Week 13: Wrapping up

Final post! It's been such an up-and-down semester and it's been really hard at times. I've really enjoyed learning about all the different means and uses for which the internet operates. At points, I've just been fascinated by how it operates, like that notion of 'distributed control' and even just the democracy it affords us in what could be called an increasingly corporate-  and government- controlled world. I guess there is the "frontier" idea that's been touched on in this subject and built upon in the last lecture--that we don't know what we're getting ourselves into as a society, because it's all so new. But you know what? Bring it, I'm looking forward to seeing the future of digital networks in our society.

Week 12: the age old debate--apple vs the rest of the computing world

I thought this week’s comparison was a fantastic topic to look at. Who knows but that it’s a constant personal battle among friends and acquaintances: “I have a Galaxy and it’s so much better than the iPhone, I tried it!’ ‘Yeah, but the iPhone is clean, simple and elegant.” Well, maybe they don’t say it quite like that, but that’s the basic idea: loggerheads.

I personally think the open-source Android modus operandi versus the closed-and-gated operating mode pushed by Apple for the iPhone is an interesting one. I, on one hand favour anything that I think will promote creativity and I definitely think unleashing something and allowing it to be ‘free’ promotes that. On the other hand, it could be argued that structure and definition, as provided by the iPhone’s operating system, also provides a space in which to be creative.

I guess too, that there’s a level of ‘comfort’, as Ted talked about at the end of the lecture, involved in being able to search my MacBook for obscurely saved documents using a sophisticated search function only available on Mac’s, as opposed to having to trawl through piles of documents  found by simplisitic searches, as I did when I had a PC laptop. On the other hand, I could ‘play’ around with and even physically replace or repair parts of my laptop much more easily on a PC latop than I have ever been able to do on a MacBook. With a PC, often the ‘end of it’s life’ can be deferred through a little craft workmanship; not so much, it seems from my experiences, with a MacBook.

Freedom or Comfort? Indeed. It’s a hard question to settle.

Week 11: Musing on uprisings

I once heard singer Regina Spektor talk about her newest album, ‘Far’. She said she had been debating in herself whether to make some of the themes relating to spirituality more salient. She said something along these lines that I thought was very interesting:

“People are smart. They know when you’re feeding them a line and they know when you’re making stuff up. It’s better to be transparent and treat them as equals.”

I think the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, which were orchestrated largely using social networking sites, demonstrate this more powerfully than ever. We discussed the role of social networks in regards to the Egyptian uprising and Khalid Said’s death. I thought it was a particularly powerful demonstration of the power of social networks and how they can force democracy on a government. Pictures of Said’s body, were, according to the Week 11 DIGC202 lecture, circulated on the internet. These flat-chat contradicted the government line that he had “choked” to death. As a result, protest groups were created on Facebook and protests were incited using sites like YouTube, which led to the Egyptian uprising and the eventual resignation of the country’s president.  Basically, it seems that social networking sites, which are a virtual community, created change in the real world. With what Ted called “monologic media” being the main or only input of information, this would have been impossible, as a line differing from the Egyptian government’s official take on Said’s death would have likely been quashed. Thanks to “dialogic” social media, as provided by social networking sites on the internet, real-world change can happen thanks to ‘virtual communities.’

Week 9: Who's watching the Watchmen?

I really enjoyed this week’s material, particularly the lecture. I guess hacking is something I’ve always had an interest in and fantasised about being good at, since girls that can hack are like those that can fix cars—apparently so much cooler. And the idea of “frontiers” that was talked about in the lecture and the “without borders” idea that was brought up earlier in the semester and built on here both fascinate me as well. It’s interesting to me that we, as civilian population, have a mostly “unrestricted” internet with which it’s been shown by organisations like Wikileaks and movements like Anonymous that stands can be taken in regards to government actions and corporate movements. Basically, it seems a ‘conversation’ can be had, regulated only by the system and not by external means like law or even money, although funding can become an issue in certain circumstances. I personally think it’s important that a democratic tool, which the internet is, is used to keep powerful organisations accountable and I feel organisations like Wikileaks and Anonymous are doing this. They’re gatekeeping—yes, I found a link to an earlier concept! I wonder though, if there’s a possibility that the ‘gatewatchmen’ can become powerful in their own right and be accountable to no one, thereby becoming a danger in and of themselves. I guess this is where it become important that as many people as possible use the internet as an accountability tool for forces that shape who we are as a global group and how we do things.  There’s a line in the movie Watchmen that sums this up pretty nicely, I think: “Who’s watching the Watchmen?” Indeed.

