1950’s after a failed Tibetan uprising, and since then has been in exile traveling the world, bringing light to the issues between Tibet and China. I will be looking past the first 50 years of the movement and focusing on the current status of the movement. With the revolution of the internet and social media The Free Tibet movement today has utilized the movement to bring awareness to this issue. For those interested in indulging deeper into the history of the movement there is a very informative timeline on this link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/6299565.stm

Before I started researching the topic, I had very limited knowledge of the topic. Through traditional media I heard about all the atrocities commited by the Chinese government on traditional media a few years. With my family being from China I had heard two sides, the pro Tibet side and the anti-Tibet side version of the story. Members of my family would constantly bash the Dalai Lama. And to bring up a more specific example, my cousin once got enraged over news stories from China reporting that Tibetans were injecting syringes in Chinese civilians. Recently after I decided to explore the movement I searched quite a while before a similar story showed up in this news article below...http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/ethnic/2009-09/16/content_8699962.htm. I however could not find this particular article on any other major American news site. If it was so difficult pulling the article up through the internet I highly doubt that it would be broadcasted through American traditional media. One thing to think about is that at least social media gives chances to people to find these news articles through mediums such Reddit re-posts, Facebook re- posts, Youtube videos, and Twitter tweets). In other words social media allows critical audiences to find out and reveal both sides of not just the Free Tibet issue but any other issue.

I went a little further to see how much traditional media such as newspapers and television has limited the perception of this topic with a few questions for my roommates. First I asked whether they were interested in the topic and then I asked them to elaborate on what they thought of the movement. The first person I asked was my roommate from London the words he brought up were “China, fire, human rights, freedom, inhumanity, violence” which I expected. I then proceeded to ask my roommate from who was initially from China but moved the United States during his middle school years. He immediately slammed the table (as a joke) but I could clearly see he had heard similar stories to that of the syringes I had brought up a little earlier. In his own words he said “damn Tibetans”. Neither of them ever researched outside of hearing what they read in news articles or TV news stations. They were in what I call the “filter bubble” of traditional media.

To bring up a specific example of how traditional media can keep people within a certain scope of view, TV stations in the United States have been known to “censor” one side while broadcasting the other. When I typed “United states censorship news” in Youtube a plethora of results popped up including this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoGeSh9LvU4 which shows the feed cutting out just as the American solider began talking about Iran. The problem with this is that it promotes bias and many times can distort information and swaying audiences towards one side of an issue.

Social media has played a big role in rekindling the fire behind the Free Tibet movement.  For one it has definitely brought awareness of the situation with recent self-immolation videos / pictures flooding social media outlets. I particularly, found this picture on Reddit on the 2nd page as a result of continued upvotes.

These self-immolation acts I later found out through another article online has been happening for the past couple of days in anticipation of March 10th to commemorate the Tibetan uprising of 1959. I stumbled upon a site http://standupfortibet.org/global-action/10-march-uprising/, which mapped out all the gatherings of people in support of freedom for Tibet that was happening around the world. The site also has a form on the right for supporters to give information and coverage of the gatherings they were involved with. Also a little bit above the form is a countdown to March 10th, and I see it as a way to hype up the supporters and a way to rally for more participation. As I mentioned before even though news stations (traditional media) can easily control what runs on the air, anchors and reporters tend to keep a neutral tone when reporting the news. On the other hand when I look up Tibet tweets or Free Tibet fan pages the tone is more definite and one sided. A tweet by Tibet@Tibetans “TIBET WILL NEVER BE CHINA! Tibetan’s speak a different language, have a different unique culture & history & are very peaceful humble people” clearly broadcasts the tone of writer / reporter (if you want to call it that). As a Chinese person I am slightly offended at the tweet, as it seems to claim that Chinese people are not peaceful and humble. On the other side of the spectrum though I can see this tweet as a way to ignite the hopes of Tibetans as well as other supporters of the movement.

