technoculture314-09

this is a link to an interview Henry Jenkins did with S. Craig Watkin, and one of the questions deals with a paper the latter did (carrying on from danah boyd) on class/racial differences between social networks. interesting stuff for sure

http://henryjenkins.org/2009/09/is_facebook_a_gated_community_1.html

I've been following the online circus surrounding Kanye West's infamous stage invasion. He's never going to live down the eternal name of jackass after interrupting Taylor Swift's acceptance speech. As Guardian journalist Sam Leith recently observed, West has launched a meme: "Entire websites with titles like 'I'mma Let you Finish' sprang up, bearing images of West, mic in hand, photoshopped into other scenes: he tells George Washington that Fidel Castro had one of the best revolutions of all time.." The tweet on president Obama has now turned into a bizarre work of art. But in all the fuss about West, there hasn't been much debate about whether the president is ever off the record. Reporters use "off-the-record" as a tool to protect sources harbouring crucial information of public importance. In order to keep the identity of the source a secret, reporters attribute the information to another source or credit it to an anonymous source. In the Obama interview, the CNBC crew questioning the president fed audio and video to a pool of rival journalists from ABC. Even if this shared fibre optic line was a long-standing arrangement between major networks, the CNBC journalists can't really promise off-the-record status on behalf of their competitors. And as far as news reporting goes, this was a 'good get' for ABC reporter Terry Moran. He went straight on Twitter to tell the world that "Pres Obama just called Kanye West a 'jackass' for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT's presidential." Twitter was the ideal place to report this kind of news. Predictably Moran's tweet provoked a debate about journalism standards in this information-laden age. I don't believe Moran breached any journalism ethics when he overhead Obama's comment and reported it. The real issue is whether the most powerful man in the world should ever go off the record. All journalists working for a major network know the routine for taping an interview. Before the official interview gets underway, it's common for presenters to strike up a casual conversation with guests. It gives them an opportunity to get to know the source. But it's not the same as off-the-record. Many people don't understand that you can't tell a journalist some juicy information and then say, 'oh by the way that was off the record'. You're talking to a journalist, not your best friend. And there's no doubt that media-savvy Obama would know all about the rules.

This week's lecture was a real eye opener for me. I had never considered the idea that what I am searching for on the internet was recorded and stored by Google, but the idea made me think seriously about how I felt about this issue and brought up many conflicting feelings. The idea that governments can demand access to this information was particularly troubling, but also potentially useful in some cases. For example if the government requested a list of everyone who had searched the internet for instructions on making bombs the vast majority of these people would probably be ordinary citizens curious of how easy it is to find this information since the issue has been so heavily publicised. Those people would have every right to feel indignant about the government investigating their searching habits. However, if someone used this information to harm people I think most people would agree they would have wished that the information could have been used to stop the event. I am reminded of the infamous case where Pete Townshend was investigated by Scotland Yard after having given his credit card details to a website purported to advertise images of child pornography. Mr. Townshend claims that he was simply doing research for an anti-child pornography book (personally I think this has to be one of the most dubious reasons for attempting to access material most people know is illegal), and while this is a clear example of the law being breached I think it helps illustrate the idea that the recording of our online activity has the potential to incriminate potentially innocent people using the internet for the purpose of gathering information. On the whole I think it is perhaps a necessary evil that information on our internet activity is stored because it provides useful data that helps companies like Google provide better service. But I think there needs to be more public discussion on what information is being stored, by whom, and who may gain access to it.

After reading "Facebook's Privacy Trainwreck" by Danah Boyd it got me thinking about other media forms which not many people may think has an affect on their privacy.
While issues are being raised over privacy on the Internet, we don't realise that there are other ways our privacy may be at risk.

We all at some point in our lives use a cell phone and most of us have become so attached to our cell phone that we won't even leave the house without it. And with the development of cell phones today, a lot of people tend to live their day to day lives through the use of their cell phone being able to access all the information they need, where ever and when ever.
So how does this relate to our privacy? Well many of us use our cell phone as a form of communication. In most cases we send and receive messages containing a range of personal information. So where does all this information travel to before it is sent to the other person on the receiving end? Of that I'm not particularly sure, but one thing I'm sure about is that with every message sent and received, it is possible for your phone network provider to access the information through their system.
A few of my friends who work or have worked for Vodafone have also been able to access information like a persons full name, and address, through the Vodafone system simply by typing in their cell phone number and searching for it. On that note, I think it's safe to say that people would feel uncomfortable knowing that their information could be accessed so easily. But is it really a breach of privacy when we supplied Vodafone with that information from when we first signed up to the account and the people accessing the information are Vodafone employees?

I guess when it comes to privacy it may be that in order to gain something, in this case to have a cell phone which operates, we have no choice but to give up some of our rights.

On that note, here is a video which may or may not have an affect on you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCyKcoDaofg

(Click to enlarge, but obviously my mobile phone's camera has zooming/focus issues, so if you can't make that out: Two girls lost in a stormwater drain in Adelaide updated their Facebook status via their mobile phone rather than ringing emergency services. A Fire Service spokesman said the 13-year-old girls were lucky another young friend was online and was able to call for help for them. Walking through drains is known as “urban caving”, is popular in many major cities, despite the danger of flash floods. - NZ Herald, Sideswipe, 09.09.09)

Perhaps I’m being ageist, but I’m in minor panic state when it comes to teens (and I hadn’t even thought about the under-10s till now), the internet, and, let’s be frank, stupidity. Wait, let me clarify; teenage stupidity as consequence of the internet.

The way cellular technology is set up for this, all you need other than the actual phone is enough battery to make an emergency call. You do not need credit, and in most cases, you do not even need a sim card. Turn it on, press SOS/Emergency (which, provided you have set it up as the emergency number of your country of residence - most seem to be automatically set up upon the entering the country to be sold – at least, I’ve always found it so) and you will get that all too familiar ‘###, what is your emergency?’ It’s a fairly international thing.

Were these girls so socially inept as a result of constantly communicating via SNS that they lacked the common sense to talk to an operator? Did they forget that the mobile phone’s fundamental function is to make and receive calls? In the world of a teenager, are mobile phones only for SMS, cameras, music and the internet, and do Facebook Status Updates have more immediacy than an emergency call?

In a state of emergency, regardless of the degree of how life threatening it is, the first thing that obviously occurred to the girls was not to call the one place most people around the world are taught to call as a basic survival skill, but to tell their Facebook friends just what they were up to at that precise moment in their lives. The update itself wasn’t publicly released. Perhaps they asked someone to call for help. Perhaps it was somewhat humorous: aaaahhhh da water is everywhere & my hi-topz r so not wotaproof. Not kewl!!!! I mean, I can appreciate humour at the worst of times because it beats panicking… except I know I have never had any of the emergency services team rushing to my aide every time I threaten to jump off a cliff because the university wireless connection is absolutely useless and driving me up the wall, because my friends don’t take the supposedly dead serious things (not that I ever am, but you know, in context) very seriously on Facebook. They know I have enough common sense to call 111 than type out “…is trapped in a burning car with awesome reception… so this is what burning human flesh smells like, mmm…” and then cross my fingers that at least one friend (preferably the ones in NZ) is online and constantly pressing F5 for an update.

