I just re-read over Snurb's Blog RE:facebook. Axel Bruns, thank you for saying everything I wanted to, and more.
"Perhaps it's just poor or lazy design; perhaps the flatness of the site's social structure is somehow driven by the deeply entrenched neo-con views that some claim exist amongst Facebook's founders - a libertarian vision of sociality centred around highly independent individuals rather than around strong communities bound by consensually developed, ever-evolving social protocols? Whatever it is, it's starting to lose its lustre."
To read more: http://snurb.info/node/801
Does anyone actually like facebook?
ETA:
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Comment, baby!
I'm not going to lie, I'm a little embarrassed about my lack of comments.
Was I so boring that no one read what I have to say?
Send in... the clowns...
Was I so boring that no one read what I have to say?
Send in... the clowns...
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Cyberrape, Cannibalism & Crime: The ‘dark side’ of Virtual Communities
I think it is quite obvious by now, that I really liked Week 6’s reading; I still manage to find bits in Flew’s chapter that I can relate to in my blogs. I want to take this opportunity to expand on what I said in April 16th post about deviant communities…
In his chapter, Flew briefly mentions the psychology of internet users. This allows him to mention the dangers of ‘internet addiction’ (2007, 69). This captured my attention, because I live with two other students who play about 7-8 hours of World of Warcraft everyday. At first this shocked me – however it is now the least of my disturbing discoveries in relation to the ‘dark side’ of online culture.
[Now, I just wanted to insert a disclaimer here: I am not a sick or twisted person. But Flew’s subtle comments triggered my interest in such areas. We all talk about online communities in terms of social networking or common interest – but what about those that are morally unacceptable? This is what I have honed in on from my earlier entry on Voyeurism.]
Just as I log onto the forum of my favourite band every couple of days, someone in another part of the world logs onto a Neo Nazi White Supremacists website, or shares child pornography online. Please don’t get me wrong – this deviant behaviour is by no means a creation of the internet. However, it is undeniable that the web creates new avenues for these people to interact and encourage immoral behaviour.
At the risk of sounding like I am caught up in a moral panic, I really do believe the internet is desensitizing us. Take the example Flew used, where legions of like-minded individuals began popping up on the internet during the 2004 trial of Amirn Miewes – the German cannibal who murdered and partially consumed his victim for sexual pleasure (2007, 69). He notes that cannibalism precedes the internet, but the fact remains… We now have a global channel enabling, and dare I say enticing, similar fetishes.
As a law and media/communications student, I find this all oddly fascinated (remember the disclaimer!). I think for years we have taken for granted the term “…what happens behind closed doors”, and perhaps now with the expansion of online communities we must face up to ugly facts. Having said this, in contrast you could argue the internet is a safe option that allows sexual predators and other deviants to “virtually” commit their dirty deeds, vicariously protecting the livelihoods of others and not breaking the law. I’m torn. I suppose it all depends on the psychology of the deviant in question.
Again, sending me off on another tangent, Flew discussed briefly the concept of cyberspace rape (2007, 70) which I have since followed up. This is what I discovered:
“Last month, two Belgian publications reported that the Brussels police have begun an investigation into a citizen's allegations of rape -- in Second Life.”
Read more on this here: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/05/sexdrive_0504
Furthermore, the Four Corners transcript discusses the symbolical and psychological damage electronic violation can have on a person. In terms of current legal framework, I couldn’t find any revelent to Australia. I suppose there is none; after all, it is just a game. Though perhaps this is a new legal area that emerging law students should aware of?
Never the less, I can’t help but wonder, what is the world coming to?
References:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New Media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Fullerton, T. 2007. ABC Four Corners: "You only live twice" [Transcript]http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1876134.htm (accessed May 12, 2008)
In his chapter, Flew briefly mentions the psychology of internet users. This allows him to mention the dangers of ‘internet addiction’ (2007, 69). This captured my attention, because I live with two other students who play about 7-8 hours of World of Warcraft everyday. At first this shocked me – however it is now the least of my disturbing discoveries in relation to the ‘dark side’ of online culture.
[Now, I just wanted to insert a disclaimer here: I am not a sick or twisted person. But Flew’s subtle comments triggered my interest in such areas. We all talk about online communities in terms of social networking or common interest – but what about those that are morally unacceptable? This is what I have honed in on from my earlier entry on Voyeurism.]
Just as I log onto the forum of my favourite band every couple of days, someone in another part of the world logs onto a Neo Nazi White Supremacists website, or shares child pornography online. Please don’t get me wrong – this deviant behaviour is by no means a creation of the internet. However, it is undeniable that the web creates new avenues for these people to interact and encourage immoral behaviour.
