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.

Stay somewhere classy- try the Fat Cow Motel on for size (Blog Post 6)

Click here for the web page.

Eight years ago, I spent my evenings working out how to drop an unboiled egg for a metre without breaking it, listening to someone else’s voicemail messages and reading the personals on the Fat Cow Bugle. This was all part of a fun little TV show called Fat Cow Motel, and was my first experience being directly involved with participatory culture. The audience was given lateral thinking puzzles to solve each week, and could receive further clues to the show’s mysteries if they explored the webpages of the fictional town of Fat Cow. I was well and truly sucked in, and even won a t-shirt and key ring- the height of achievement. The show, although mostly forgotten now, was a success for the ABC in multiplatform storytelling with around 20 000 participants playing the game each week.

My enthusiasm for this points not only to my … ahem… ‘quirky’ taste and the fact that I had way too much time on my hands when I was thirteen; but also to one of the most important yet often forgotten facts about convergence, outlined by Jenkins. Convergence requires a participatory culture. It was all very well for the ABC to commission someone to make the enormous 5500 page website, but this would have been a waste of time if no one had wanted to get involved. As Jenkins argues, the tools alone are not enough. Corporations who want to develop multiplatform media content need an interested and active audience. Fat Cow Motel appealed to my slightly weird corner of the world and now, JK Rowling has attracted a much larger and even more active fanbase in the form of her new site Pottermore.  

Watching my potterhead friends spend their time making potions on Pottermore, I sometimes wonder what the attraction is. But the truth is, Pottermore is built around a community. The website would mean nothing to the enormous number of participants if not for the 14 year history of the world of Harry Potter. The hundreds of businesses now trying to take control of Twitter and Facebook need to understand Pottermore's flexible business model and Jenkins’ argument if they are to be successful- the capability of putting media on a bunch of different devices means nothing if you can’t  make it worth our while to become users rather than simply consumers.

Kidnapped Toys and Copyright Law (Blog Post 5)

If you’re sensitive to weirdness, I suggest you leave this page now. If not, brace yourself.

Around this time last year, several beloved toys began disappearing from their owners… all of whom, suspiciously, were among my group of friends. As if each loss weren’t painful enough, the toy-owner would then receive a ransom note and pictures detailing the fate of their stuffed friend. I, reputable Facebook journalist that I am, sought to record each of these disappearances.

And thus goes the strange little story of how my friends and I created a book together. One day, I made a stupid joke about pretending to kidnap a toy and demanding chocolate for ransom, the next, I’d started a trend as toys were abducted by aliens, stolen by fairies and even stuck in a vending machine.  What began as a truly silly idea evolved into a fun, collaborative project, and finally into a photo book.

Now what, besides entertainment value, is the point this story? Well our self-published book contained material that we should, technically have gotten permission to use; that is, copyrighted pictures from various TV shows and a ‘Toy Story’ logo.

From the Boldrin & Levine reading, I think Walt Disney would have enjoyed our parody of the Toy Story poster. Like Steamboat Willie’s parody of Buster Keaton’s film; we borrowed and copied part of a well-known creation; both to poke fun and to pay homage to the original, and also to tell our own story. Unfortunately, the Disney company of today understands very little of that creative spirit; and in fact, is one of the most militant in hunting down those who breach copyright.

 If our book became an underground success… through, I don’t know, sneaky plugs in someone’s DIGC202 blog; and Disney were to hear about it, I think we’d probably find ourselves head-hunted on the grounds that connecting their logo with kidnapping is detrimental to their reputation.

However, if this were to stop the hypothetical publishing and selling of our book, then Disney would have, like Watt, simply stifled further creativity in the name of money.  I’m willing to bet that most of you have never come across a book quite like ours, and it is fairly clear that it was an original idea. But, as is anything worth reading, watching or listening to, it was supplemented by and built upon past creations.

Although this is a hypothetical situation, the abuse of so-called ‘intellectual property rights’ is certainly real, and loved by large corporations such as Disney. I think that it’s about time that these corporations were challenged, and laws were changed. Fair use should be expanded and more sharply defined, and the ridiculous extensions upon extensions of copyright after the creator’s death should be stopped. As Lessig says, free cultures ‘leave a great deal open for others to build upon’. If these companies want to be respected for their own creativity, which builds on the past, they must also respect ours.

Happy Little Prisoners (Blog Post 4)

Welcome readers,

I would just like to take this time to let you know that you’re among friends. There’s no judgement here. Don’t feel afraid to admit when you need help. Now, who among you are addicted to the internet? Facebook? Your friendly email inbox? Are you sitting in front of a computer screen right now? Just close your eyes and raise your hand if this is true. Now open them. Is anyone looking at you strangely? Do you feel like an idiot? That’s because if you followed my instructions, you probably are.

Jokes and therapy sessions aside, this week’s readings painted a fairly negative picture of the cyber world, in which we are prisoners who have chosen our cage in the belief that we’re being set free. Thinking about my own internet behaviour I had to admit I felt an affinity to the people in the ‘Function Creep’ article as having a laptop with the internet does mean that the line between my work and play has practically disappeared.  No hour of the day or night is sacred from the possibility of doing my readings or blog posts, my days off are generally ‘catch up’ days, and I usually have about five internet tabs open at once.

