technoculture314-09

It's a universal truth that anyone with access to the internet has the power to create and share content. This has left the traditional cultural gatekeepers – the television executives, newspaper owners, book publishers, record companies and movie producers under siege. There's no denying that Web 2.0 has been a bonus for budding film makers and musicians, or more appropriately the produser and cocreator. Take amateur filmmaker Jason van Genderen who last year won Tropfest New York with a 3 ½ minute short film about homelessness, which was shot on a mobile phone and made with a budget of $57. Forget the traditional distribution channels, just put your movie up on YouTube for free. It's a huge finger wag at the traditional gatekeepers who have until now controlled the tide of talent; now culture has been liberated and democratised. The downside is that you have to wade through a lot of D-grade content to find the gems. It may sound patronising but can readers, viewers and listeners be trusted to identify the best content without the guiding hand of authoritative gatekeepers? I think it's more likely that users themselves will sift through the dross and establish a list of people whose opinion they trust. The amount of unsubstantiated content online is annoying, even for user-generated sites like Wikipedia, the so-called poster-child for Web 2.0. In a move that caused a lot of flak, the board recently announced an editorial review system. At this stage these “flagged revisions” apply only to articles about living people but may conceivably be extended to other topics. The Sydney Morning Herald reported Wikipedia's board chairman as saying: “We are no longer at the point that it is acceptable to throw things at the wall and see what sticks.” It's sparked a heated debate about the “purity of Wikipedia's original charter as a fully open user-generated reference work”. It's obvious that user-generated copy is here to stay and the traditional media gatekeepers have to adapt. Is it possible for there to be a hybrid model of both? Jose van Dijck comments in his essay Users like You, that Hollywood producers “hesitate whether to see YouTube-Google as a friend or foe:either they go after them and use their historic prowess to impose their old (content-protection) rules on this newcomer, or they side with them in creating new business and marketing models to create buzz for conventional broadcast products.

The concept of a "global village" has become a reality in the last couple of years, as a result of the rapidly increasing Usage of the Internet: an estimated 30-40 million users are now active within this network, either as private individuals (e.g. for E-Mail or "Web Surfing"), or for business purposes. Most companies now have their own website. As one alternative trade platform, consumers can visit these websites and obtain the information, products or services they want by registering in these websites. When registering, they always are required to sign up the service terms and conditions and provide their personal information. If not, perhaps they will be not permitted to log in and visit these websites. However, it is unfortunate that the personable information provided by the consumers is not be used properly by the relevant companies.
 As a powerful medium, the internet promotes the mutual communication among people and expanding of international commerce. But many people just use it as a tool to commit illegal acts. Indeed, the Internet has enhanced criminals’ abilities to commit traditional crimes more efficiently and anonymously and it has also created new opportunities for crime, such as Internet crime. Internet Fraud is such a kind of Internet crime. On the one hand, it seriously destroys the normal management of Internet information system, and makes people suspect the truth of Internet information. On the other hand, it also seriously damages the other social and economic interests. Hence, it is necessary to take the practicable steps to prevent and combat Internet Fraud so as to protect the benefit of net-users and make the Internet become a safe place for transaction and exchange.

Bibliography: Preventing and Combating Internet Fraud
Introduction

Controlling the gaze is probably the crux of what this site is all about.. The main point being that by taking their own photos they are, in their own minds, not being exploited. But is this the truth?? Are they not inviting anyone and everyone onto the site to ogle at them, no matter which part they choose to display, the fact remains that somebody, somewhere is taking advantage of the image..

That beauty is in the eye of the beholder is what attracts most girls to this site, and that in displaying their outer beauty they are also inviting viewers or followers into their minds. They do so by putting specifically chosen photos up, for example, as mentioned in the reading, a close-up of their eye, is this to signify the idea of "in the eye of the beholder"? And by posting blogs to show their intellect they are maintaining a site that promotes beauty as well as brains they think that the control is within their grasp.

I would say that while this might give them the sense of control but really they are still being exploited in the way that viewers can do what they like with the photos that they post. And by saying that they are sick of being discriminated against because they don't fit the bill of what is "beautiful" they are only making another group in which only girls that fit their own bill can be apart of. In effect, they themselves are discriminating against others. While I give them credit for trying to be different, I think that they should at least realize the hypocrisy in which this site occupies.

At the tutorial on Thursday, we discussed New Zealand's copyright law and someone asked if similar legislation had been introduced in other countries. I found this article in The Sydney Morning Herald which reported on the French lower house of parliament recently passing a law that would cut off internet access for those caught pirating movies and music. Nick Galvin reported: “If the bill makes it onto the statute books, draconian is not the word. Offenders face having their access suspended, fines of up to almost $500,000 and even jail time. Oh, and Parents will be held responsible if their children are caught with illegal downloads.” Not surprisingly The French entertainment industry, is behind the legislation. New Zealand legislators are reconsidering section 92A, but as discussed in the tutorial it's more likely we will fall into line with American legislators and introduce stiff copyright laws. The issue of copyright is a hot topic among publishers, journalists and authors. Writers can be a feisty lot and the debate about Google Print shows that there's still some might in the pen. The New Zealand Society of Authors lashed out at Google, claiming that the search engine giant has “stolen our intellectual property, our most valuable possession.” Here's the back story: In 2005 the US Authors Guild and a coalition of publishers filed a class-action lawsuit against Google for copyright infringement. Google argued fair use. In October 2008 formal resolution was cut short when the parties announced they had reached an out-of-court settlement. This settlement is subject to a final approval hearing in a New York Federal Court on 7 October 2009. Authors affected by the settlement had until last month to opt-in or opt-out of Google and among the high-profile New Zealand authors choosing to opt-out were Margaret Mahy. NZ Herald recently reported that The US Justice Department has advised a federal judge that a proposed legal settlement giving Google the digital rights to millions of out of print books threatens to thwart competition and drive up prices unless it's revised. The latest missive comes from The Authors Guild of America, who are suing Google Inc in a federal court, alleging that the web search leader's bid to digitise the book collections of major libraries infringes individual authors' copyrights. What's interesting is that Google Print has exploded into the top ranks of US internet sites, rising to the 30th most visited site for the week ending September 17 from 90th a week earlier. Google's official response to books online is that it directly benefits authors and publishers by increasing awareness of and sales of the books in the programme. And yes, only small portions of the books are shown unless the content owner gives permission to show more. But books, like music are still subject to illegal downloads. The Guardian reported that pirated copies of Dan Brown’s new Robert Langdon thriller The Lost Symbol started appearing across the internet only a day after the book was published: available for download via peer-to-peer sites including The Pirate Bay and Scribd.com. Nothing like a good thriller to incite a crime.