At the risk of sounding like I am caught up in a moral panic, I really do believe the internet is desensitizing us. Take the example Flew used, where legions of like-minded individuals began popping up on the internet during the 2004 trial of Amirn Miewes – the German cannibal who murdered and partially consumed his victim for sexual pleasure (2007, 69). He notes that cannibalism precedes the internet, but the fact remains… We now have a global channel enabling, and dare I say enticing, similar fetishes.
As a law and media/communications student, I find this all oddly fascinated (remember the disclaimer!). I think for years we have taken for granted the term “…what happens behind closed doors”, and perhaps now with the expansion of online communities we must face up to ugly facts. Having said this, in contrast you could argue the internet is a safe option that allows sexual predators and other deviants to “virtually” commit their dirty deeds, vicariously protecting the livelihoods of others and not breaking the law. I’m torn. I suppose it all depends on the psychology of the deviant in question.
Again, sending me off on another tangent, Flew discussed briefly the concept of cyberspace rape (2007, 70) which I have since followed up. This is what I discovered:
“Last month, two Belgian publications reported that the Brussels police have begun an investigation into a citizen's allegations of rape -- in Second Life.”
Read more on this here: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/05/sexdrive_0504
Furthermore, the Four Corners transcript discusses the symbolical and psychological damage electronic violation can have on a person. In terms of current legal framework, I couldn’t find any revelent to Australia. I suppose there is none; after all, it is just a game. Though perhaps this is a new legal area that emerging law students should aware of?
Never the less, I can’t help but wonder, what is the world coming to?
References:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New Media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Fullerton, T. 2007. ABC Four Corners: "You only live twice" [Transcript]http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1876134.htm (accessed May 12, 2008)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
…You want the truth? YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
I want to take this opportunity to once again discuss the topic of ‘citizen journalism’, taking into account the insight I gained from further reading. At first glance I think it’s fantastic, more power to the people! However, the more I read, the more I sympathise with industry professionals. Now I'm questioning whether citizen journalism is a good thing after all…
I’m sure citizen journalism emerged as a result of many factors, though I am of the view that two major aspects converged to allowed it to become so successful. First, I think it was the growing ‘distaste’ for the media industry at large. I mean, there is no denying that it rests in a hierarchical structure and runs according to politics. The second major factor was the development of the internet – and therefore vicariously, the knowledge-based economy. Journalists prospered when information was scarce, sources were highly sort after and few and far between. Since the internet came along though, we all have the resources. Now all that’s needed is the initiative (which many people seem to have).
(Side note: The interesting thing about citizen journalism, is that it encourages feedback and participation – both necessary aspects of our democracy. Now, I’m no longer a huge fan of CJ but I think it will be interesting to see if, for future generations, it increases youth consumption of news and politics).
I find it interesting that in many cases, a citizen journalist is portrayed as the ‘good’ guy – leaving journalists and the traditional media industry as ‘baddies’. I used to fall into this category, however with two friends up to their necks in journalism studies at uni (I study law, and they are just as busy writing as I am reading case after case) I wonder where the justice is? I’m all for hearing “the truth”, but when did we depart from placing emphasis on the aspect of professionalism? Do credentials mean nothing anymore? My tertiary education is extremely important to me, so I can understand the frustration, and dare I say offence, that media professionals deal with when someone unqualified steps in to take the reigns. It’s a mere mockery.
Having said this, a lot of journalists are still confident that their industry will persevere; that the very idea of citizen journalism will die, or is already dead. These people argue that although it is interesting and quite popular, CJ lacks the editorial strength and general ethics that journalism [more often times than not] portrays. They suggest that only trained journalists can manage this effectively. From my own observations, journalism is still a very popular course studied in universities, which suggests that the need for journalists is not declining. I for one still find myself watching the news on television and reading the newspaper in the morning, so regardless of the weightless economy, for me traditional news forms are still relevant.
I read a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Good, The Bad and the Web 2.0” which offered opposing opinions between academics in relation to Web 2.0; the tool that allows any internet user to become a “journalist”. Sometimes identified as the democratisation of information, Web 2.0 fails to preserve “talent” in the industry.
I am still in awe of this quote, which I think hits the nail on the head:
“We've lost truth and interest in the objectivity of mainstream media because of our self-infatuation with the subjectivity of our own messages. It's what, in "Cult of the Amateur," I call digital narcissism. A flattened media is a personalized, chaotic media without that essential epistemological anchor of truth. The impartiality of the authoritative, accountable expert is replaced by murkiness of the anonymous amateur. When everyone claims to be an author, there can be no art, no reliable information, no audience.” – Andrew Keen (2007).