Although I can see how this could be a problem and a drain, the thought of changing my habits makes hyperventilate just a little. For as much as the internet monopolises my time, it still gives me this feeling of freedom; as through Skype and Facebook I can keep in constant contact with friends overseas, on ITunes I can buy the album I feel like listening to any time I wish and when I have procrastinated on yet another assignment, I can still access useful journal articles at 2am the night before it’s due.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, rather than either condemning or idealising the internet and our use of it, we should simply try to be more aware of both its pros and cons. This can give us the power to use it rather than simply feel caught by it. It seems to me that in general our networks have grown exponentially as has our dependence on them, but that these networks are much more fragile.  I know of people who, tired of having a large Facebook network, have deleted 100+ ‘friends’ in one night, with very little consequence. If we put too much value in such a network we’ll find less security, but more anxiety as we simultaneously feel like the network ‘depends’ on our input while knowing we are dependent on its inevitable fluctuations. However if we’re able to see the bigger picture, we may be able to use the technology to our advantage without sacrificing too much; that is, we might be able to keep the keys to our cells and go for a walk outside every now and then.

Just an Ordinary, Cynical, Rule-following Crazy trying to get through her day... (Blog Post 3)

Dear DIGC202 classmates,

Since you have graciously continued on this long journey with me, I have decided that it is about time we rest our feet and jump in the car for a while. Comfortable? Now just curious, do any of you occasionally have the crazy urge to drive on the right side of the road (just for a second)?

I’ll tell you the truth- I have. And although I’ve never felt quite crazy enough to actually do this, I will admit to having driven over the occasional unbroken line

Quite simply my point is- rules exist for a reason- but they are not the be all and end all. If a rule didn’t exist about driving on the left, either an informal one would emerge as most people chose to travel on one particular side, or driving would become an extreme sport reserved for adrenaline junkies. On the hand, if I exceeded the speed limit slightly to take my bleeding friend to the hospital, I doubt many people would condemn me as most would agree that my friend’s life took precedence over the law.

This is where my problem with Barlow’s reading emerged.  Although I like the idea of the internet as a forum that challenges traditional authority, I found the absolute scorn of authority and idealised view of the internet seriously annoying. If the internet were ‘without privilege or prejudice’, there would never be a racist joke, celebrities would not top twitter, and it would be impossible to wade through all the information available as we would not rely on gatekeepers such as Google to tell us what is most relevant to us.

I do agree that if everyone followed the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do to you), the world could be an incredible, peaceful place… but I’m too realistic to believe they will. You see, the reason I distrust authority is that it is made up of humans- who can be self-serving and corrupt. Removing authority does not remove the problem- people.

However what really annoyed me about this reading was not the idealistic but limited view of the internet- I think it’s important to dream big. It was the air of superiority I couldn’t stand, the idea that the internet somehow magically solved our problems as they were all the fault of traditional authorities. I think we should challenge authority by having a discussion or debate with it, rather than simply dismissing our need of it.

Space Invaders

Welcome to those few brave souls who’ve ventured back to my little blog. I wish to tell you that those who fearlessly continue to trek through this jungle of my thoughts will be greatly rewarded at the end of their journey, but since I like to keep chocolate for myself, that would be a lie. I simply hope that a few of you will feel it’s worthwhile to stick around long enough to see a little of how I understand the subject and the implications for the world around us.

Lessig’s reading was particularly interesting to me because he seemed to suggest the internet was conducting an overhaul of the traditional ways people deal with the world around them. I noticed however, that in the online game conflict example, while the notion of space changed, human interaction itself seemed to change very little. While the physical and the cyber world had different kinds of laws and gatekeepers (code vs. nature & the govt.); humans in each still had to deal with similar types of conflict. They could still invade each other’s space even in somewhere as seemingly endless as cyberspace and while their solution was different to a ‘real life’ solution, it still required some level of compromise. For this reason I felt Sterling hit the nail on the head in his discussion on USENET as a set of social conventions, as I feel the internet has in many ways become a really powerful tool used to extend our social world.

Click to see large version.

What I find interesting about the world of invention is that the invention never seems to be allowed to remain in the sole ownership of the inventor, as almost immediately the consumers take it for themselves, use it in unexpected ways and add to it. I’m sure this has always been the case, but it seems more common in the online world which changes rapidly, often daily, in order to reach the consumers’ needs.

Insert Witty Title Here (DIGC202 Blog Post 1)

Dear DIGC202 classmates,

 Welcome to my little corner of the internet. Only time will tell if this corner remains musty and dark or if it will become illuminated by your presence... or a well-placed lamp. I can only hope you will be interested in the (hopefully topical) ramblings of this short, redheaded and generally well meaning 20 year old.

I am currently in my second year of uni, studying Communications and Media Studies and also International Studies. I hope to become a journalist at the end of my degree, but am becoming increasingly interested in the many other possibilities these degrees provide.

The Internet often reminds me of a library or C.S. Lewis' 'Wood Between the Worlds'; a mysterious place that serves as a portal into thousands of worlds. I find this both exciting and a little scary. Exciting because there is so much potential; for the useful, for the fun, and occasionally, the whacky. What scares me is how easy it must be to get lost in such a place.

When we looked at the different types of network topologies in the lecture, I couldn't help but think that no matter whether our DIGC202 online presence made us part of a centralized, decentralized or distributed network, we were going to be part of a massive spider web. However, we have already been introduced to things like tweetdeck and RSSfeeds, which seem to help make sense of all these connections. I'm hoping this subject will help me understand massive networks such as these so that as is suggested by Castells, I can harness their power for my own use.