    One of the biggest problems of the social media in covering movements like this one is that a reader can easily be sucked into one side of the argument and never see an article that transcends the view of the opposing side. For example if all your Facebook friends and people you followed on Twitter were Chinese / against the Tibet movement you’ll here stories about poisonous syringes being injected into Chinese people by Tibetans, or how the Dalai Lama is not as righteous as he is (you’ll probably see people posting media like this

(source:  http://thenewvoice.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/dalai-lama-is-no-jesus)

If however you are surrounded by the supporters of the movement your feed would be flooded with pictures of self-immolation and pictures showing excessive force and violence by Chinese officials like this ….

            Social Media has been the driving force in the current push of the Free Tibet movement. It has definitely increased the support of the movement as well as raising awareness of the looming issue. Pictures of self-immolation flood the Internet, and lure people into reading and researching more on the topic, however is this good thing? With striking pictures that tend to portray one side of the movement is it making us forget that there are always two sides to a story? In a way I see social media pushing the Tibet movement similar to how it is pushing the Kony 2012 movement. In both people are overlook other sources of information. 

            Now you are probably wondering what my stance on this movement is, and to be honest I am unclear myself. Part of me says giving Tibet religious freedom is the “righteous” thing to do, but on the contrary I do not think Tibet should be granted independence. For one Tibet is religious nation and is far from industrialized. A nation like that in my opinion needs the support from greater / bigger nations like China. Would you expect China to spend money and resources to help someone that was not part of their country? Another major concern of mine is the way Tibetans protest the issue, for people who strongly emphasize peace through compassion, self-immolations is not the way to go. I would even go as far to say that the self-immolations actually hurt the whole purpose of a peaceful and compassionate movement. Even though they are not directly inflicting violence burning oneself is far from peaceful. Social media gives access to information to both sides of the movement, in the end it is up to the audience whether or not they choose to widen his perception. One can easily be sucked into one side of the story if he or she does not decide to break away from the "bubble".

February 2010 marked the birth of one of the greatest men on earth. He was none other than 67 year old Oakland native Thomas Bruso aka Epic Bear Man aka Vietnam Tom. Some time in February a video went viral showing Bruso getting into an altercation with a younger black male in his fifties. The video shows the black male accusing Thomas Bruso of being racist, and eventually a fight breaks out... well more like a beat down. Thomas Bruso ends up beating the living hell out of the young black male. At first both the identities of both Thomas Bruso and his opponent were not known, so people were speculating that a 70 year old beat up a young 18-20 year old (since he did look quite young in the video). This speculation of the age gap created the thug vs old man theme and propelled Thomas Bruso to stardom. To add even more epicness to Thomas Bruso's alias of "Epic Beard Man" the video also captured him wearing a "I am a motherfucker" t-shirt. The interest in Epic Beard Man has since died down after a humongous spike 1-2 months folling the event. Even though search interest has died down for Epic Beard Man, new media is continually popping up. Epic Beard Man was not the only meme that came out of the video. Ambalamps or Amberlamps was also a prominent meme that followed suite. The main reason Amber Lamps became popular was because of her calmness throughout the video. Social media eventually took screen caps of her and nicknamed her "amber lamps" influenced by a mispronunciation of "ambulance".

How Far Will We Go for Facebook?

“Why haven’t you liked my status yet?!” is the question one of my roommates once asked me. I replied with something along the line of “Maybe because I was there and liking it would be stupid.” This day and age many Social networking users are self conscious about their “Facebook popularity”. Similarities can be seen in other social networking sites such as Twitter, where people try desperately to grasp some more followers. This all raises a few questions that I have been pondering the last couple of days  “Are we taking these social networking sites too seriously and is it causing us to overlook and forget what we truly have in real life? Lastly, are we doing too much in trying to maintain a portrayal or personality that does not fully represent ourselves”

