And Scene!

Thank you guys for reading my slightly warped take on all things DIGC202. I hope you enjoyed trying to work out just what is wrong with me... and possibly actually considering the few semi-intelligent things I had to say.

Fruit Police, Cane Toads and a Touch of Paranoia (Wk 13)

His hands grip the steering wheel tightly. His knuckles go white. Beads of sweat appear on his forehead. As he approaches the border, he forces himself to pace his breathing and tries his best to look nonchalant. He’s not sure it’s entirely working as he winds down the window and the officer shines a light in his eyes. He can’t do it, he realises. Surely he’ll be found out. It is then he hears those fateful words. “Hey mate, got any fruit?”

To foreigners… and many Australians in fact, it seems completely ridiculous how paranoid our country is about taking fruit over the border… and bringing food or plants etc. into the country. However, for a country with our unique ecological history, it is not so surprising.

Cane Toads. Rabbits. Prickly Pear. What do they all have in common? All of them were introduced to Australia with devastating results. We often joke about cane toad golf, but for many Australians, this is serious. We are at war. The cane toad, and many other species, were introduced to Australia with very little foresight, by people who did not yet understand the complex ecosystem they were introducing them to and the destructive effect they would have on it.

Systems can be awesome things. It’s pretty amazing to see so many parts work together and watch the way they all affect each other and rely on one another. Effective systems are a real strength. It’s pretty incredible, for example, to see how the Australian ecosystem doesn’t just cope with bushfire, but uses it- to allow new growth. But, as is clear from the destruction caused here by introduced species, the interconnected nature of systems can also mean vulnerability.

In many ways, the Internet of Things sounds like an incredible network, which gives us a ridiculous amount of flexibility. However, I can’t help but feel suspicious as more and more of our lives are connected to the internet. I know I’ve joked about our evil overlords; Google and Facebook before, but these jokes aren’t completely baseless. The truth is, the more connected everything is, the more corruptible. In the back of my mind as I consider the Internet of Things, I can’t help but wonder when Big Brother will make his appearance. In my paranoid mind at least, it can’t be too much longer before we realise that we are living out the plot of about 200 different sci-fi movies as something decides to exploit this system. And I wonder if there’s anything we can do to stop it. Maybe, it’s as simple as understanding the system and being more aware of how the different parts affect each other. Or maybe we’ll be attacked by something completely out of the blue. Or maybe nothing bad will happen at all. *cough* *cough*

Whatever happens, I’m sure I will remain simultaneously enthusiastic and paranoid about it all.  

Help! I’ve run out of crazy titles!!! (Wk 12)

Ok guys, we’ve known each other for a while now, and I feel we’ve been getting along quite well. You, me, the rest of the digital world and a bunch of wacky stories that I claim all have a point. So I think it’s time I confessed something. I hope that this doesn’t make you uncomfortable and that you still respect me enough to read my silly little blog next week. But I need to be honest with you. Here it comes… I don’t really care about smartphones.

As you can guess, this causes quite a dilemma when considering Android vs. Apple, because for once (shock! horror!) I don’t really have an opinion. Apple seems to be one of those brands that people either love or hate, so it’s a little strange to be someone who doesn’t feel strongly either way. When it comes to computers, I will admit that I’m a PC kid, and that a lot of the software I prefer is more open source. But I don’t reserve the special kind of hatred towards Apple that many people do… because although I see their closed business model ultimately as a money-maker, I don’t think Apple have ever pretended to be less than evil; and from my generally apathetic position, I can also see positives (and negatives) for both sides.

As someone who loves to make short films, I’ve found a similar issue can crop up with video editing software. When I first started, I used a Mac, and it was immediately clear that the video editing program (Final Cut Pro), music loop program (Garage Band), the title making program (Livetype) as well as iTunes and QuickTime, were all made to work together extremely well. It was a very smooth process moving music and video from one program to the next. However, once I really got into editing and began to understand how it works, this felt really restrictive to me, as most of these programs only work on a Mac, and they rarely work well with other programs. Apple is very good at having a user-friendly interface, but not so great at giving the user power. For this reason, I have found myself loyal to a PC program called Sony Vegas. Now Vegas, like most editing programs, can come in a package with other compatible programs, but it is also quite content to work with many programs outside of this package. For me, this is the perfect balance. A program which you can know will work smoothly with certain other programs, but which can also have more control over thanks to its polygamous nature.