The addictive and convenient nature of the internet is hindering the common sense of young children. They are becoming so dependent of this technology that is always there for them almost anywhere they go (thanks to mobile internet, say the two girls I’m sure) and this in turn is redefining not just communication, but priorities and logic in our youth. They say children are the future, as if these guys will save the human race from dated and inconvenient ways of living. But if the future would rather text message Facebook than call an emergency operator for rescue, I’m kind of thinking that even telegrams shouldn’t be dismissed just yet.

Here's the link to the full version (various formats available) of the Google doco I showed an excerpt of in yesterday's lecture:
http://www.archive.org/details/Google-Documentary_GameHacked.com

In the lecture we looked at examples of how corporations can re-appropriate an 'in the trenches' and/or DIY aesthetic aesthetic in a blatant way in order to strike up an affinity with its consumer base e.g. the Ray Ban sunglasses ad, Blair Witch project (+ numerous other examples e.g. Nike football ad campaigns are often based on a grainy, handheld camera aesthetic e.g. see here). There is also a parallel development to this that is taking place far away from the bright lights of advertising and official corporate mediation - Rampton (2007) notes (near the bottom here) the practice of "flogs" whereby Walmart employees are being paid to pose on 'grassroots' blogging sites like paidcritics.com and slam (ironically) "paid critics who are smearing Wal Mart." This is an interesting counterpoint to the oft-celebration of the anonymity the internet provides - whether its in Second Life circumventing offline social limitations or bloggers being able to get their stories out of warzones or totalitarian regimes - because anonymity also opens up the opportunity for largely undetectable corporate control.

I recently had an accident on the motorway with a group of drunk boys on a Sunday afternoon. I managed to call 111 while I was in the car and provided the police with the other car's registration number and description of the boys in the car, when they saw me talking on my cell phone, they realised that I had called the police, and they fleed the scene before the police got there. So I was then advised to make an official report at a station, which I did, but because the police did not catch them at the scene at the time of the accident, it was very difficult for them to pin-point the damage done to my car on one person or as a matter of fact on any person, so the police officer in charge of my case told me that, for him to give me any information on the owner of the vehicle that had damaged my car would be illegal, but I could go to the post office and spend $2.50 and get all the information necessary just by providing the number plate, and then I can pass that information on to the police and they can process from there, which would be a lot easier. So I was quite shocked and amazed that personal information about someone could be so easily accessed, and it made me wonder, and frankly a little bit frightened as well, that some one could also easily access my personal information the same way, that with just $2.50 and my registration number, my full name and address would be given to a complete stranger for any purpose that they may desire.

Boyd has said that "control is lost with social convergence", and that is something I find quite true and quite troubling. If personal information can be accessed so easily in the "real world" that we live in, where there are actually laws and regulations that protect our privacy, can you imagine what it's like in the technological world? Take the internet and Facebook for example, yes, it is true that we can control what we put onto the internet or Facebook page, yes it is true that we can choose how much personal information we want to enclose with others, but we cannot stop other people from crossing that privacy barrier and expose something about us that we might consider as private. Take photos for example, there are so many ways people can take photos these days, cameras are becoming smaller and smaller, and practically every cell phone has a camera option, so we can never be sure when our apparences or actions are captured on camera accidentally or intentionally. And then, maybe they'll be posted on someone's Facebook page, and one day out of no where you find yourself tagged. When we go to a party and take lots of photos with our friends, you can only control the photos you take on your own camera, but the ones your friends take, are completely out of your hands. This has happened to me, I went to a friend's house the other day, and on her computer there was a photo of me in a club, I had no idea when or who took that photo, my friend didn't know who took it either, it was just a photo amongst many other photos that she got off a friend who got it off another friend who took a lot of pictures when we went out. I'm also constantly finding myself tagged in photos by my friends, and if those photos were in my hands, I would never allow public access to them, because they are not of myself looking the best, but I do not have the control to take them down. So I guess that is the negative side of social convergence.

Not long ago I decided to delete my Facebook account as I was having privacy concerns, such as people tagging me in unwanted photos. When I came to ‘deactivate’ my account, I was asked to choose from a number of reasons as to why I was doing so. I chose the privacy problems option and up popped a window saying that I could alter my privacy settings to make sure I was more protected.

I read this and decided to go through my privacy settings and change most of my options to the most rigorous settings, as even though I do not feel comfortable with all the information that can easily be accessed about oneself via the internet, I did think facebook was useful in terms of having peoples contact details, such as phone numbers and e-mail addresses. As Michael Zimmer says in his article ‘The Externalities of search 2.0’ almost one in four internet users have searched for information online about co-workers and many employers now Google prospective employees before hiring which makes me think twice about commenting on blog and social networking sites (SNS) such as Twitter and Facebook. This has lead me to the conclusion that the now simpler and somewhat ‘out-dated’ e-mail is the way to go.

Even on the web site Trademe.co.nz, you are able to view peoples history of what they have both purchased and sold. I think one must take the attitude that their actions on the internet are public moves, and therefore anything that you want truly kept private should be in best attempt, detached from the digital world.

Microsoft's grinning robots or the Brotherhood of the Mac. Which is worse?

The Guardian's Charlie Brooker on how his hatred for the new Windows 7 campaign is eclipsed by his utter contempt for Mac-lovers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/28/charlie-brooker-microsoft-mac-windows

Recently I got a new Blackberry bold ‘smart phone’, and it seems that I have become very attached to this device. Over the pass month the phone has become a part of my everyday life, it is there to wake me up in the morning and also to remind me about my appointments. I had seem that I had become dependent of this device and could not be separated with my Blackberry by choice; this led me to think about my situation with Donna Haraways’s (1991) cyborg theory. Could it be that this Blackberry was potentially becoming an extension of my body through this close interaction and dependency?

 My Blackberry has very much become a part of my life and identity. According to Haraway (1991) ‘the cyborg is our ontology’, she is talking about the cyborg as being representations of our identities and thoughts. The way that I have personalized my Blackberry is a good example of Haraway’s (1991) cyborg theory, and the way I use this device for everyday purposes, such as waking me up in the morning and communicating with other people. It has become an extension of my body, almost like a second brain, it has my important dates and everyone’s phone numbers saved. My Blackberry is a technology that has become an important part of my life and allowing me to directly communicate with the public and private sector.

 The thought of losing my Blackberry is an agonizing thought, because of the amount of information that is stored on this device, and also the dependency that I have developed; this Blackberry has become an extension of me. The cyborg theory that Haraway (1991) brings up is a realistic one, especially with the mobile phone. The mobile phone has become such a personal item and people have personalized the wall paper and ring tones to be suit their identities.