In the era of Web 2.0, the rise of the ‘prosumer’ signals an increased blurring of the roles and domains of the professional/producer and the consumer. With a focus on the increased participation, agency and creativity of user generated content, the fact that the term prosumer also signals the subsequent blurring of work (production) and leisure (consumption) is often bypassed. This notion it seems is to the advantage of corporations who are increasingly capitalising on user generated content (UGC).

The notion of the prosumer is generally viewed as potentially liberating and challenging to traditional corporate and industry standards. Nevertheless corporations are using UGC to their own advantage and making it work for them. For example, fan based appropriation of mainstream content can be seen as a challenge to traditional media, whereby fans take what is significant to them from mainstream content and appropriate it in creative ways in order to make it more meaningful to them - to create their own sense of individuality within a homogenous society. However, this fan produced content produced for ‘fun’ during leisure time, has been increasingly embraced if not encouraged by the corporations who own the rights to the original mainstream material as a means of generating publicity. The blurring of work and leisure becomes evident in this instance when it is the corporations, not the fans who benefit financially from such prosumer activity.

It is interesting to consider how something that seems like play and leisure can be infact a form of work. Along these lines it is the corporations that are benefiting from the developing forms of voluntary labour which ultimately add to the value of sites and infrustructure. It it important to dig deeper when considering these issues. The term 'prosumer' it seems has been constructed as a kind of buzzword, wrapped up in notions of active participation and cultural citizenship. These claims need to be carefully considered as there is a danger of buying into the rhetoric and hype.

I find myself in a dire situation. Contemplating my choices for a Friday night viewing schedule, I notice a distinct lack in quality, a common sight for most television stations in New Zealand. Between the usual suspects of Rove (who by all accounts offers nothing but culturally imperialistic, American-style hogwash) I contemplate my choices and can’t help feeling distraught. On a whim, I decide to go on to the internet and have a poke around to see if I can muster anything with a soul, something provoking, something enjoyable and something that I can really enjoy. I end up a surfthechannel.com, which unless you have been living underneath a rock for the last year or so, offers links to pretty much anything that you desire - television shows, movies, pretty much anything that you desire. A quick search finds me settling in with a decent movie, Bruce La Bruces’ ‘The Raspberry Reich.'

This annoys me. I find myself in two minds, contemplating the nature of piracy and the affect that has on me as a viewer and the greater affect that it has on the film industry. I feel slightly guilty in the fact that I am enjoying a great art house movie, which presumably was produced on a limited budget, shown to a limited audience and properly not making much money in the process. I find that watching the drool that we are offered during regular hours of television completely mind numbing, yet the only chance of watching a great original movie is at the ‘Art House’ cinemas, or forced to reckon with the uncomfortable chairs in the audio visual library or waiting for the annual International Film Festival to arrive, in the hopes of finding an indie gem. Where does the blame lame? And should I feel guilty? Perhaps I should contemplate watching Rove, atleast knowing that by not watching art house cinema illegally, I possibly be able to catch a gem at the next film festival. Maybe.

NB: I stopped watching the movie and went to the AV Library the next week. I endured Rove for a few more minutes and was then saved by John Stewart. I find that C4 and Maori TV do offer some interesting shows from time to time. Keep an eye out.

In a recent conversation with some friends, I put forward the question of whether or not any of them had an NZDating account. I quickly scanned their faces, knowing full well that none of them would admit to using one, instead looking for slight red flashes of embarrassment as two of them cast their eyes downwards. I find this interesting on a few levels:

a) I don’t understand the embarrassment (unless you’ve got a profile on this site, shame on you). Surely when you sign up to NZ Dating you are forgoing any privacy that previously existed, the whole aim of ‘the game’ being that you are advertising yourself in the hopes of dating. I think this bespeaks a much-overlooked aspect of the site. The act of being anonymous offers a sort of thrill, almost similar to the thrill that is offered by the creation of an avatar in second life or World of Warcraft. You are able to exist separate from your actual self, and through this, you create persona that you are inherently embarrassed about, because it IS NOT YOU.

b) Secondly, I find it interesting that they reasonably expect people to actually meet in real life. Surely a virtual relationship offers little but visual images, simulacra if you will, a copy of the real you. Perhaps I’m a die hard romantic, but what ever happened to love at first sight?

c) Interestingly, the animosity that we are supposed to have does not exist. I find in New Zealand that everyone knows someone who knows someone, who knows someone’s brother, who dated his flatmate (ad infinitum). Our Six degrees of separation seems to be all but measly two (portrayed expertly by 2 degrees mobile advertising campaign, I must admit).

We are inherently copying ourselves continually online, only really offering representations of ourselves. Surely this means that love at first sight online is never truly achievable. Love at first simulacra really doesn’t have the same ring now does it?