            We’ve all done it before, some more subtle than others, but we have all posted something that we hope would boost our popularity or “internet cred”. For example the day I got my admission status, I immediately posted the status update based on the infamous Lebron James quote “In this fall, this is very tough, in this fall I'm going to take my talents to Norcal and join CAL.” In honest words the main motivation for me to put up the post was to tell everyone how badass I was…. no really. I’ve also seen friends untag themselves from photos because the photo did not capture the “better looking” side of their face. In other words sometimes what we see on Facebook is the BEST of that person and all the flaws are hidden and scrapped away. Friend count is another tool people measure how “popular” they are. For this reason I have always kept my friend count hidden even though I’d say my friend count is above average. I’ve heard people say “This is so embarrassing I only have x amount of friends” while others complain that they have “too many” friends. According to Robin Dunbar’s research the human brain can only keep about 150 meaningful relationships, so in other words those 1000+ friends that you may have, close to 90% of those just add to your statistic and do nothing else. (Dunbar’s research and more can be found at http://www.npr.org/2011/06/04/136723316/dont-believe-facebook-you-only-have-150-friends).

            Why do we treat such a number such as the count of friends on Facebook so seriously? Some people have the idea that the number of friends you have on Facebook is directly related popularity. I surveyed a group of ten people in my dorms and asked them the question “Do you think a person with 1000 Facebook friends is more popular than a person with only 100 Facebook friends?” At first, seven out of the ten people felt that the person with 1000 friends was indeed more popular. I then proceeded to define popularity as “the state or condition of being liked, admired, or supported by many people.” The responses after changed dramatically with 8 people now saying that having 1000 friends on Facebook, does not necessarily indicate a higher popularity level for the one with 100 friends. Just because someone’s daily activities online appear on your newsfeed doesn’t make him or her a real friend. Real friends you have are the ones that you constantly interact with in real life physically in other forms other than a social virtual network. The problem today is that there are a lot of social networking users that are consumed by the amount of friends they have. To bring up an extreme case, just recently there was a double murder case involving Enoch Potter Junior (suspect) and Billy Clay Payne, Jr. and Billie Jean Hayworth (victims). Apparently Billy Clay and Billie Jean both defriended Jenelle Potter, and thus causing her father Enoch Potter to kill the two couple Billy Clay and Billie Jean (The link to the article for those who want to read more about it is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/marvin-potter-kills-couple-over-facebook-feud_n_1263967.html). Seriously? Killing someone because he or she defriended your daughter?  

            Besides building fake godlike images of people, social networking sites can also do the opposite by creating fake negative facades of its users. I recently watched a movie called Cyberbully as it tells the story of a teenager and her ordeal with cyber bullies that sculpt a vulgar reputation for the teen through hateful comments and nasty rumors. The teen’s peers at school saw her as the person on Facebook and not for who she really was, and eventually she attempted suicide as she herself began to believe that she was the person the social network made her out to be. The plot of the movie was indeed made up, but the issues that the movie calls attention to, are all very valid. I am quite sure the movie was based on the true story of Megan Meir in which she hung herself over a made up boy by the name of Josh Evans. The person behind the Josh Evans identity was Lori Drew, who was a mother of a former friend of Megan. Lori Drew’s daughter had a fallout with Megan Meier, and to get revenge Lori decided to come up with this hoax that would eventually lead to Megan’s death (Megan’s story can be read here http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org/megansStory.php ). Even though Megan had never met or seen this Josh Evans in person, she was willing to die for him. What’s even worse was that she died for a person that never even existed.

The examples I have pointed out are all pretty extreme, but bringing the topic more into perspective we are all susceptible to the stress and annoyances of maintaining our persona on Facebook. The movie “Surrogates” is a perfect example of what I fear, when people live their lives as real life surrogates. For example one scene one user had a 5’11’’ athletic build surrogate, but in real life he was a fat, bald, and obnoxious person. He would spend so much time to maintain his surrogate, but in turn he lost perspective of his true self. Users these days are putting way too much effort and time onto their “virtual image”, and some may even deem it more important than their reputation in the real world. Remember that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Cartoon by Steiner of the New Yorker