Based on the lectures and tutorials on the issue of privacy on SNS, especially Facebook, I think it is safe to say that that the privacy available does not satisfy the privacy that one wants. The term “electronic foot prints” stood out to me because it does seem like anything one posts on the internet leaves an indelible mark. To confirm the validity of this statement, I googled my name and my username (I only have just one for everything). I was surprised to find that there more search results than I have imagined; everything that contained my username was found from my long-forgotten blog posts (dating back to 2003) to even the comments I had left of my friends’ blog posts.

The reason why the idea of indelible electronic foot prints intrigued me was because it is stirring up a huge commotion in Korea. About a week ago, a famous Korean celebrity “Jae-Bum Kim” from an immensely popular k-pop boy group “2PM” was almost exiled from Korea back to his home in Seattle. The reason for this exile was because his Myspace posts from 2006 that depicted Korea in a bad light were found by Korean Netizens. It is important to note here that Netizens managed to read his posts even though he had medium-high privacy settings on his page. His posts consisted of mere ramblings of a troubled teen who was finding it hard to fit into the Korean culture after having lived so long overseas. Netizens also went further than just reading his posts; they also read the comments he had left on his friends’ sites. Mostly he complained about the culture shock and his voiced desire to go back to the U.S, as one commonly does to friends. This was all long before he became a celebrity, when he was really only a child. However, he was condemned for his comments about Korea because he had become a public figure. This situation illustrates how anything written online has the possibility of causing problems years after publication.

Needless to say, after I found out that all my old blogs/profiles and the comments I had left on other people’s blogs were google-able by anyone who knows my username, I shut down all of my old accounts. Even so, I don’t think my profile has been deleted completely; it has still left an inerasable mark somewhere. It really does seem like the only way to have complete privacy online is to live in a box void of all technology (like the clip Luke showed last week about google’s “Opt out feature”), and really to have never started anything online at all.

Privacy in the digital age; is this even possible in today’s technological circumstances? The potential loss of our privacy is one that concerns many citizens. When thinking about privacy in the digital world, we think about our ability to control who has access to our social networking profiles, emails, online banking, to purchasing goods online. There is a level of trust that we has citizens have to give. Thinking back to when online banking first began, it was a simple username and password system. When I was on the Bank of America website the other day to transfer some funds, it first asked me for my username, then said because the site was not familiar with the computer I was using (because I was at my friends house using her computer at the time), it asked me two security questions, then it brought me to this ‘site key’ page where I then re-verified my password. This is similar with Bank of New Zealand. When you set up your online banking, they give you a ‘netguard’ card where there is a grid with letters and numbers. Once you are on the Bank of New Zealand website, they ask you for your access number and to verify some of the numbers on that grid. The process can definitely make you feel impatient, but at the end of the day, I feel safer and a sense of security; especially when it concerns my money. But when looking at social networks and YouTube, invasion of privacy has become a global concern. With phone camera’s, people are able to record anything and then upload it to a website. This raises the question of, who is actually watching us?

Sun MicroSystems CEO Scott McNealy simply quoted, ‘privacy is dead, deal with it’ (MSNBC). It adds that, ‘poll after poll confirms that the American public relishes its privacy. The potential loss of privacy ranks as a major concern among an overwhelming majority of the citizenry’ (MSNBC). In this article, it was interesting to read about these ‘bonus’ cards that these grocery stores are issuing discounts for customers. To apply for this, you must provide your name, telephone number, and address. But what the customers fail to realize is that every time they swipe their ‘bonus’ cards. The database will collect all the information of the shopper’s life determined by what they purchase, and the store will have the rights to that information. This is also makes consumers more aware that when they think they are getting a good deal, they are actually exposing their identity.

References:

Meeks, B.N. (2000). ‘Is Privacy Possible in the digital Age’? MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078854/

'Human flesh search engine' is a way netizens gain information which they cannot simply get from conventional online search engines. It is the idea of a ‘search engine’ employing thousands of individuals through Internet and these individuals are all mobilized with one aim, to dig out facts or answer.

“Human flesh search engine”was first started in 2001 for online users to track down film, music, novels or other resource. However, in 2006, it triggered the debate during a online incident “The MOP Cat Abuse”. A video which presented a kitten had cruelly trampled to death by a woman with her high-heel shoes was posted on one of the most popular Chinese online community MOP. The netizens was enraged by these photos and soon started to condemn the women’s behavior. What make this incident unique is the voluntary investigate done by netizens, in other words, the use of 'human flesh search engine'. The background of the video was analyzed, and netizens soon located the place as in a northeast county. A few days later the women’s personal information including name, age, address, mobile number, QQ account (Similar to MSN), employment was completely exposed online in the same community. Under the public pressure in real life, the woman was finally forced to publicly apologize and amerced for two month salary.

(http://news.sohu.com/s2006/nvzinuemao/ You can see some pictures in video here, sorry I cannot find English website)

Similar incidents are repeated. Last year, a young person was also exposed by the 'human flesh search engine' since her posed unseemly words (Translation:“Come on, how many of you died? Just a few, right? There are so many people in China anyway.”) during the Chinese national mourning period for the 80,000 victims of the earthquake.

Because extreme cases like these two, BBC used to described “Human flesh search engine” as online “witch hunt”, American media also name it as“Chinese style man hunt”. Although such descriptions are not accurate, I agree with the idea that the “Human flesh search engine”was misused. These is no doubt both victims in these cases were morally blameful and actually publicize their ideas to the public online community, yet their posted these ideas anonymously and the rights on anonymity were one of the central working bases of most online community. Also the result of exposing their personal information is impossible to estimate or restrict, these information could also be used to against or endanger them for any purposes and any time. It is fair to say, in these extreme cases “Human flesh search engine” has became a tool of Internet lynching, the damage is difficult to manager or control.

danah boyd's article, "Facebook's Privacy Trainwreck" struck me as particularly interesting this week, as the release of the News Feed feature actually discouraged me from using Facebook as much as I used to before it was introduced, and even shifted the way I use it.

With every bit of information being automatically published to my whole network, I felt more self-conscious about what I was posting than I previously did, despite the information being no more private than it was before. I stopped to think about how each bit of information would be interpreted by anyone on my friends list - whether they were family, people from high school, or even my boss. In a sense, I restricted the information that I would normally post for closer friends, simply because of the weaker ties that exist on my network who would also be able to view it.

The effort needed to keep up to date with a whole network's worth of information is much less than it was previously. Before, when you wanted to 'Facebook stalk' someone, it was done consciously, clicking through to their profile, and investigating each section for the information you were after. And to keep up to date with this information, this effort would need to be undertaken on a regular basis. But with the News Feed, each update is automatically presented to you upon logging in. There is no need to seek it out.

The addition of the News Feed has also made us less inclined to search for information, as we believe all of it is presented for us. Recently, a girl on my network was admitted to the ICU in a fairly serious condition. Her brother, who was not part of my network, posted a note on her profile. But it was a week before anyone on my network read this notice, as the News Feed negates the need to visit a profile page in order to glean information. When someone actually visited her profile, the information spread throughout our high school network, as the content of this person's comment became visible in our News Feeds. We had become reliant on it to seek out our information for us.