Watching a recent Star Wars re-run, I wondered what had happened to holograms and virtual reality. I seriously thought by now that everyone would be running around in an imaginary computer generated world a la The Matrix, and people would be talking on videophones. It seems that an answer has sort f arrived, in the form Augmented Reality. It seems that soon the free congenial space that we are so accustomed will be over taken by an overlaying of information, through either the visual capturing capabilities of iphones or the inclusion of technology into our eyewear, and even so far as our contact lenses. Wired magazine ran a great article here, offering to us what the future is supposedly going to be like. The inclusion of information directly fed to us baffles me, but it also made me realize that we actually live in a society that does this already. Feeling pretty cybernetic already, with my iPod, mobile phone, I worry that if covering our eyes in Augmented Reality is going to do more harm than good.

Advertising stands to gain huge amounts from this. I can’t help but think about what Negroponte talks about with bits and bites, the ability to replicate information seamlessly and endlessly, without any degradation in quality form the source. The contact lenses that are spoken about in the above article have tiny little LED’s (light emitting diodes, for you luddites) that can project the most minuscule of images, allowing you and only you to see it. I find it interesting stuff, as the possibilities are endless. In an already media saturated world, does this offer another encroachment on our liberties, a visual space that was once allowed for us and us only to see? I could see some fun to be had though: imagine playing a game in real life, with images overlayed, perhaps like this. Perhaps the Matrix doesn’t exist, but Augmented Reality pretty much comes close.

Ok, Im sure that everyone who has MP3 players, or iPods if you prefer, or at least a computer at home would have committed a 'crime' of music sharing or downloading music illegally from the web or file-sharing services, more than few times already for most of us and for some of us, it could be a part of the daily routine to discover new music and hunt for it on the internet to download it. Now, this music sharing and illegal downloads are, as it reads, illegal. Yar Majid, supports this statement by saying that downloading music without paying for it is clealry a 'crime'.

Despite the truth that we're committing this crime on a quite regular basis, (assuming that we are all music-loving students under extreme financial burden of being a full time student? Maybe it's a lame excuse but well.) there are clearly a distinctive advantage for both the music producers and listeners, because most of the listeners would be more than happy to spend thier money on the next albums coming out, from this certain band/artist if they really liked it, after listening to thier song that he/she downloaded from the internet. This initially builds on a fan base, even though its being done illegally. I don't know and sure about other people but I always tend to listen to few songs at least, but preferbly whole album, before i decided to buy the physical album. There are always new artists I discover (?) and happy to pay the price for the music they provide. This could just an excuse of being a music pirate but in this technocultural society, such process has become more than common for most of the young generation.

I don’t know why I do it to myself. Having already been subjected to The Devil Wears Prada, I find myself being convinced to sit through Sex and The City: The Movie. Fixed in my anti-capitalist ways, I find both movies offer little more than a representation of conspicuous consumption.

I digress. I also dislike the movies on another level: I find that the pseudo-feminist attitudes that both movies seem portray as rather harrowing. Women are meant to feel liberated that they can now own their own pay check, buy shoes and find their own Mr Big. This is where I think Suicide Girls offer an interesting paradigm, and I think that both Sex and the City and suicide girls can offer an interesting link.

Suicide girls attempt to be subversive, that is they attempt to represent the anti-Carrie, the anti-Dress wearing, shoe loving urbanite. However I come into conflict as I feel that they both are running still on capitalist modes of consumerism. They both are attempting to procure a pay check, and they both are subjectifying themselves for an audience, be it Mr Big or Mr Goth.

I find it funny that the models on Suicide Girls are offering an alternative to the Carries of the world: that is they are attempting to portray themselves as subjects. They are subjectified objects, which are attempting to draw the Mulveyian Gaze. Who’s more feminist? Carrie or Suicide girls? I would have to argue that perhaps Carrie is, as atleast she doesn’t need to take her clothes of to exist within a capitalist society.

Both, I guess, offer a faux-feminist point of view. They exist to draw the male gaze, something that I feel subjectifies and lowers women to a subordinate role. It seems ironic that Suicide Girls, a reactionary group of women that attempt to be the ‘Anti-Carries’, actually end up being more subjectified than their ‘frenemy’.

People are seems to be more familiar these days, with the reconstruction of their virtual identity online and they seemed to be quite comfortable with such process. Rather, people put vast amount of energy and time, in effort of fabricating thier 'self' to look better. Even if this process involves a little exaggeration on the fabrification of a virtual 'self', people seems not to think about it too much.

Since the identity fabrication has become a common thing for people to act on without thinking too much about it, it will be obviously difficult to wholly trust a stranger's identity as it appears on the internet. For example, on the social network sites like MySpace, this identity fabrication
could said to be quite commonly found, like Luke said in the lecture about this person who wouldnt let the other person know of her real age on this dating website, people are increasingly experimenting with their identities. The person who did not want to reveal her real age, perhaps with some other 'real' information about her 'real' identity, have had a bad experience of someone who lied about his/her identity and personality - which is a direct result of this identity experiment phenomenon.

Such process brings concerns for people living in this internet age, as our identities are gradually becoming somewhat 'constructed', not natural. People tend to show some doubt when it comes to relationships, perhaps its something that being online and digitalized brings along with the benefits of it.

If the title of this blog is a text message, most people would find it pretty weird. How can we not? The "bro" indicates a fraternal bond, where as the tongue-poking emocon is a sign of a feminine playfulness. Combination of the two seems odd of not out right weird.

Being an experienced txter, I cannot help but to agree with Lin Proitz's theory that men and women text differently, different with the way we approach texting to the same sex, different yet again when we text to the opposite sex. It seems to be a custom for men in the western society to restrict their emotions to a minimum when dealing with each other, even a friendly handshake can be shortened to a simple head nod. Texting therefore is also affected by such phenomenon. Short and sweet, down to the point, as little emotion as possible.

When a member of the opposite sex is involved however, the restriction is broken. Just as most men would feel comfortable giving a hug to a female friend, yet the same gesture is rarely made to a male friend. Technically, women are more emotive creatures, therefore when dealing with them, men feel they need to change their behaviour to adapt to those of the women's. Also when it comes to the opposite sex, attraction is always a factor. Even the most pure of friendships between men and women is often founded on attraction. Therefore, it is understandable that when men starts to text with women, their language become feminised, more emotional, perhaps little emocons such as the tongue-poking or smile :) would start to pop up, not only to show the man's friendliness and willingness to break out of his shell for the girl, but also suggest that who knows what changes might take place to their "friendship" down the road. From my personal experience, I can confidently agree with Proitz's theory.

