aina

Love and freedom maybe the motivations behind ‘anarchists’ as somewhat depicted in Vaidhyanathan’s article “Public Noises” – and yes, it is of utopian concerns that this be an important part of social order as it allows for democratic participation, however, the absence of any formal systems or governing bodies will undoubtedly result in civil disobedience public disturbances.

Whilst in the midst of the ‘information revolution’ and as ‘globalisation’ continues to change the world in allowing efficient “real-time” connection and communication internationally, developments of ‘social network sites’ and ‘peer-to-peer’ (P2P) distribution networks have risen in popularity. These recent forms of social organizations allow people from all backgrounds, with different interests and intent, to communicate, express themselves, share and exchange files and data and sometimes preach their beliefs beyond the restrictions of powerful institutions or political bodies – ‘Information Anarchy’. Vaidhyanathan cites that “digitalisation and global electronic networks make widespread anarchistic activity possible.”

The emergence P2P communication networks have changed social systems and challenged traditional human communication dynamics. Baewens defines ‘P2P’ as “not just a behaviour or process that takes place in a distributed network, they aim to increase the most widespread participation by equipotential participants. Baewens further adds that “there are no prior selection requirements to be a participant in P2P networks – the mere participation of a user is enough.” P2P is often called a ‘gift economy’ as participation involves no reciprocity and content producers are not paid. P2P networks are self-governing and also provide value-free data to its users.

As a technology, P2P modes of communication can be somewhat related to anarchy as it ultimately bypasses central mechanisms – as does anarchy moves to dispute capitalism/authority. However, certain issues arise as P2P networks poses threats to the marketing value of information or data shared within the network. Although, P2P network users do not necessarily ‘sell’ or achieve to profit from collecting others’ work or material, businesses/artists/media producers/authors are threatened by the dishonest claims and privileges P2P network users receive upon collecting, sharing, collaborating and  altering ‘copyright’ items/material/information. An example of this is through music files sharing through networks such as Napster (since been eradicated) and Limewire.

As P2P networks are highly entertaining and valuable to its users, should there be such a marked concern to its infrastructure and functions? Should such a technological advancement be deliberated for the sake of ensuring artists, authors and proprietors continue to receive their millions and billions of profit whilst the processes of ‘copyright’ has gone beyond ridiculous? Furthermore, it may showcase similar ‘anarchistic’ characteristics socially yet it has not really threatened any socio-political systems.

Social Network Sites (SNSs) were first introduced in 1997 – SixDegrees.com – users online had to be connected to friends via six degrees of connection offline (friend of a friend x6). Since, then there have emerged various SNSs with various purposes, features and audiences – such as Classmates.com, MySpace, Flickr and ofcourse the ever-so-popular Facebook.

SNSs’ key technological features vary accordingly, however they are consistent in: “connecting people” (friends or strangers), “catering” to the diverse audiences, “attracting” people based on common language and shared interests and most “support the maintenance of pre-existing social network sites.”

Boyd & Ellison defined SNSs as “ web-based services that allow individuals to 1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, 2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and 3) view and transverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.”

Individuals can create their own online environment according to how they choose to design their SNS and further enhance their profile image – they can upload a photo, add multimedia content and add modules “Applications.”

The increasing attraction towards SNSs have raised questions regarding its safety, privacy, surveillance and its implications in people’s lives. “Many have integrated these sites into their daily practices” – which can pose distractions to their social life, employment and interactivity. There are many (for example, teens/youth) that are not fully aware of the public sphere of the Internet – and thus unknowingly disregard the issues concerning trust, privacy, conflict and legalities involved with personal information distribution online. 

Henry-Waring’s article “The commodification of Intimacy” points out the popularity of online dating – suggesting that this may have been a response to the global consumer-oriented world we now live in today. Traditional means of dating (man asks woman) is now not necessarily convenient. “On-line dating is no longer viewed as an activity of sad, lonely or desperate people…rather… the image today is more likely a professional, mobile, technologically literate person who may be time and ‘intimate network’ poor.” 