Ever since that class I have not been able to shake the idea of cyborgs from my mind. Are they truly becoming a reality? Are we becoming less human the more we absorb technology into our everyday lives? I find that I feel as though I’m "detached" from the world in a sense if I happen to leave my mobile phone at home for one day and I become anxious that I’m missing out on some important aspect of a friends life that they share with me through text. However, there are several other ways in which humans are becoming more machine rather than man. For example, take a look at a person who has a serious heart condition and needs a pace maker to ensure that their heart keeps beating at a normal rhythm, while this person may not be addicted to a laptop or a mobile phone they are using technology to keep themselves alive. This of course is the lesser extreme in comparison to Stelios Arcadiou, who has grown an ear out of his arm, rather the pace maker is a essential in to a person’s well being. Furthermore, new technology for people who have had limbs amputated and need prosthetic limbs there are cases of newer technology being created such as prosthetic hands that actually move and can pick up items rather than just being attached to the patient’s arm for convince. Can these people too be considered more cyborg than human? Furthermore, the more I think about this the more I have to ask, what is it that makes humans more special? Sure scientists have come up with reasons then only to find that certain animals in the animal kingdom are able to do similar things, being social for example. One of my friends say it is our ability to love for example but from what I can tell my cat isn’t going to get upset that I’ve cuddled with another cat. No. The cat will love me unconditionally regardless of what I do. I suppose that most people play a small part in being a cyborg, however it is the extent to which we allow

In this way, I think that sites like Facebook challenge the fluidity of our identity. If identity really is a performance, then Facebook seems like a pretty small stage.

After listening to the lecture last week, I was quite intrigued and interested about the idea of privacy in the digital age. It is common knowledge that since September 11, 2001 with the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre Twin Towers that there has been and increase in surveillance across all forms of new media all in the name of anti-terrorism. The surveillance that I speak of takes place in many forms such as wiretapping, GPS tracking, CCTV and biometrics. A classic example of this can be seen with the implementation of the Patriot Act in the USA and the use of CCTV in the UK.

However, what I found more interesting is privacy in relation to social networking sites (sns) like Facebook. Privacy is a human right and there are many laws and legislations put into place to protect our privacy such as the Privacy Act in New Zealand. Why then is it such a grey area in terms of privacy online? In the readings entitled Facebook’s Privacy Trainwreck by Danah Boyd, it is argued that Facebook’s news feed has had much to do with disrupting privacy online. Friends are notified when one changes their relationship status, when they join a group, add a friend or write a comment on a peer’s wall. Boyd argues that this is a terrible lack of privacy; however, I tend to agree with Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook that they “didn’t make anything public that wasn’t already.” In my opinion this is just one of the cons that comes along with using sns like Facebook. Furthermore, if people do not wish others to read or view comments, status updates or photos it seems commonsensical that perhaps they shouldn’t post them.

Whether we choose to abstain from using new media or choose to accept it as an unavoidable intrusion into our lives and privacy, it appears as though this is here to stay, and it is something that we must learn to live with.

An interesting phenomenon that I have noticed cropping up on the net recently is the number of websites that encourage people to share personal anecdotes about humorous or embarrassing things that have happened to them in their daily lives. I'm sure quite a lot of you out there would have taken a look at or at least heard of www.fmylife.com, which is basically a blog where members post stories of things that haven't exactly gone well for them. Some of these are quite light-hearted and amusing, allowing for the undeniable pleasure of finding entertainment in someone else's misfortune. "Today, I had my first day off in weeks. I was excited about getting to sleep in, until my boss called me at 6:30 in the morning to remind me I didn't have to come into work. Thanks. FML.". Thanks to the public yet anonymous nature of the internet people aren't afraid to share stories like this, although it is interesting to consider how many of these stories would be shared on a personal face to face level. If anything I believe people would be more afraid to tell their friends and relatives stories like this than 'faceless' members of a blog on the internet, where the constant updates by other members mean that each individual post is rarely looked over more than once by bloggers. However sometimes FML surprises us with posts that aren't so much amusing as depressing. "Today, was my bachelor party. The only people that showed up were my best man and my father. FML". I struggle to see the point in posting things like this on the internet, as it doesn't exactly elicit a positive response from those reading it. Furthermore if it is compassion or sympathy they are looking for most people know that anonymous forums on the internet are never are good place to look, as people can often be incredibly cynical, making the problem worse. As at least half of the posts on FML are of this nature it calls into question our nature nature of voyeurism and vicarious thrill, as no matter how harsh some of these posts may seem to be, our first reaction is often to laugh. On the other hand in regard to the posts that are actually funny in many ways it is more entertaining to read the posts online than to actually be a witness to them in real life. Could pages like this become a new first choice of entertainment online? These pages are somewhat akin to an online stand up comedy show, with new 'comedians' everyday providing new material for us to enjoy. However the number of more 'serious' posts dominating the blog lead me to believe that only someone with a sick sense of humour could truly enjoy all the misfortune that others are brave enough to share online. My opinion? some things should remain personal. If I want a decent dose of vicarious entertainment id much rather visit www.mylifeisaverage.com, where people share surprisingly funny stories of incredibly banal and normal daily life situations. "Today, my mom told me to clean my room, so I walked to the laundry room to get my laundry basket. I didn't want to carry it so I put it on my back and pretended to be a turtle. I then crawled really slowly all over my house. I still haven't cleaned my room. MLIA". Sometimes its the simplest things that people will find the most amusing

A recent court victory for the notoriously bigoted and homophobic Westboro Baptist Church led me to consider Habermas’ notion of the public sphere, and how it relates to the United States.

The public sphere of the United States would probably be found lacking if evaluated according to the principles that Habermas lays out. By protecting the Westboro Baptist’s freedom of speech the American courts have allowed their public sphere to host messages that are decidedly undemocratic, non-rational and non-dialogic (the Westboro Baptists seem to have no interest in changing their views or listening to other parties).

Church member Shirley Phelps-Roper’s bragging that “our doctrine is all over the world because of what they [Albert Snyder and his lawyers] did” seems to support Habermas’ belief that modern times have seen the decline of the public sphere, suggesting that worldwide media technology has created a state where ideas, regardless of their merit, are unthinkingly given exposure.

On the other hand, upholding Habermas’ ideals and excluding people like the Westboro Baptists would be to reject religious systems of belief that are not judged as sufficiently rational. This seems wrong; while many religions may be non-rational in nature, they still play an important role in the lives of countless people, most of whom do not share the extremist beliefs of the Westboro Baptists. Should not an ideal sphere of public debate be able to incorporate the belief systems of all a state’s citizens? Does a Habermasian public sphere, in seeking to allow debate free from oppressive societal belief systems, risk enforcing a dogma of “rationality” and secularism itself?

Due to its inherent complexities and problems, then, it is perhaps a good idea to consider Habermas’ conception of the public sphere as a reference to which existing institutions can be compared, rather than an aspirational model.