Facebook, Bebo and MySpace are just a few popular social network sites that I am sure we have all at some point in our lives (me included) have used. I have always enjoyed logging on and using such sites. When I was in high school, my favourite social network sites were definitely Bebo. I liked how I could personalise my page with funky and loud ‘skins’ or backgrounds, I could add music to my profile, as well as being able communicate with friends and family. However, now I find that I much prefer Facebook despite the fact that this social network site essentially does exactly the same thing as Bebo. I have come to appreciate Facebook’s simplistic yet conservative set up and aesthetics which gives a very mature feel to the site. Furthermore, I enjoy how I can easily see how my friends and family are doing by looking at status updates, pictures, notes and videos on my homepage.

Social network sites are wonderful as they allow its users to connect with friends and family on a global scale. Social network sites provide users with means to further communicate and connect by enabling users to view and upload pictures, send comments, view posts and status updates as well as enabling users to converse with one another through instant messaging. Social network sites also allows users to add people with whom they share strong ties like best friends and family as well as allowing users to add and connect with those who they share weaker ties with such as acquaintances and work colleagues.

I have always viewed social network sites as fun and exciting way to communicate with friends and family. However, although my view is unlikely to change, I did find Judith Donath’s piece entitled Signals in Social Supernets a very interesting and thought provoking read. As Donath (2008), correctly pointed out, “Whether face-to-face or online much of what people want to know about other people is not directly observable.” Thus we rely on signals such as body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, consumption patterns, posts and comments that are exchanged on profiles to ‘read’ people and make judgements about others. Donath (2008) argues that because “People want to make the best possible impressions, to appear important, creative, and popular,” this can lead to deception. In a normal social context with friends the likelihood of deception is very low; however Donath argues that online representations do not always coincide with offline identities. I would definitely agree with this statement to a degree. Many people, including myself are guilty of telling little white lies or slightly exaggerating about ones self on their profile to make themselves sound a little better. For example in your interests one might say they enjoy cooking when in actual fact, they don’t actually cook that often but do watch cooking shows on television regularly. In this regard I can see where Donath is coming from.

I also found Donath’s comment regarding friending on social networking interesting when she said social network sites create “Supernets” that enable people to maintain more ties than possible without the invention of digital media and social network sites. In her essay, Donath, J. quotes Robert Dunbar (1996), a British anthropologist who claims that “The figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of individuals with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship.” Both Donath and Dunbar appear to agree that social networks do not enhance friendships but rather weaken them. Their argument is that instead of users establishing meaningful relationships with close friends and using social network sites as a means to enhance the relationship, many users of social networking sites add many acquaintances with which they have little or no association. Both theorists question if “Social Network sites will shift people’s social world from one focussed on a few important relationships to one consisting of an immense number of weak relationships?” I can clearly see their view point as many of my friends on Facebook have over 500 friends. This would definitely make one question how many of those people they actually have strong ties with. Furthermore, in some cases, the quantity of friends is often used as a way to display popularity which inevitably has taken over the quality of friendships.

Alternatively, I would argue that social networks can actually help to strengthen friendships as they offer a way to daily see how our friends and especially acquaintances are doing if we haven’t had the opportunity to see or speak to them. Which ever way you choose to look at it, is ultimately up to us to decide how we use such sites.


References

Donath, J. (2008). Signals in Social Supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 13, p231-251. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00394.x

Dunbar, R.I.M (1996). Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Written by Jessica Kadarmia

For my final blog I wanted to look back on some of the things throughout the course. From gender issues through technobodies, issues of trust, social supernets, ‘indymedia’, privacy problems and piracy, there is one theme that seems to be a commonality: Identity. And for me, I think that has the most interesting and complex issues that surround the internet. Perhaps not all, but certainly a vast majority of internet use is done for purposes of identification, but at one point in the readings I found myself doubting the very concept of identity. Why? Helen Kennedy’s article Beyond anonymity had me unsure whether maintaining identity in such a fragmented way was possible. It wasn’t until I realised that identity is not fragmented, but the representation of the whole identity as mediated through the technology of internet, at this stage, has to be. It’s still developing, and quite possibly, social networking websites may help to bridge the gaps between the disunited identities of the self.
In the final reading by Jose Van Dijck, his ideas about the movement into a more commercialised arena of user generated content may signify a new challenge for the unified online identity, but similarly, it could present a new opportunity for it. Many think that commerce changes user generated content, and it most certainly does, however money has always made the internet world go around, quite literally. And commerce is undoubtedly a significant part of identity. As is just about everything.

Sure, downloading music, movies and other forms of copyrighted media for free is technically the same as stealing, but it's interesting why most people - everyday consumers, don't feel this way. We know we're getting something for free when we should be paying for it, but due to the lack of an obvious victim and the kind sentiments associated with "sharing", most people feel it's okay to turn a blind eye to such acts. As Yar described in his essay, "laws which lose thier gounding in social sentiments are liable to atrophy" which is perhaps why the present copyright laws are having a hard time controlling the free download phenomenon.