Week 8: Citizen Journalism

I just spent some time showing some friends of mine Josh Farro’s exit letter from Paramore, which contained some pretty juicy personal attacks on frontwoman Hayley Williams, management at Atlantic Records and Hayley’s family. I found the blog through reading MTV’s news updates, which also provided a comments section at the end. MTV gave a breakdown and a limited description of what Farro had said and its ramification, but the most insightful observations and evaluations of the situation, in my opinion, came from people commenting. I personally thought a lot of what Farro had said was inappropriately personal and out-of-line with his ‘nice guy’ persona. It seemed like MTV agreed with me , but didn’t explicitly say so.

I think this is where the whole idea of gatewatching versus gatekeeping that was discussed in the lecture comes in. From what I’ve gathered from lectures in this subject and I guess throughout my entire degree, I’ve learnt that the media are, among other things, designed to be the gatekeepers of what’s happening in the society that they are covering. They are supposed to watch out for events and political decisions that could have ramifications. They are supposed to report, research, explain and evaluate things that have bearing on their audience. More and more, though, it seems that traditional media outlets are just…reporting. I would argue that this is a partly a straight cultural change in news preference and partly a move to avoid litigation for defamation, but it seems like the readers are the ones making the hard calls and really saying what they think is happening. I guess this is where citizen journalism in the ‘new system’ that Ted talked in the lecture about comes in—saying what outlets caught up in the old system are no longer willing to say.

Week 7: Into the Cloud

I really liked this week’s lecture. I particularly like this idea of a ‘mainstream of niches’ that the internet is bringing around. I would consider myself a bit of an ‘indie kid’ or at least someone belonging to the ‘non-mainstream-whatever’s-in-fashion’ social group. I find we ‘indies’ pride ourselves on liking unusual teas and hard-to-find vinyls. And we do dress in furs so we look like Penny Lane. It’s a lifestyle. I would say that I’ve always found that hard to fit in to the ‘we dress in polished black leather shoes and tights’ crowd who listen to artists like Tiesto and who read Cosmo. I would define the ‘Cosmo readers’ as the mainstream. I’ve noticed, though, since the advent of films like Twilight, which promote a more ‘alternative culture’ scope on dress and music sense, ‘indie’ has exploded all over the web and this has spread across into offline reality as well. It seems like it’s fashionable now to ‘mix-and-match’ clothes and buying vinyls is a common sport (people have started buying all the good ones before I get there----STTTTTTAAAAYYYYY AAAWWWAAAYYYY). It’s common now to see Bon Iver songs shared all over Facebook and promoted in prominent magazines and newspapers. Sia, my original indie girl, just did a duet with David Guetta, who I would say is one of the most prominent pop DJs of the decade. ‘Indie’ or ‘niche’ culture is in. I think the idea that we are a mainstream of “millions of niches” is one which pretty accurately matches what’s happening in internet culture and therefore offline reality right now.

Week 6: Convergence culture

I’m a bit confused by the concept of convergence; but then, I guess that’s not an inappropriate response. There were even times during the lecture that I got a little bit lost, trying to see how it all fits together. It’s a complex topic.

I liked Deuze’s exploration of the “Truman Show” idea. I grew up watching The Truman Show and there was always a cheer among my family members when Truman ran that little boat into the wall and got the hell outta there. As Deuze points out, Truman is shutting the door on the media surveillance camera that has defined and directed his life and which he only now realizes he has a choice to escape from. And we wreath him as a hero for it. 