Political agendas do largely affect privacy in the 21^st century. The increased security that governments such as the UK have chosen to install is a challenge to the privacy of individuals. I think there are a couple of questions to keep in mind when considering the issue of public security vs. privacy, although these questions cannot really be answered without extensive research. Firstly, to what extent do the benefits of increased security really outweigh the rights of privacy? And secondly, does the increased security help solve the problem, or does it act more as a band-aid measure that does not really look at the source of the problem?

The CCTV system that the UK has established really puts the Orwell’s quote “Big Brother is watching you” into actuality. I think Turow and Hennessy’s findings, that in the US the public often see the government as both a protector and threat to their privacy, can be applied to the CCTV system, and also to the UK Identity Cards. These cards can be seen as a protector of privacy. They are promoted as a security measure as they are evidence of your identity as a UK citizen. However, the specific function of the cards has not been identified, as pointed out by Richard Thomas (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article470264.ece). Thomas argues that there are a number of privacy threats that these cards also evoke. The idea that the cards are expandable is a major one. This means that the information compiled on the card, and database it is linked to, can be added to. The information the government requires can be easily be changed. Thomas also emphasises that the cards hold a lot of information about a person; including details such as every place that person has ever lived. The idea that ‘knowledge is power’ comes up here, as these cards allow the government to build a very detailed idea of who each citizen is and therefore sets the government up in a very powerful position. The extent to which all of this personal information is needed is very questionable. To me it seems that these cards are more an invasion of privacy than a necessary security measure.

Ethics and privacy are two social conceptions that are intrinsically associated but as we all know they are also frequently apart. Due to the modern electronic age, information of any kind, personal included, can be accessed by anyone with a computer and an internet connection. Regardless of social position, age and motive an individual has the resources to explore whatever information is available to them, but do they have the right? Growing up in a generation that has been dazzled with the effects of the world wide web, most people my age do not harbour the deep distrust of the internet that older generations do. We accept the wide range of information available to us as part of the communication, education and opportunity within our society, we even volunteer information about ourselves and our personal lives freely. Can we validly make a complaint them when our privacy has been invaded through our own use of this medium? Surely an individual is aware that any sharing of personal information is a risk, especially with the internet context. Didn’t our teachers and parents raise us to not talk to strangers? Yet we accept people we are hardly acquainted with or even in some cases don’t know as friends. We, and I say we because I am guilty of this too, invite these people into our personal lives under the misapprehension that they are all trustworthy. I think we do this for two main reasons, one, we have encountered this potential friend at some stage in the ‘real world’ and thus have a sense of familiarity with them and two, we understand that we are making an individual exchange with this person, we are actively making our personal information available to them in exchange for theirs. This concept of gaining something in return lulls us into a false sense of security, we sacrifice our privacy for the chance to invade theirs. Surely this kind of deal is regarded, as with any negotiation for power or information, (in this case information being power) as a risk and some might even say, a calculated one. Can we then complain about the lack of privacy we enjoy, when we have been the ones to more-or-less initiate it? The internet may be an electronic network but it still runs by many of the rules within visceral society, your actions whether online or outside have real consequences and lack of privacy is one of these. You cannot first create an environment for yourself and then complain about the effects that this environment creates, privacy is and has always been in society, a necessary sacrifice for any kind of social interaction .

A discussion in tutorial this week spurred my interest in considering the concepts of social democracy and bias in mainstream media in comparison to ‘citizen media’ (e.g. blogs and citizen journalism). In general, one of the main criticisms of citizen generated content, (and indeed the main critique of citizen journalism from professional traditional journalists) is the production of amateur, unreliable, and unedited material. The idea that anyone can contribute to the news shapes popular perception that unsubstantiated allegations and conspiracy theories can be published as fact, together with inaccurate statements that can cause offence. It is true that most information produced in blogs or citizen journalism has not gone through the arduous process of being checked by editors, subeditors and fact checkers as is in traditional professional journalism. However, one could argue that this editing and fact checking process is instead increasingly peer to peer and just as effective, if not more socially democratic, than the more traditional ‘top down’ approach. Quality control checking instead has become more dispersed throughout the community and in this respect, potentially less bias than a single expert who has there own point of view, method and deadlines to meet. It also removes the bias of profit being a non-profit operation. This sounds overwhelming good on surface; however, one may question whether this is really decreasing bias and creating more social democracy? Or is bias simply being embraced in a new form?

The challenges facing ‘old media’ or traditional mainstream journalism seems to be an overwhelming sense of bias - perceived or real. It is true that if you take your average new paper or news bulletin, you can generally recognise a collective stance on many issues - however they do often offer room to opposing opinion. My question is whether it is this apparent bias that has created the shift away from mainstream media? If so, it seems a bit ironic that we would instead embrace such opinion-based desktop reportage, in particular blogs which often feature highly opinionated and emotive material which can be notoriously bias (and indeed this is often there selling point). A lot can be said about this, and it is worth discussing, yet I realise the potential distortion of conflating form and content. Perhaps there is more to this shift. The blogosphere itself, featuring enthusiastic debate amongst a variety of opinions, is potentially more balanced with regards to its form and how it works. People can link to other sources surrounding the debate. This is something that doesn’t happen in mainstream media as networks are in competition with each other. Thus the range and multiplicity of citizen generated content and the ability to link to other sources can be seen as a counter reaction to a single editorial voice.

Mind you, on the subject of voices, it is interesting to contemplate the extent to which there is a ‘collective’ voice in the blogosphere. An interesting feature brought up in tutorial was to consider the massive un-equalising factor of free time. Certainly those who have the most access, motivation and time to contribute to citizen media will ultimately have a dominating voice. Though no longer faced with the bias of profit, the blogosphere instead encounters the bias of the affluence of free time. This could well be a contributing factor to Garcelon’s (2006) description of Indymedia as being dominated by middle class youth.

All in all I am still undecided as to which media is the least bias and more socially democratic, or indeed whether they are both equally bias. Thus further considerations, comments, critiques are most welcome.

In a life buzzing with technology, it is not hard to become emotionally and physically attached to the cyber space around you. For me, It is more of a social network that I am obsessed with. It is an addiction that needs to be fixed at all times of the day. Oh yes, of course it is Facebook. I wake up, I check Facebook, I go to bed, I check Facebook, I get home, I check Facebook, I go out, I check Facebook (on my cell). I was never truly aware of my problem until it was pointed out by my beloved boyfriend, who is utterly against it. I can't help it, I want to be actively involved with what is going on, on there at all times. How is being too involved in Facebook a problem? Surely it is better than having a drug addiction or have some other unhealthy obsession that could harm others.
I just really enjoy looking at my friends photos and who has been commenting on their walls and just generally what everyone is up to. I do however hate all the applications, updates about mafia war and whatnot, and mindless dribble on their status updates. Nevertheless, I get so drawn in by the availability of Facebook, it is right there for the taking and for my taking. I can check it at all times. Even if I'm at university, sitting in the library trying to write an essay on “How pornography is a culture and how that has shaped the twentieth century.” (A History paper!) I'll find my mind wander to Facebook. Why have I let my addiction get this far? I do not know. Maybe it is that everyone is there. Friends I used to work with, friends who live overseas, friends who are too busy to catch up... the line is endless. It is my daily inspiration on life.