A bag is to carry items in, if it's not ours, you simply cannot put items inside. We can walk past the same window display everyday and stare at the same bag for hours and hours, but we can never use it for the purpose it was designed for. It can never be ours unless we pay for it or steal it. Stealing a bag is taking away an actual tangible item, whether from a store or from another person, the absence of an once existed bag marks the clear indiction that something is lost, a person or a store has suffered due to their loss. Most of us, hopefully, would feel the guilt associated with stealing such items. Online resources however, are intangible goods. Music is designed to be heard. It plays everywhere, on the radio, in record stores, on the street, from people's car stereos. Listening to it on the radio and listening to it on a CD differs in quality, but listening is still listening. Once we've heard it, we've heard it. We know the tune, maybe the lyrics, we can hum to it, we've enjoyed it. No paying is necessary. When I buy a CD, I can invite my friends to come over and listen to it. If I want, I can invite them everyday, then they would have the same previleges as me with regards to the CD. They will never need to buy it. Everyone would agree that my act of kindness as a friend cannot be considered a crime. Now, instead of inviting my friends over, to save the time and effort, I put the songs on the internet for them to download instead, they're enjoying the same previleges as before, but now it's considered illegal? Downloading something also differs from stealing in the sense that nothing is actually lost, you've simply made another copy of it, the original still exists. No one would turn around and say: "Who stole my mp3 file that I uploaded on the net? My mum bought me that mp3 for my birthday, can't believe someone stole it!" No such sentence will ever be uttered. People rip and upload media online to share, most of the time, most of the time for free, the uploader gains nothing from such actions, but rather it's an act of kindness to share what they believe should be watched or heard by other people. The vagueness in which my sharing became stealing is one that troubles most internet users, which is perhaps why many of us choose to ignore it. It seems necessary for the copyright laws at present to be revised to reflect the reality of this situation.

Friday,July 31,2009.

The case of male teenagers' feminization when they're using thier cell phones to text message
was rather interesting, as I looked back at myself and my texting habits - they totally differed
as who were at the receiving end of my text messages! As Proitz claimed in his observation that male texters tend to use more shorter and importantly, functional types of texts - significantly
without any unneccesary 'emoticons' to make it look more fancy. After looking at some of my
mate's text messages they send to me and to the other people as well (all male friends by the way), the majority of them tend to use shorter abbrevations of words and sometimes
over-shortend words that I couldnt even understand what on earth he meant.
To list some examples, one day after my lecture I received a txt message from my mate saying : "WU??". It wasnt that hard to figure out that it means "Where are you?", shortend to the first word of the sentence to save some bother. However, the following txt I got from him was
rather puzzling this time, as it read: "PG?" What could PG possibly stand for?
He later called me and said he wanted to ask me the question :
"Pool game?"

When it comes to exchaning texts with girls, it's a totally different story.
I, for example, looking at the sentbox, tend to use a full sentence rather than extreme
abbreviations like "WU?" , but rather it was "Where are you at the moment? :)" instead.
The use of emoticon also is much more frequent when exchaing texts with girls.
It seems that when communicating with same sex, young male adults tend to express
thier 'natural' masuline side of thier personality but when in communication with opposite sex,
it appears that male texters tend to emphasize the feminine side of thier personality
in order to appear more 'understanding' of the female personality.

A new television series, Reservoir Hills, is being advertised as New Zealand’s first interactive drama. Audience interaction is pumped up to the next level as audiences are able to actually interact with the characters on the television series and influence the characters’ actions.

This television series and what it sets out to do seem to be an extension of Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding theory. Instead of having traditional roles of maker=encoder and consumer=decoder, the consumer is able to exercise both powers of encoding and decoding. The audiences decode meanings of the actual television show, then begin the process of encoding as they text the main character Beth about what she should do. Although the producers of the show decide which text/idea to use for the next episode, audiences have more say in the plot of the story than ever before. Apart from texting, the show further invites audience participation with Beth’s Bebo. The production of a fictional character’s social networking profile (on a social networking site that is familiar to most, if not all, New Zealanders) is new and quite innovative because the character seems more “real.” This faked realness of the character has potential to close the gap of intimacy between the viewers and the show because Beth’s Bebo is no different from any other teenager, and sets itself apart from the Reservoir Hill’s homepage because it does not advertise the show. On the Bebo site, the main character actually writes blog posts and posts vlogs, and fans are able to “friend” her and comment on her posts.

Reservoir Hills has yet to be broadcast so no final word can be given on its effectiveness or the effects it will have on media. However, it does seem adequate to conclude that Reservoir Hills is a prime example of the fusion between traditional and new media.

After years and years of buying over priced cds, at the ripe age of 13 i discovered the wonderful thing of downloading for free! Although it had crossed my mind several times that it is indeed stealing I resolved my qualms by telling myself about all the times I had to spend my hard earned allowance on cds. Imagine my horror almost 9 years later to learn that they are trying to take away this wonderful thing called "stealing songs online"!! However, after the class it really got me thinking. If I was a musician or even just applying it to write an essay and someone copied all my hard work I would be pretty pissed too! While I understand the need for copyright, I also feel that the proposed law was indeed outrageous. I mean cutting off someones Internet access is a little extreme is it not? Imagine being my parents who log on to the Internet only to be found its been cut off because their 13 year decided to download a few songs!

Another thing I had been pondering, there is no such thing as privacy anymore with things such as facebook or bebo or twitter. Every ones thoughts and ideas are put out to the world for anyone to see, and that includes potential employers. Everyone has put everything out for the whole world to see and there is literally no escape! Perhaps the only way to counter this is to forgo the internet completley? I doubt it, its too important for todays society. I suppose its just the wise advice of there is someone always watching, so dont put something out there that you would not want to come back to you.

I find the subject of surveillance, in particular CCTV, really interesting because in my opinion, the notion of 'privacy' is quite fluid at this point in history. I lived in London for 3 years, and the CCTV is really obvious - for example, in Picadilly Circus you can look upwards and on the top of these big poles (as well as on traffic lights and buildings) there are cameras pointing down in every direction, and that's just one intersection in the whole of the city. So it was with great interest that I found this blog (http://www.c-p-p.co.uk/blog/get-paid-to-watch-cctv-on-the-internet.html) dated 7 October 2009 which states that while London has 4.2 million CCTV cameras, only 1 in 1000 are being monitored. It goes on to say that there is a new scheme which will actually pay money to regular citizens in order for them to monitor up to 4 cameras a day, I am guessing from their own homes, over the internet. The money paid is calculated using a points system by which people get 1 point for every suspected crime reported, and 3 points for every actual crime reported. Like any good points system (!), there are points deducted for wrong 'guesses'.