There was a little thought-storm brewing in the back of my mind the more I pondered Truman in relation to modern advances in convergence technology. Children are being born into this world of Jenkin’s “convergence culture”. I saw a YouTube video with a one-year-old baby trying to make the ‘icons’ on a magazine ‘open’ as if the magazine were an iPad. Are we raising the next generation to be Trumans, living with this web of information flowing across every media platform and space they are exposed to until it’s naturalized for them?

Arguably, no. Truman’s family and social networks deliberately didn’t reveal that he was the focus of a ‘media magnifying glass’ or that his surroundings were constructed, as this would likely have destroyed a vital aspect of the show: it’s candidness. It should be obvious, conversely, to children growing up that the world of Facebook and its family are a construction and are not to be looked at as an strict reflection of reality. But if they’ve grown up being surrounded by this web of information flow and if it’s all related and knitted together like a very well-constructed ‘web’, I think kids would start to just…accept. And as Deuze notes, our little Trumans “…would have turned The Truman Show into a 24/7 videoblog (or audio-only pod- cast), offering a running commentary on the global status quo…”.

I’m not saying I think convergence culture is a bad thing. I think, as was noted in the lecture, that it’s a response to a lot of changes and it, in and of itself, is creating change.

Week 5: Copyright and Digital Management

Wow, I am so glad we’re talking about copyright and digital rights management. I’ve been toying with this idea in my head for quite a long time and I’ve had many debates with people over it. Something  seems to happen every time there is a debate though—if I’m arguing with someone who is for protecting copyright and who argues that downloading and other forms of  ‘piracy’ is ‘wrong’, I inevitably run into this wall which they seem to think ends the argument: “IT’S ILLEGAL!”

Yeah, apparently it is, but who cares? Hasn’t anyone ever climbed over a fence that had a sign in front of it stating ‘NO TRESPASSING’. We’re not having moral debates about that and more than likely, a person trespassing that won’t get caught. If they don’t, they go on their merry way and it’s more than likely no one ever thinks of it. They’ve probably still got some dirt on their shoes from the place, but no one’s in a flivver about it. I

I guess the point I’m trying to make, which I feel like the lecture and readings highlighted, was that the issue of copyright and author ownership is so much more complex than just being about legalities.

I read the Boldrin and Levine reading about copyright and patenting, and I thought it made an excellent point. There’s an idea that they mention that was also talked about in the lecture, that without copyright protections, artists will stop producing, due to the line of thought that says “monetizing and protecting copyright provides incentive for new ideas to be developed.” I would argue that this is true, but I would also argue that not monetizing ideas or protecting copyright doesn’t necessarily mean that new work won’t be produced. My housemate, three or four of my best friends and myself are all artists. While all of us hope to one day employ our art in various ways for the purpose of gaining a living, the fact that we are not now and may never be earning money from our work does not stop us from creating. I feel that we do it, or at least I do it for the love of creating itself. For me, it’s not about money and I would argue that as long as it is, creativity could actually stilted, since my creations are being modified to fit an outcome—gaining profit.

I guess my final thoughts on it are that maybe there needs to be less ‘black-and-white-this-is-how-it-should-be-no exceptions’ arguing about the issue and more discussion of different ways the issue can be approached to make it work for everyone.

Week 4: Creepin' on yo funkshins

I really liked Week 4’s readings and lecture. I’ve been thinking about this issue of ‘time-bleeding’ for a while, both on a personal level and in a wider social sense. I’ve been dealing lately with some issues involving unwanted contact via telecommunication. I was advised not to read the text messages this particular person was sending me, and I found my inner emotional battle not to read these text messages to be quite a strenuous one. Even though I knew I would most likely feel hurt and intimidated by what this person was saying, I still wanted to know, just to…know. I felt distressed and angry when I read them, but when I chose not to read them, I experienced the distress of wondering what new threats have been made by this person and what I would have to do to deal with them.  I felt out of control. What a curious sensation to experience: the tension between knowing and not knowing and the sense of a lack of control that rolls in with it. 1^st world issue, maybe?