So I would have to say, yes, I am obsessed but no less or more than anyone else in my opinion.

See you online!

Cyborgs: Man vs. Machine

I decided to post a blog about cyborgs, because all the researching really got me thinking, especially after reading Donna Haraway’s cyborg theory in her ‘Cyborg Manifesto’ (1991), where she states that technology and machines are becoming smarter all the time, and that humans are unaware of this, and thus in a way technology begins to control us. This worries me, because looking around me, I see people young and old, using technologies not only as a source of entertainment, but in a way they are relying on technology more then they rely on themselves. Whether they are kids using I-Pods, (including my four year old niece), or adults becoming so attached to computers, which these days they can literary carry in their own pockets, (Blackberry or I-Touch), people are allowing technologies to somehow dictate their own lives. I myself feel that technology has overpowered me, and that it has become the ‘master’ and I became the ‘slave’. With the notion of ‘Mundane Cyborgs’, technology has certainly became part of us, it's like an extension of ourselves, and in a way it reflects on who we are as individuals. There are many positive and negative ways of looking at technology and what it can do to us. On one hand, I personally feel that we have become so attached and so reliant on these machines, that we become weaker when not using them, and when using them we feel a sort of power or authority that seems to drive our everyday lives. Machines according to Haraway, are disturbingly lively, and I would have to agree with her on that matter, despite the fact that machines are made by Man, they somehow act smarter than us, or maybe it’s because we rely so much on them that we make ourselves believe that machines are smarter than our own brains. Haraway also claims that there are three crucial boundary breakdowns, and one of these which I believe is relevant is the idea of ‘organism /machine’. It is relevant because the human body has become very much technological when, for instance, using SNS sites such as Face Book, and I agree with Luke Goode as he mentioned in the ‘Cyborg and Techno-bodies’ lecture (3.08.09), on the idea that there is a certain unsettling or uncertainty feeling when one enters a virtual world. It seems to me that one doesn’t know what to expect when he or she enters a virtual world. When entering a virtual world myself, I feel that I instantly have a different kind of confidence, I feel more free, and I’m able to discuss certain topics which may be sensitive for many, (such as politics), to people that I do not even know. As in comparison to real world however, where I might not express myself as strongly as I would in the virtual world. This is one of the positive ways of looking at technology. Therefore, technology and new media can be used in a positive way, because not only does it give us a certain comfort, reliability or access the spaces where we only dream of, but it can also give people power and a sense of authority were they did not think that they are able to have. However, there are many dangers when it comes to using these man made machines, and it comes when the user (us) is becoming used. Thus, one must never let technology dictate or control his or her life.

The area of debate within new media technology centres predominantly around one question:do we define technology as novelty or necessity? In digital capitalism: Networking the Global Market System（1999），Daniel Schiller identifies that “the utopian promise of new information technologies tends to be derailed by the capitalistic framework within which they are located.” In the electronic information age, products of new technology are not only praised by their technical functions, but also by their commercial values. By having a variety of expectations, new media technology can be both novelty and necessity.

From my point of view, difference between novelty and necessity are mainly derived from reliability of the new technology and our expectations. If the product of new technology has quality that people can rely on, then it would be widely adopted. In early days, mobile phones were “fat and simple”, they were big in size and they didn’t have many functions. However, these qualities had been acceptable to the public at that time , because they were novelties. The only expectation for mobile phone would be the function of communication . It is not hard to believe that the intention of consuming mobile phone depends a lot on aspect of necessity. For such reason,people are able to keep in touch with each other by using mobile phones ,and most of all it is an easy way to communicate .

Within the popular culture, One may argue that products of new media technology change rapidly in order to meet our higher expectations. People from different age, gender or occuptation group possibly have different expectations. for example, business people consider devices with multifunctions more important, where as students are likely to consume relatively cheap devices. Technology can be novelty as well as necessity. Not surprisingly,when mobile phones encounter fashion brands, these innovations chanllege people's expectations. For instance, the Samsung Armani phone, LG Prada phone or Motorola D&G phone, despite of their expensive and stylish features,they are all multi-functioned and high in quality.mobile phones nowadays have developed into more attractive devices : touchscreen, bluetooth, expandable memory.Whether they are luxurious toys or fashion accessories ,it would not be a big concern .

In their book Manufacturing Consent (1988) Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky introduce the paradigm, A Propaganda Model which insists that through the use of a series of filters, the media use “systematic propaganda” to serve the dominant elite. That is to say that perspective, bias and opinion are inherent in mass media. Following last week’s lecture I couldn't help but wonder how the Internet could best be utilized as a source of impartial news… one idea that came to mind was that of consuming a wide and balanced spectrum of what was described as fragmented media. If we accept the idea that all media is biased then is openly biased media a more honest form of media? In an attempt to source a balanced view on New Zealand news I decided to apply this method to the (weird) world of New Zealand political news blogs. So I visited Kiwiblog, Public Address, Whaleoil, and Frog Blog and compared their reporting of the news of the Geographic Board deciding that Wanganui should add and ‘h’ to its name and become Whanganui. Here are some excerpts from what I found.

Kiwiblog – Quotes Chris Trotter who says “WHO IS responsible for this extraordinary policy? Did anyone seek the endorsement of the New Zealand electorate before embarking on what can only be called a campaign of historical ethnic cleansing?”

Whale oil – “They want an ‘H’ but won’t stop bashing their kids”

Frog Blog – “Kudos to those courageous souls at Te Runanga O Tupoho, who have seen this project through over a very long time.”

Public Address features Graham Reid’s article on the Geographic Board’s decision, “the 'h' should be put back in "Wanganui" (where it actually is in much signage anyway) isn't "racist" but "ray-schist" according to the town's mayor Michael Laws.”

Although these sites really are honestly biased they seem to be set up just to reinforce their consumers existing preconceptions and rather than report the news these sites are more likely to critique news that is already reported elsewhere. Compared to using supposedly neutral news sources, I feel that I got very little out of visiting these sites apart from becoming slightly antagonized and wasting a lot of time. It would seem that these blogs pose very little threat to mainstream news sources and are dependent on these sources for their content.

Clay Shirky: How Twitter can make history
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iN_QubRs0&feature=channel_page

Something which has been worrying me recently (well, actually it’s a worry that pops up every few months and I try and ignore it) is the issue of online privacy. Not so much spyware or hackers but more just the invisible (or not so invisible) trails of data and personal information that I am no doubt leaving behind me as I traverse the internet.

I’ll admit I’m not the most cautious of people – I’m quite happy to register my Facebook account under my real name, on which I display my real age, real workplace and photos that really are me. More and more though I am beginning to see how I could be making a mistake.