This. Is. Unbelievable.

Apart from the myriad of obvious ways that this scheme can be misused (people harassing people they don't like, people reporting petty nuisances which don't constitute as 'crime', etc.), there is a deeper issue here. That issue is that the boundary between public and private is being increasingly blurred due to technology, and the fact that ordinary citizens can now act as voyeuristic crime-busters is taking this blurring a little too far. In his book 'Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life', David Lyon (2001, 22) poses the question "Who... has access to the images and for what purposes? Can individuals control or limit the uses of the data derived from their behaviours?" However, in the face of this new citizen monitoring technology, the question is not just if people can limit / reduce / control the data that is collected about them, but also if people can collect / influence / store the data collected of other people.

My personal opinion is that society is not psychologically equipped to monitor each other using advanced technology such as this, especially when we live in a (Western) capitalist society which revolves around money. The fact that we are monitored by CCTV, and we cannot control the data, is scary. The fact that due to new technology we can monitor each other is even scarier. The prospect of citizens monitoring each other for financial gain is like a disaster waiting to happen.

The reality is the internet, which frets the need to always be connected and always be online. The world online is now global; we can access anything at the touch of our fingertips. The global sphere has grown rapidly since the rise if the internet and there is no doubt that it will continue to rise. We are under surveillance in everything we do. Even walking down the street and doing our daily tasks, we are being watched on CCTV.

The internet is a domain where everything we do is not forgotten. Barack Obama even made a comment that if people had aspirations of becoming the president of the United States that they should be careful of what they write on social networks such as Facebook. Even if you think you have deleted your social networking page, you haven’t. Reality bites team… everything you do is noted down and can be retrieved at a later date. Even applying for a job, the employers are able to write your name in a google search engine and find some of the information that you would otherwise think of as private.

So be careful what you are saying on facebook it may come back to bite you in the bum.

A life without technology would be rather difficult, I would know. I think I am becoming a cyborg and its not hard to either. I recently had some trouble with Vodafone some time ago changing from on account to prepay… I had successfully changed but now was unable to text. I was infuriated by the fact that I was now unable to contact anyone on my own free will. It was hell, I felt like the epitome of Donna Haraways analogy of a Cyborg, and a cyborg does not need to be someone that potentially has a prosthetic limb or out of Hollywood stereotypes of a cyborg such as Terminator, Bionic Woman or Robocop. A cyborg could merely be someone that is so reliant on technology itself that it has metaphorically become another appendage on the human body. A cell phone is a prime example as the fingers are constantly dialling the next call or text. We are always connected, always online. Without a cell phone there is no one to constantly talk to or contact, you could potentially become out of the loop. A cell phone provides a lot of functions in this day and age, you can take photographs, receive emails, cruise the internet and listen to music. Becoming a cyborg has been a very fluid task that has not taken that much thought, it has almost come on quite naturally. There has been no definitive change in the body as technology has become a vital part to daily life. Each morning some of us rely on our cell phones to wake us up, or to remind us of things not to forget, we use electricity without even thinking that we are using it, we check our emails daily and just have a pure reliance on technology. We are cyborgs… face it people.

Henry Jenkins argues that with the emergence of Web 2.0 applications, a definite paradigm shift in the way media content is produced and circulated: " audiences, empowered by these new technologies, occupying a space at the intersection between oldure and new media, are demanding the right to participate within the culture." With many websites such as Youtube or MySpace, where "audiences" are able to freely access the site, and choose to either be a recipient or they can upload videos or post blogs and become a participants. Of course, with everything, there are two sides to the argument, some people may think of it as a good thing, and some people may not. On the positive note, the ability to freely participate in the "new media world" has helped and created many benefits and opportunities for some people. Take Youtube for example, there have been dozens of people who were able to find fame through Youtube, simply by uploading their special talents onto the website, and watch and wait as their hit ratings increase higher and higher into the hundreds of thousands, if not, millions. I myself, have watched Charice, a 14 year old talented singer from the Phillipines rise to fame through Youtube. Many of her videos were uploaded by others who were also amazed by her talent, and as the hit ratings on her videos grew higher and higher by the day, she was soon discovered by 'Oprah' who then invited Charice to her show, which completely changed her life. So this is just one of many examples of how this "new media" may benefit those who really deserves a chance. Once a video is uploaded onto Youtube, there are no limitations to who or where someone can view it. It has the ability to open many doors far and wide for those who are truely talented or desperately needs help. However on a negative note, many professional people in the media industry may feel frustrated and violated by the fact that any average Joe out there, are now able to become "produsers" and distribute short films, news articles, music etc. This then leads to the issue of piracy, which has declined the film and music industry in particular, millions and millions of dollars in revenue. Take China for example, even in such a conservative country, a University student were still able to cut, mix and edit a famous movie, produced by a famous director who invested over 3 billion dollars in, and in the end gain more viewership and publicity through his hilarious short film than the actual film did. So with the development of every new technology, people are always going to have mixed feeling and opinions about it, but it never stops technology from developing and continue to evolve, in the end, people just learn to adapt to it, and welcomes the positives and the negatives and what ever else it may bring in the future.

Advances in technology and new media are ever-increasingly causing the domains of the professional and the consumer to become blurred. This blurring can be seen in both a positive and negative light. On one hand this technology is providing a voice for many who previously may not have had one, but on the other hand it is putting pressure on professional industries.

Technology such as domestically available video equipment is putting media construction into the hands of non-professionals. The potential for individuals who have interesting things to say but might not have access to professional resources to produce something, has increased. This has allowed voices from a broader spectrum of society to be heard and it can potentially bring about the popularity of good ideas rather than popularity due to mass marketing.