As we continue to live in a post-modern global society where traditional norms and values are replaced for fast, efficient and individualistic choices, we must be careful to not ever lose our sense of identity, wisdom, truth and respect. Although, SNS and virtual communities help in connecting people for friendship, relationships or for other reasons, there needs to be a governing system to limit its potential life disturbances and ensure safety for users.

Palmer claims that the “paradox of user control – is a pervasive fantasy of choice within which the user is offered up for a form of soft domination.” 

As there are extensive forms of digital media available today, participation in the digital media may seem like an obligation – as pointed out in Palmer’s article. However, one must remember the real reason as to why one is using, accessing or choosing that specific media channel and how it affects them personally.

Yes, “real time media appears to be intensely self-determined and self-directed.” One can choose which TV show to watch, which on-line journal article to read or which on-line up-to-date news is necessary. Technological Utopians would suggest that the “user-control” is a form of democratic participation. REALLY?

As people become reactive consumers to digital media, content are being designed and customised according to specific targeted audience – the basis of any marketing strategy motivated by profit. However, users are inclined to think they have that ‘seductive power’ and control over the content, which they access. It is of utopian interests, for example, that when one uses the Internet’s search engine to investigate a topic of interest, one would assume that the results are not influenced or be manipulated by a marketing strategy or of a political agenda. Realistically, it is very difficult to ascertain as to which is the real, correct or reliable information available within the vast information-plenty virtual world. Therefore, as Palmer pointed out, “the paradox of user control, in fact becomes that of the illusion of choice within which the user is offered up for a form of soft domination. Yes, users have that choice (or they may think they do) to automatically filter what information they choose to read and which points/opinion they choose to be exposed to. As democratic and egalitarian as that may seem, is the almost forced participation in digital media today (whether it be on TV, ipod to the Web) really the enabling of “contemporary capitalism?”

In McPherson’s article ‘Liveness, Mobility and the Web’, the symbiotic relationship between TV and the Web, in its natural convergence, have opened up the possibility of an even” deeper-focused, interactive content tailored to the individual’s interests, style and taste.” This has been considered a media revolution!!

Again, McPherson adds that although the convergence of TV and the Web may give the audience a “sense of being in the moment” – by allowing the user to fashion their individual movement between web links and/or through interaction with TV programs via the web-  this is just an “illusion of volition.”  As the Web promises volitional mobility and transformation, how does this really fulfil our desire for movement and change if content remains questionable”

‘Mobile communications’ – as Poster points out the term ‘mobile communications’ is not as simple as it seems – one would immediately believe the term to refer to mobile phones. Yet, it is the ability of our society to now move information freely and quite easily.

Historically, communication and the movement of information has evolved from ‘smoke signals, drums sounds, telegraphy, letters, books to modern telecommunications channels of today – mobile phones, ipods, internet/computers, television, radio, films and much more. People can now stay in-place, distant to others or events, yet are able to receive and submit information, engage in conversation or connect to others through the use of telecommunication mediums, which are mobile.

Social theorists fear that the mixture of mobility and communication will endanger our ‘sense of place’ – as it hinders human attachment to location. Furthermore, pessimists add that “real interaction” to the space there and then (locality) will be destroyed – as humans can potentially show more interest to places elsewhere, although they are situated at another. There remains a concern that human interaction will become insignificant, as one does not need to be present in order to speak to someone – and that one may not behave as they would if in face-to-face interaction.

Since the rise of globalization became apparent post WWII, migration, international marketing and economics inevitably have changed our modes of communication. For example, migrants will naturally communicate with relatives/friends from other countries, however this does not mean that they are not involved with their local presence.