I’ve noticed more and more articles popping up on news sites about people who have lost their job or had embarrassing facts about themselves made public through using SNS not very carefully or allowing posts made on messages boards to easily traced back to their ‘real’ selves. A famous example is a woman who wrote a weblog about her workplace and colleagues called Dooce, which was eventually traced back to her. Unsurprisingly, she lost her job, and the slang term “to be dooced” entered internet speak.

Most people now know that potential employers or university admissions boards may try and view a person’s SNS profile in order to get a better impression of the person before they make a final placement decision, and many people have responded by adjusting the privacy settings on their profile page so that embarrassing photos of them drunk on the weekend aren’t made a factor of consideration. However, much more personal information than many people realise is available– phone numbers, addresses, that embarrassingly bad poetry you published online during you emo phase…. Information you put on the net can (and does) last forever.
This has obviously become an issue for enough people to creat a market for such niche companies as ReputationDefender and RemoveMyName. These sites claim to be able to search out and remove all personal data stored in databases and on websites – for a small fee, of course. The fact that these companies even need to exist is quite worrying.

The concern over online also seems to be something which is quite specific to age. I know that my parents are very suspicious of the internet, and for a long time wouldn’t even purchase items from secure sites like Amazon in case their credit card details were hacked. My younger brother on the other hand is perhaps not suspicious enough, judging by his numerous cringe-worthy status updates bragging about his weekend endeavours. I think I fall somewhere in the middle, I want to have a ‘life’ in the online world, so long as it won’t impinge on my activities in the real world! (Or cause me to end up on FailBook!)

Ever since that class I have not been able to shake the idea of cyborgs from my mind. Are they truly becoming a reality? Are we becoming less human the more we absorb technology into our everyday lives? I find that I feel as though I’m "detached" from the world in a sense if I happen to leave my mobile phone at home for one day and I become anxious that I’m missing out on some important aspect of a friends life that they share with me through text. However, there are several other ways in which humans are becoming more machine rather than man. For example, take a look at a person who has a serious heart condition and needs a pace maker to ensure that their heart keeps beating at a normal rhythm, while this person may not be addicted to a laptop or a mobile phone they are using technology to keep themselves alive. This of course is the lesser extreme in comparison to Stelios Arcadiou, who has grown an ear out of his arm, rather the pace maker is a essential in to a person’s well being. Furthermore, new technology for people who have had limbs amputated and need prosthetic limbs there are cases of newer technology being created such as prosthetic hands that actually move and can pick up items rather than just being attached to the patient’s arm for convince. Can these people too be considered more cyborg than human? Furthermore, the more I think about this the more I have to ask, what is it that makes humans more special? Sure scientists have come up with reasons then only to find that certain animals in the animal kingdom are able to do similar things, being social for example. One of my friends say it is our ability to love for example but from what I can tell my cat isn’t going to get upset that I’ve cuddled with another cat. No. The cat will love me unconditionally regardless of what I do. I suppose that most people play a small part in being a cyborg, however it is the extent to which we allow

Kevin Lewis’s survey on privacy settings is interesting to me as it discusses the way privacy settings on websites like Facebook are different for different people depending on various factors, such as gender or peer influence. I find this really interesting, as the extent to which privacy is negotiated online extends beyond these factors, to such factors as age generation. I read a news article online, which discusses a lot of this idea about the way the younger generation and older generation control their privacy on new media like Facebook in different ways, with the younger generation being more careless with their privacy on the internet.

This is important as the idea of a surveillance society in today’s world to me seems somewhat more acceptable to the younger generation, that is displaying oneself publically, and allowing the possibility of being watched as more acceptable than the older generation would allow. This is evident with such things the younger generation present online, such as the amount and type of information they display, some which they wouldn’t even give to a stranger on the street, as well as the photos they display, just to name a few. By displaying private information on new media, it could be a threat to privacy, something which is now being examined a lot in the media with discussions on employers checking Facebook profiles, the threat to future prospects in life with the way these will forever be in cyber space somewhere, as well as the link between private becoming public and the extent to which it makes it unsafe for children.

I feel the older generation see the threats of new media as outweighing the benefits and therefore are a lot more cautious with their privacy, but the younger generation see the benefits outweighing the threats and therefore are more accepting of living in a surveillance society, and the private becoming public. With the older generation dyeing out, the younger generations’ acceptance and embracement of new media of private becoming public, it kind of seems to me a surveillance society is somewhat inevitable perhaps.


This is the link to the news article.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/facebook-generation.html

The lecture on privacy is certainly one that got me thinking. In particular I was interested in the idea of a division between those that were complacent about privacy in the ‘cyberworld’ and those that were simply ignorant. I found myself comparing the way I use and view the internet with my Brother's computer habits. Firstly, I love free samples. So, when I heard a television advertisement that told me to log on to a website, fill in a simple form and get free stuff I was quick to act. Thinking back on it though, I seem to have been pretty blaze about the handing over of my details. Surely my personal details should mean more than a sample size bottle of shampoo? (or a full size for that matter). This may sound like a trivial example, however for me it highlights how little I thought about the way that my data was going to be used. Another example that people may be familliar with is the bribe of free credit when you sign up to a mobile network, in excahange for your personal details. Again free credit is extremely tempting, but is this really an equal trade-off?
Yet my handing over of details was not a matter of ignorance, but more that I just didn't care.

On the other hand, the study by Kevin Lewis et al- A Taste for Privacy, that found that the more time people spent online the more cautious people were, reminded me of the oppositional way my brother views and uses the internet. He works as ‘the computer guy’ at a High School and as such spends a lot of time online- in a professional sense and as a leisure pursuit. Matching up with the findings of the study- his cautiousness is to the extreme of paranoia. He refuses to enter any competitions and under no circumstances would enter into the free sample bribe. What’s more he meticulously reads over the privacy agreements on any sites he is using online. I have always found it very extreme, but this lecture on privacy made me re-evaluate how freely I may circulate information on the internet.

Following the link posted by Luke Goode, I took the Facebook quiz which was talked about. To my horror, I discovered that the creator of a Facebook quiz can actually access MY information when a friend takes a quiz. Personally, I find this shocking and a real breach of privacy, as I have not selected to share that information, it is simply being taken by the creator through my friend who is taking the quiz. Whilst I understand that if I myself take a quiz that information about me is released to the creator, I think that taking information through someone else counts as a breach of privacy.