The negative side of this of this is that professional industries and their skill base are at risk. The work of professional film makers, journalists, authors, musicians etc. is being supplemented, re-edited, re-distributed and sometimes replaced by the work of non-professionals or prosumers, who are often not as specialised or trained as professionals. Therefore technology and new media can be seen to be putting professional skills at risk.

Although the overall effect that prosumers are having on cultural production is a positive one, the repercussions on the professional industries may ultimately undermine these advancements. The skills that are required and developed within professional industries may be partially or entirely lost.

With the rise of web 2.0 there is an increase of user generated content. Users can upload new stories to newspaper websites and also upload their own recordings to television network websites. This leads users to believe they can have a creative input into the news and are contributing positively to the mass media. However this too could be seen as a ploy by the media agencies to lead the public into a false sense of proximity in that they believe they are contributing but the media agencies may be gaining stories for free or gaining higher audience numbers. It could also be contested whether or now these stories and videos submitted by 'users' and the public actually get used by the media agencies. There may be heavy filtering of the stories and selective angles and stories used by the agencies which may deconstruct the original position of the publisher. YouTube is a website which requires a high amount of user generated content. As the reader suggests "YouTube's case perfectly illustrates the need for a more comprehensive approach to user agency" (Van Dijick, 2009). This shows that although YouTube has many links to large corporates and movie companies many users extract these videos and create their own alternate video 'mashups' and video responses creating another dimension to critical debate. However in a similar way to which media agencies filter stories and video YouTube can also remove videos and corporations and lobby to take videos off the site too. One must question then where lays the real middle ground for a true dimension for User generated content?

Jurgen habermas outlines the realm of ‘public sphere’ as a space in which members of the public can discuss and express their own opinions and ideas without any limitations or discrimination. The existence of public spheres are increasing throughout the society. Some examples include television, such as talk shows, and the radio. In particular, the popularity and the existence of public spheres in the digital realm is on a rise. Not only does public spheres allow us to express our opinions in the field of social issues, but they also provide a chance for democratic expression with regards to political issues.

The importance of freedom of speech and democratic expression in a country of democratic governing cannot be stressed enough. In reality, there are very few chances for the memebers of the public to express their thoughts and ideas. I personally believe that digital media provides the perfect route in breaching this barrier associated with the opportunity of self expression. Internet is not only easy to use, but it is also becoming more and more accessible. This allows people to express themselves without the restriction of wealth, ethnicity or gender.

On the other hand, there are the issues of censorship and ‘gatekeeping’ in the realm of public spheres. Although public spheres allow the freedom of speech, there will always be people that ‘over express’ their opinions to a state where it may offend and hurt other people. Therfore, it is important that there are ‘gatekeepers’ (such as the managers of a specific site)that controls the problems associated with this problem.

Resultantly, I believe that the existence of public spheres in the digital realm has a lot of positive aspects with regards to democratic expression and interaction. Nonetheless, it is important that the way in which we express ourselves do not offend or hurt others in any way and keep to what is deemed ‘moral’ by the majority.

Technology is being used in various ways which was not present in past years. Using technology involves issues around risk taking and surfaces emotions of anxiety among many users. A great deal of this revolves around the issues of security and trust. Doctor Goode presented a lecture on ‘sexuality and intimacy online’ where it had a mention about Bauman and his argument addressing the idea of separation between freedom and security. In reference to this argument, we can make out an idea of how people are restricted in freedom due to security matters. Through the media online, we are often faced with various people whom we’ve never met before. As a result, we are required to trust and protect our own security when dealing with social interactions. This leads to restrictions of freedom in doing certain activities due to this matter of security.

Furthermore, many users use technology as a means of expressing personal emotions, thus sharing love and romance. In order to attract others, we often find ourselves presenting ourselves in a unique way, yet not too different that it will put other people off. Everyone has their own unique way of presenting themselves using their own unique attractive features. For example, havent we all taken photos in ways that will make us most attractive? The problem with certain people is that they use photoshop in order to improve their appearances. This partially breaches the notion of ‘trust’ as it is not a genuine presentation of themselves. Furthermore, people are beginning to be more and more aware such different techniques that people use. As a result, people find it more and more difficult to trust and share intimacy judging but what they are presented with in the digital realm.

The idea of love and romance online can be very advantageous to us. To maintain this relationship, it will be crucial that all users are honest and make efforts to preserve the notion of ‘trust’ among the users.

The powerful impact of Web2.0 can not be explained in just few sentences. However, it is worth noting that there is one strong impact, or in another word it is a popular term called User Generated Content(UGC). In the digital space, UGC makes difference in people’s lives. All the doubts, emotions and knowledge can post in online environment. Web2.0 is recognised as new version of World Wide Web. It has potential to be people’s voices. Blogs, social networks and wikis are all captivating parts of Web2.0. Moreover, they are essential platforms for generating individual concerns about public and private issues.

Trebor Scholz warned that unbridled enthusiasm for user-generated content may mask an undercurrent of capitalist exploitation. I’d like to also add that, on the one hand UGC boost user’s creativity. On the other hand, business owners desire to gain more public attention. The main goal for having UGC is still about financial success.For instance, New's cooperation owner Rupert Murdoch focus on financial success at World Media Summit this year. He states that internet search engine should pay for news.

However, in Dijck’s reading, a different economics perspective is revealed. Dijck believes that business interest has apparently shifted away from consuming activities and gravitated towards producing activities, giving users more power over content because they add business value. The veil of capitalism in this context seems controversial, however, I assume public and business owner have different purposes. It is a simple chain effect: one produces, one consumes, one gets benefits.

I think that a person’s online identity on social networking sites is constructed through a number of factors, including ‘authenticity’. Unlike Sherry Turkle’s idea of a fluid, uncontained identity, I believe that people still aim to create and portray themselves as a complete identity, although aspects of that identity can change and be contradictory. Taking Goffman’s idea that a major part of identity is performance for others; it makes sense that in order to make others believe the identity that we are performing, we create a sense of ‘authenticity’ in our performance.