Meyrowitz states that “all experiences are local” – we abide by our daily routines, choose where we live, eat, work, study, fall in love and we are bound by the laws as to where we are at that moment of space and time. Therefore, although globalization is here and here to stay, glocality is much more relevant to people’s daily lives. Glocality – being in a local space, which is influenced by global trends and global consciousness. Personally, this to me means that we are accepting – although slow – the reality of cultural diversity and adaptation. It should continue…

Meyrowitz cites “ the significance of locality persists even in the face of massive social and technological changes.” As unadorned as it may sound, why worry, should we not embrace our ability to now connect to others elsewhere globally rather than limit ourselves to one ‘local place’ at all times because of our ‘technophobia’? One should not limit the curious mind – given it is within the ‘right’. With the range of electronic media available today, we are now “free to choose our own networks, to shape our degrees of connection to local and global space.”

‘Technofear’ has long been associated with the development of the written language. As Tofts mentioned in “The Technology Within’, technofear is suggestive of the “apprehension of a post-industrial, cybernetic environment in which machines initially designed to serve humans gradually supplant it.” Ancient philosophers such as Socrates initially proposed that writing would destroy the spoken language. Historically, “oral culture was a source of ritual and magical innovation” – signified the divine presence. Oral cultures have also imposed for everything dictated or communicated to be memorised – therefore in history those with impressive collective memories were regarded as highly intellectual and deserved respected rankings.

However, despite rather incognizant fears of ancient times, writing has NOT eradicated the culture of ‘oral language’ – yet it may have further evolved orality into something we appreciate in extending our communicative abilities. Writing is in itself a technology – cultural historian Walter Ong refers to ‘writing as a technology’ as it involves the use of tools/equipment to complete the task (eg pen, ink, paper). Naom Chomsky further mentions, “writing involves a learned mechanism of recognition and production.”

It is difficult to group writing to be ‘technology’ as writing is almost a naturally acquired ‘self-regulating’ system. Writing is second nature to humans, learnt through the process of ageing and development. Writing satisfies the most rudimentary characteristic of any technology: it augments human potential. Reading the written language has produced a “different sensorium in that in its silence”, readers form their own individual perception of the written content.

There is a constant technofear that technology will alter our lives or even further dictate humanity as it continues to improve and advance; yet we forget the benefits it has impacted on our society. Take for example, medical possibilities. One would not be aware of another who happens to have a pacemaker (a micro-chip implanted into someone’s heart to ensure their heart rate remains regular) or for one to have a bionic ear. HELLO??

Technological interventions, media-savvy graphical experimentations have altered our way of writing, however it definitely has not KILLED it. It certainly has not eradicated ‘oral culture of language’! Information/letters/words are now presented in various ways to capture attention and ultimately becomes languages, which affects our lives – through the power of the media! Furthermore, technology can now “remove speakers/writers out of shared presence to the visual world of telecommunications.”

 JOHANNA DRUCKER – THE VIRTUAL CODEX

What is the purpose of the e-book? Why can’t we be content of traditional book?

J. Drucker claims that electronic books (e-books) will “eventually supersede the limitations of traditional paper-back books” – which are static, fixed and finite. E-books are interactive, displaying various features which ultimately permits readers to manipulate the textual, visual, graphic, navigational and multi-media artifacts in it according to their discretion, needs and interest. E-books does emulate paper-back books functions – it is still shaped like a book, its screen is eye-friendly, it allows for readers to insert ‘paper clips’ to mark pages and reader’s are urged to “annotate, to write into the text with responsive immdediacy” (note-taking). Contrastingly, e-books confronts the usual style of reading in a sequential and linear manner.

In the end, does it really matter if a person reads from an e-book or a traditional book – especially when BOOKS themselves are a communicative device/item? Electronic or traditional books in the long run will display the same information/data/ideas to the reader. And, again it is the reader’s choice how they interpret the written language. 

04-heartbeats

HI guys. long time no blog. will get better at it now that time is at hand.

so new adventures in Sydney have been…… well… interesting.

pretty but harsh city.

can’t leave just as yet. so many things to do, so many things to see, so many people to meet.

till then…. must find a PR assistant position somewhere.