It’s very possible, according to Gregg. In “Function Creep”, Gregg discusses a similar sensation operating among many professionals in the corporate world of the 21^st Century. Many talk about “anticipatory labour”, or work that they will have to do. Respondents shared that they would check their emails and text messages in order to ‘get their head around’ what was going on at that point in their working day and what they would have to do to “stay on top of work”. One person said they wouldn’t necessarily answer emails, or would answer that they would properly respond at a later point. Many reported this ‘checking’, or connectedness cutting in on family time or other important parts of their day such as exercise, but most seemed to consider work equally, if not more, important than these activities. Many reported that it gave them a sense of control over their lives and that the things that they traded off, such as time with family or time spent carrying out leisure activities were simply required sacrifices in an economic environment like that of the 21^st centure.

The idea that people would consider family time or exercise (or in my case, a blissful ignorance of unnecessary information) less important than the sense of control that comes with ‘knowing what’s going on,’ is indicative to me or an underlying sense that we, as a society, fear the unknown. This is indicated in our seeming unwillingness to allow whatever might happen, should we not read our emails or text messages, to just happen. Something catastrophic might happen; we might fall behind at work or a valid threat might be made, in my case. Then again, maybe life will keep happening, just like it should.

Maybe we should all experiment for a day by talking 24 hours longer to take action on a communication than we normally would. Hmmmm…

winding up the internet: winding back to week 2

I'm backtracking to week 2 to have a look at some of the readings and lectures from there. I was fascinated by the idea of how technology can lead to fundamental earthquakes in how we as a society approach the world and how changes can be made in reaction to fundamental though earthquakes, like the threat of a nuclear war. I left the lecture pondering that idea. I guess I'm also fascinated by how technology is also the thing we turn to for a sense of safety and permanence in the face of what looks like coming destruction. Although I would argue that even the most well-designed system is ultimately fallible, it seems like we as a society embrace and 'play' with technology and figure out what it can do for us, and seem to assume a sense of permanence or dependability in connection with that technology.

I thought Stalder had an interesting point when he commented that money, without the social connotations or existing systems determining what it can bring, is worthless except for its intrinsic material value, because money is a social construct of power. I guess what I got from Stalder's article is that culture is a constantly shifting and group-, not individually-determined stasis of things, and the internet is a constantly growing and shifting channel for information and production of culture.

hmmmm. so much to think about

Week 3 Blog post: The manifesto

I'm posting about a reading my class was given in DIGC202. The reading is called, 'A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace,'. This particular reading was authored by J.P. Barlow. It basically felt like a great big 'f**k you' letter to traditional authority holders who have sway over physical creativity and non-virtual 'life'. It seemed as if the authors were coming from a standpoint of having been restricted in some capacity by authority figures such as government, police or people with a stake in controlling information exchange, such as government intelligence agencies or record companies.

I found it to be an interesting read. I could definitely understand someone possessing a sense of disillusionment with current legal and social structures and wanting to implement positive change regarding these. I wonder, though, if creating the internet was a part of this person's effort to counteract this or create an alternative to traditional structures which improved upon current ones. If this is the case, i couldn't help but wonder if the person who conceptualised the internet had thought through the ramifications and potentially broad uses of the internet beyond the scope of what this manifesto is declaring to be appropriate. I don't doubt that the internet has allowed for aspects of information sharing in line with the manifesto and it's focus upon removing the restrictions of government. I think Wikileaks is a good example of the people acting in a manner which declares themselves " immune to [legal] sovereignty, even as [they] continue to consent to [their] rule over our bodies." Wikileaks continues to publish sensitive documents on the internet, even though physically this is not legal and the organisation seems only able to operate from countries with minimal laws against these actions. I also note that the internet seems to be used for distributing information which could be harmful to others such as child pornography.


I wonder if the internet nowadays is what Barlow envisioned when he wrote the manifesto.

DIGC202--Getting this action happening