I think a similar thing is happening with smartphones, in a way. A lot of people like iPhones because they came across them first and because they are easy to use, but as users start to get used to smartphones and want more control, more will begin to use more open tech, like the Android. But I don’t think this is the death of Apple either. After all, they have fanboys (and occasionally fangirls).

No Pants and Dictators (not nearly as bad as it sounds) (wk 11)

Imagine this. You get on the train on a cold winters day when you notice something strange about the people in your cabin. Although they are donned in the usual winter attire of gloves, scarves and the like…almost half of them aren’t wearing pants. As you wait for your stop, you watch curiously as more and more people get on the train in their boxer shorts and underwear. Some are listening to headphones or reading the paper. One man is carrying a baby. None of them seem concerned about their uncovered legs. When asked, they each say the same thing ‘I don’t know about the others, but I just forgot my pants’. Eventually a man comes on selling pants for $1. Your cabin mates purchase them and go about their business as if nothing strange has occurred.

To you, this incident seems to have come from nowhere. But for the people of the internet group, Improv Everywhere, this was their annual ‘No Pants Subway Ride’, and was the result of weeks of planning and years of building notoriety on the internet. While it may have seemed a random incident to you, this is actually an event that has happened since 2002, and has grown from a measly 7 participants to 3500 people riding the subway pantless in New York, plus thousands more in other cities across the globe.

And believe it or not, this crazy event has parallels to the Tunisian and Egypt revolutions. To outsiders, these events seem to have happened with no warning. It seemed as if, all of a sudden, Twitter just flew in and destroyed a couple of dictators. But the truth is, as Morozov argues, these things don’t just happen; as they require a context and a history. For Improv Everywhere, this meant the long term build-up of a community committed to ‘causing scenes of chaos and joy in public places’. For Egypt and Tunisia, this meant thousands of angry people who were tired of living under a dictatorial thumb.

It is certainly true that the internet provided an extremely powerful and effective communication tool, but it is naivety to think that Twitter or Facebook led the revolutions.  This is to ignore not only the history of these countries, but also the fact that ‘revolution’ is not a new term… that for many thousands of years, people having been organising revolutions without the aid of the internet. It is time we recognised the most powerful aspect of a revolution- people.

This Blog is (A) incredible (B) amazing (C) option C does not exist (wk9)

A terrorist has planted a bomb in a major city. You’ve caught him, but he won’t tell you where it is through interrogation. If you don’t find out, thousands will die. Should you torture him to save the city?

In one of my first university classes, we were given this scenario and asked to discuss it. I was surprised at how many people (who’d already stated they were against torture) agreed to torture immediately. We were then asked to have a closer look at the way the scenario was constructed. Many people began questioning their original position. This was because it was specifically designed to manipulate a person into thinking that there were only two choices- torture, or the destruction of the city. It ignored other methods of investigation (which, presumably, led to the arrest of the man in the first place), the possibility that you’d ‘caught’ the wrong person, that the bomb didn’t exist/ wasn’t highly powerful, or that he might lie under torture. This was a scenario designed to make people compromise their original values.

When we looked at wikileaks this week, I couldn’t help but feel we were being manipulated into thinking that Julian Assange’s methods were the only way of doing things, and were necessary for the greater good. The ticking bomb scenario, extreme though it may be, points out the fact that believing that the ends justifies the means is very dangerous thinking. It is important for us to realise how easy it can be to seemingly justify all kinds of behaviour. I think it is necessary to be aware of this and to be able to think critically about the motivations behind and the consequences of any action. We need to avoid binary thinking and attempt to see the many possibilities available to us when solving a problem.