Twitter may not be as popular here compared to other countries where it is used not only for leisure but also as a way to get informed and start a revolution. In the Philippines the people use Twitter a lot to inform one another about social, economic and political issues occurring in the country. Julius Babao, one of the country’s leading news anchors pointed out in a recent tweet that “street rallies are old school. wait 'till twitters tweet about revolt against govt. in a snap, another people power is born!” This won’t be the second time a president will be overthrown by the Filipino people by using technology because back in 2001 President Estrada was ousted as the president of the country through texting. One day text messages were sent around telling people to gather along EDSA and in a matter of hours millions of people showed up and the president had no choice but to step down. Babao may be right about Twitter being the modern form of people power since Twitter is part of peoples’ daily lives. It can be accessed almost anywhere and the data could be retrieved in a span of seconds. It is the best way to inform the people of the 21st century and to get them together to revolt against the government. It not only has a great influence on the public but also on a country. Many Filipino politicians now have Twitter since it’s an easy way for them to contact and advise the public about their political agendas. This works vice versa since people can comment on the different tweets of the politicians and from that form different discussions and debates, which can be followed by a revolution in the streets. People should not underestimate the power of different social networks and digital technologies since they are so powerful and are capable of dictating the future of a country.

Had a look down and Sam C has already blogged about something similar, but I'm going to go ahead anyway because our actual content/opinions seem different...

I'd like to direct you to this link first: Twitter drama after Obama calls Kanye a 'jackass'

The actual event in topic may have gone unnoticed by some, since maybe Taylor Swift is a ‘Taylor who?' to you, and Kanye West is, no sorry, always was a bit of a jackass. But that's purely opinion, not fact. It's also Obama's opinion too though, so The President of the USA has my back; and thanks to a couple of Twitter feeds, he and I are like this (this being the proverbial crossed fingers, you just can't see me doing it because I'm blogging it) now in our shared opinion of West. But I digress.

What was your response to this? There's:
a. The President. Used. The J-bomb. The President. He's not supposed to even know that word in public; he could tell Michelle after they switch off the lights that 'man, that Sarkozy’s a real jackass’ but just not within public hearing.
b. Obama says Kanye’s a jackass. Dude, that’s cool.
c. What is the world coming to when The President uses such foul language? Well I never. If Bush was still in power…

But I’m not:
a. My thirty-something-father-of-two-toddlers neighbor (not his exact words, per se.)
b. A high school kid.
c. Everyone’s grandmother… or Republican.

Admittedly when I first heard the news, it was just funny. It was the perfect word. But then I came across the article in the link above, and my opinion changed to ‘this first broke out on Twitter?!’ I mean... Twitter? The same place where Paris Hilton tweets “I love staying in and watching movies so much more then going out. So releaxing and fun!” (And yes, Microsoft Word informed me of the mistakes after I hit ctrl+v for that tweet. And I did not change them.)

Am I overreacting? Probably, to some, but I’d like to think I’m pretty technology savvy, and that I’m generally accepting of all the new and exciting things happening on the web. But I find it hard to mask my disdain at something like this. Call me old fashioned, tell me to chill out, but for the news reporters around the world to be making a buck on reporting something from a 140-word blog, then accept that as the place where the news first officially broke out… I may not be wrong in thinking that the core of journalism is losing its merits thanks to the internet age.

I guess my concern is mainly for the younger generation though. Sure I’m young, too, but back when I was fifteen, journalism was for serious people, for grown-ups who reported news, the serious and the not-so alike, by doing some actual work. Receiving someone’s Twitter entry on your Blackberry would never have been considered a reliable source less than a decade ago. Yes, the people who put this on Twitter heard through the live feed from Obama’s own mouth, but the rest of the world found out because they tweeted about it. This is how our teens receive world news now. Is this not unsettling to you?

Sure, I could chill out, but it’s pretty hard when I’m not earning the bigger bucks on a journalistic piece I wrote based on a 140 word Twitter feed.

These links arise out of today's lecture on privacy.

The first is a Facebook quiz developed by the ACLU that provides an insight into the the way such quizzes enable third parties to access data about you and your friends even if it is tagged as private. (Obviously, you have to be registered with Facebook to do the quiz!):

http://apps.facebook.com/aclunc_privacy_quiz/.

The second is a discussion with John Palfrey (co-author of the book "Born Digital") entitled "Does Anyone Care About Privacy Anymore?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qif_mpmxpfU

It is the fact that human nowadays rely too much on technologies that we have to admit our tendencies of becoming the slave of technologies. However, it is also interesting that all those existing technologies up to now are developed by humans, thus it can be said that the relationship between human and technologies are very complicated. On the one hand, people investigate updated technologies for better living standard and bring these technologies to an advanced level based on the usage of existing ones. For instance, when the iPod Touch first time appeared in the market, people were attracted by the unique touch screen function that whoever had one is considered to be cool. Based the popularity of the iTouch first generation, the second generation was soon introduced and followed by the iPhone first generation and so on. Now the iPod Touch and the iPhone are everywhere on the street, they are no longer the “new thing” as they are used to be. Technicians in Apple Company used their technical skills to develop such new technologies and they keep researching and developing new generations based on what they already have. Thus, this is a kind of relationship that it is the human who firstly discovered the basic technology and the basic technology leads human to investigate more.

On the other hand, it is likely that people will be struggled if they are not surround by technologies. One can conclude that people become the slave of technologies that they depend on them so much. However, it is worthwhile to argue that whether we are the slave of the new technologies or the slave of ourselves, because after all, it is human who made them. It is a circular motion that the chain starts with the technician, followed by the basic technology then another technician and so on. Such fact also leads to a question of whether we can trust ourselves anymore. From the large number usage of calculators when we were in high school to the grammar and spelling checking in the Microsoft Office, people rely on technologies so much that they start doubting themselves. People forget their abilities of determining what is right or wrong, but then it is necessary to think whether it is the technologies themselves lead to such results or human. New technologies cannot be existed if there is no smart person in the world.

An aspect of citizen-journalism which wasn't discussed in class, but I find particularly interesting, is that of live-event reporting. Unlike professional reports on events, where editing, polishing and publication can mean a delay of several hours at the very least, reporting on events by average citizens is often able to be found in real time.

This has especially been given rise over the last year with the explosion of Twitter, which allows updates to be sent from a user's mobile phone and viewed in a public search. Hashtags are often used to 'tag' updates, and simplify the search process.

While the restriction of 140 characters may seem to limit the usefulness of Twitter as an event reporter, I think that this frees users from the pressure of having something significant to say, and they can feel comfortable posting a picture of something as mundane as the lines forming outside an event location. Also, the sheer number of users that can contribute to the overall experience of an event gives rise to many viewpoints in real time.

The type of events covered on Twitter range from breaking news (the Hudson River plane crash), to huge scale organised events (San Diego Comic-Con). When someone is unable to experience an event personally, they can perform a search to see what others are seeing, hearing, and reporting back on.

Personally, I've found it very useful for finding out announcements as soon as they happen. Back in July, there was a panel at the Paley Centre for Media that I would have loved to have attended, but not enough to fly overseas for. Using sites such as Twitterfall, I was able to automate the search for several hashtags and discuss the announcements as they happened with others online who were doing the same. People attending the panel were posting pictures of what or who was on stage, quoting key bits of information, and generally providing a way for us to experience what they were, as it was happening.



While definitely not a substitute for professional reporting or experiencing the event yourself (depending on the situation), event reporting by average citizens on Twitter fulfills the need for instant information that we are becoming accustomed to, and even coming to expect.