For example ‘authenticity’ is evident in Facebook, through aspects such as photographs, personal details, interests and the ability to give status updates. Photographs give a face to the online persona. It allows closer friends to identify the person online as the one that they know in the ‘real world’. It also allows ‘friends’ who may not know the online person, or not know the online person well, to feel like they know them better as they are given a visual access to activities the person does. Details a person gives on their page such as their birthday, employer, education and even current location can also add to their ‘authenticity’. ‘Groups’ or ‘pages’ that the person joins can give a sense of who they ‘really’ are, as instead of claiming that they have an interest in something, they are in a way acting on their ‘interest’ by joining up to the page or group. Finally a person can put across ‘authenticity’ by updating their status. For example a friend of mine is a dancer, and his status updates are often about dance.

I think that most of the time ‘authenticity’ is used to portray who the person feels the ‘really’ are, rather than to promote a ‘false’ self.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Yar is concerned with how anti-piracy campaigns naturalise capitalist notions of property. His concern is understandable, but I believe that he does not go far enough in his criticism. The issue that needs to be focused on is a more fundamental one: the entertainment industry’s construction of media texts as commodified objects.

This practice, I believe, is one reason why piracy is such a prominent issue today. For years media corporations have promoted the story and the media text not as amalgamations of knowledge and artistry influenced by wider society (which, Yar suggests, they are) but as discrete, desirable consumer objects. This approach worked for the companies for a long time, but now, with the widespread use of the internet, it has backfired. After all, if a person can get such a desirable object for free via piracy, why would they choose to pay for it?

While piracy’s economic impact is relatively minor now, it is likely that it will have more and more of an impact as larger numbers of people become familiar with technology, worldwide internet speeds increase and new distribution technologies like anonymous BitTorrent are released.

This could lead to a dearth of new media texts, as many of our society’s predominant cultural forms, such as the Hollywood blockbuster, are interlinked with the capitalist system. If the system struggled, so too would they. Indeed, there are types of new media, such as the modern 3D video game, that owe their very existence to the large budgets and technological infrastructure facilitated by the capitalist entertainment industry. After all, it would be prohibitively expensive to make a game like Crysis in a non-commercial context.

Our society needs to have a frank discussion about the commodification of stories and media texts now, as ignoring the issue now could lead to serious consequences in the future. We need to either come up with a new model of media distribution, complete with new media forms, or fundamentally alter the existing model to bring it into line with new technology.

Since more and more people take the advantage of free downloading these days, whether the copyright should be more restricted in the 21^st century is a major discussion. It is relatively difficult to absolutely conclude that the change of the copyright will minimize the piracy issue for sure. Issues are likely minimized if the sections are set toward more criminal way that the action of piracy is seen as a sense of killing the intangible goods. It means that if people are downloading music albums for free, it is a way of “killing” the artists’ careers since publishing albums are their jobs and they gain profit from selling music albums. Thus, restricting copyrights might be a way of reducing the piracy issues if the rules are set into a more serious way.

On the other hand, the restricting of copyrights might not make any changes to the issues at all. Laws are set for the people who are obeying the rules. If those minor groups of people are already following the old copyright rules, they will be keeping following the rules no matter what. The rest of the society who are not the better citizens will keep doing what they have always been doing. There is the possibility that some people maybe more careful when they are downloading, but after all, they still have the intention to “steal” the artists’ works. Therefore, restricting copyrights might not seem to be working and artists’ may have the risk of losing the recognition of the public.

The conflicts in whether managing the copyright in a different way always exist. A better way of solving the problem is to set an amount or percentage of downloads. However, this may only seem to work in countries like New Zealand since we have the limitation on the Internet speed that downloading too much may reduce speeds. Large countries like China and USA do not face the problem of Internet speed limitation.

With the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 a new platform has arison which expands the possibilities of online participation. Users now have more 'agency' and ability to involve themselves in numerous online activities which have now become normalised such as blogging and peer to peer interaction. This change has affected everyone's involvement with the internet, and the ability to create, customise and share has allowed the boundaries for such activities to be endless.

A current example of online participation on the new platform exists in Orcon's new campaign to search for 8 Kiwi's to re-record Iggy Pop's classic song 'The Passenger' and do it entirely via Orcon Broadband. To watch the original version of 'The Passenger' click here.

What is great about this campaign is that New Zealanders through online participation are able to audition for a chance to be involved in the re-recording, and submit their auditions online via youtube video's. The angency of internet users allows participation in this competition, and the amount of auditions are testiment to how many active participant's of web 2.0 there are in New Zealand. To watch a selection of the auditions so far, click here, and remember its not to late to enter!

In a postmodern culture identity is not fixed process; instead it is continuously being shaped and reshaped because the more resources we have available to us, the more complex our identities become. Popular media and technology like television, film and the internet, act as resources that form cultural meanings and knowledge that helps us understand the world around us by allowing us to construct one’s identity. In an age where mass communication and mass consumption is prominent, theorist Jean Baudrillard uses the concepts of ‘hyperrealism’ and ‘simulation’ to argue how contemporary culture is one where the boundaries between the virtual or the ’unreal’ are becoming increasingly blurred with ‘reality’. In relation to Baudrillad’s concepts, we now experience ‘prepared’ realities; events that have been edited and reproduced to the extent we only experience things in simulation. Consider how social networking and matchmaking sites are examples of how people unintentionally misrepresent themselves when they attempt to create a profile of themselves that they feel ‘represents’ them, but in a selective way as they can pick and choose information that they feel is appropriate to reveal to ‘anonymous’ users. Or even consider the way ‘Vloggers’ on YouTube express or vent their emotions and opinions on any given topic or even to entertain a completely anonymous society of internet users across the globe. The development of new media or the prominence of emerging technologies such as the internet, has enabled more people to learn, debate or express their opinions in a more public and to a certain extent, an anonymous manner that reflects and forms their own identity.