My real problem with Assange’s behaviour is not that he (or his website) has broken a few laws. Laws are made by people, and some are wrong. That’s why they change. I think, for example, that we can all agree there was something wrong with the law when women and Aboriginals could not vote. That is why, at this point, I will not completely condemn hacking and releasing ‘classified’ information. In many instances, such as the revelation of the killing of civilians in Iraq, I absolutely admire Assange. However, I worry that he has become a law unto his own; and that he fails to consider the possibility that his way is not always the best way. Khatchadourian’s article made it clear that Assange believes that full disclosure is always necessary (despite remaining secretive himself), but the real problem with this is the fact that this has led to the endangerment of many lives. For example, despite criticism of many Human Right groups last year on wikileaks choice to reveal the names and sometimes locations of many Afghans who were under threat of ‘punishment’ from the Taliban, wikileaks has not changed its stance and continues to release unedited information, regardless of the consequences.  Seeing this, I think it is necessary to criticise rather than idealise Assange and to consider if there are better ways of approaching the problems surrounding classified information than wikileaks’ methods.

Wish life had a pause button. (My life in just six words.) (Blog Post 8)

According to literary legend, Ernest Hemingway was once challenged to write a story containing only six words. His response? ‘For sale: baby shoes, never worn.’ In barely a sentence, Hemingway had managed to write a story to rival many full length novels out there: curious, provocative and sad. Inspired by this story, Smith magazine launched a project via Twitter called Six Word Memoirs, in which people were asked to write their life story- in just six words. The result was often intriguing, sometimes astonishing and could be hilariously funny or absolutely heartbreaking. Whatever the story, however, they were all part of a larger conversation, as strangers connected with strangers whilst sharing something of their lives and personalities- a bridge made of pebbles.

I agree with Steven Johnson that the idea surrounding Twitter does leave a bad first impression, especially for lovers of literature and communication- how can restricting the amount we can say possibly contribute to meaningful conversation? I admit to being highly sceptical of Twitter when we first started this class, and I’m not going to pretend that I’ve completely warmed to it; however I am beginning to become convinced by Smith magazine’s philosophy- limitations can (but do not always) inspire creativity. Having a word limit can force people to consider what they have to say more carefully.

Follow me!

I’ve realised that although Twitter is not my favourite form of communication and some people will never understand it; that it does have worth. I consider it especially useful as a very flexible public conversation tool which, as Johnson notes, links to more substantial content. Similarly, I believe much of the attraction of Smith magazine’s collection is due to their ‘teaser’ nature- it is the memoirs which hint towards a much larger context and more substantial life story which are most enticing.  I appreciate Twitter and similar platforms much more when I understand their context. Six words can never sum up a person’s life… but they were never meant to. Instead, they are there to provide a glimpse and sometimes invite a closer look.

FacePalm- try not to hate yourself… too much. (Blog Post 7)

Dear book publishers and movie producers, it has come to my attention that many of you have suffered from an affliction which has been largely ignored by the wider community. It is my pleasure therefore to offer you some assistance in the form of my new support group called FacePalm, which reaches out to the many who have suffered as a result of poor decision making. Have you ever rejected a script or manuscript which later became an enormous success with someone else? Have you felt that sinking feeling as you realised that the housewife whose work you once labelled as mediocre was JK Rowling? Then this is the place for you.

As Shirky points out, we have long since relied on traditional publishers to filter potential works and provide us with only that which passes their test of quality. However, one only has to look at the enormous list of authors such as Stephen King, JK Rowling and George Orwell, whose iconic works were rejected by these gatekeepers several times before they became bestsellers, to see that this was not a fool proof process.

Today, however, we live in midst of a world infected by Bieber Fever, in which success can now be achieved through home videos on YouTube, and is no longer dependant on our ability to initially convince someone to invest in our talents- as we can have (relatively) direct access to a potential audience. While Anderson argues that this leads to a radically different creative climate, I can’t help but wonder if all that much has changed. Traditional publishers may have held the initial power in terms of what was consumed, but as the existence of my support group shows; the consumers have always had the ultimate power in the success of products. Regardless of what the book publishers and movie studios have provided us with, consumers have always been the deciders- which is why movie flops such as the horrible Gigli exist, as well as why so many authors became popular despite the resistance of publishers. What we have now instead, with popular review sites such as Rotten Tomatoes, is a society which understands the key- that if you want something to become a success, you need the approval of those who will consume it.