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I started this week’s focus with sympathy for the ‘underdog’ – the citizen journalist. But now I am of the view that the pyjama-clad wise guy blogger isn’t so fantastic. The egotism that suggests some people need not go to university astounds me. The emphasis on amateur journalism and a move away from qualifications/credentials appalls me. And quite simply, the lack of preservation of true art… the talent and passion of some journalists being pushed aside for online clutter disappoints me.
References
Barry, D. 2008. Wilde’s Evenings: the Rewards of Citizen Journalism. Media and Culture 11 (1)http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0804/09-barry.php (accessed May 13, 2008).I’m sure citizen journalism emerged as a result of many factors, though I am of the view that two major aspects converged to allowed it to become so successful. First, I think it was the growing ‘distaste’ for the media industry at large. I mean, there is no denying that it rests in a hierarchical structure and runs according to politics. The second major factor was the development of the internet – and therefore vicariously, the knowledge-based economy. Journalists prospered when information was scarce, sources were highly sort after and few and far between. Since the internet came along though, we all have the resources. Now all that’s needed is the initiative (which many people seem to have).
(Side note: The interesting thing about citizen journalism, is that it encourages feedback and participation – both necessary aspects of our democracy. Now, I’m no longer a huge fan of CJ but I think it will be interesting to see if, for future generations, it increases youth consumption of news and politics).
I find it interesting that in many cases, a citizen journalist is portrayed as the ‘good’ guy – leaving journalists and the traditional media industry as ‘baddies’. I used to fall into this category, however with two friends up to their necks in journalism studies at uni (I study law, and they are just as busy writing as I am reading case after case) I wonder where the justice is? I’m all for hearing “the truth”, but when did we depart from placing emphasis on the aspect of professionalism? Do credentials mean nothing anymore? My tertiary education is extremely important to me, so I can understand the frustration, and dare I say offence, that media professionals deal with when someone unqualified steps in to take the reigns. It’s a mere mockery.
Having said this, a lot of journalists are still confident that their industry will persevere; that the very idea of citizen journalism will die, or is already dead. These people argue that although it is interesting and quite popular, CJ lacks the editorial strength and general ethics that journalism [more often times than not] portrays. They suggest that only trained journalists can manage this effectively. From my own observations, journalism is still a very popular course studied in universities, which suggests that the need for journalists is not declining. I for one still find myself watching the news on television and reading the newspaper in the morning, so regardless of the weightless economy, for me traditional news forms are still relevant.
I read a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Good, The Bad and the Web 2.0” which offered opposing opinions between academics in relation to Web 2.0; the tool that allows any internet user to become a “journalist”. Sometimes identified as the democratisation of information, Web 2.0 fails to preserve “talent” in the industry.
I am still in awe of this quote, which I think hits the nail on the head:
“We've lost truth and interest in the objectivity of mainstream media because of our self-infatuation with the subjectivity of our own messages. It's what, in "Cult of the Amateur," I call digital narcissism. A flattened media is a personalized, chaotic media without that essential epistemological anchor of truth. The impartiality of the authoritative, accountable expert is replaced by murkiness of the anonymous amateur. When everyone claims to be an author, there can be no art, no reliable information, no audience.” – Andrew Keen (2007).
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I started this week’s focus with sympathy for the ‘underdog’ – the citizen journalist. But now I am of the view that the pyjama-clad wise guy blogger isn’t so fantastic. The egotism that suggests some people need not go to university astounds me. The emphasis on amateur journalism and a move away from qualifications/credentials appalls me. And quite simply, the lack of preservation of true art… the talent and passion of some journalists being pushed aside for online clutter disappoints me.
References
Flew, Terry. 2005. Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New Media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Keen, A and Weinberger, D. 2007. The Good, The Bad and The ‘Web 2.0’. Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118461274162567845-lMyQjAxMDE3ODE0ODYxMTgyWj.html (accessed May 13, 2008)
Mallasch, K. 2007. Journalism Hope: Four Classes of Citizen Journalists. http://www.journalismhope.com/node/28 (accessed May 13, 2008)
Wikipedia. 2008. Citizen Journalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism (accessed May 1, 2008).
Saturday, May 10, 2008
To Govern, or not to Govern?
Not to sound like a broken record, but I want to once again concentrate on Terry Flew’s Virtual Cultures reading from this week. (I can’t get enough of this chapter, it discusses so many aspects of the virtual “community”, and in such depth). I am particularly interested in the legal and political issues involved with computer mediated communication (CMC) so that’s what I aim to narrow in on.
An important aspect of CMC to effectively enable democratic participation in virtual aspects of life. In fact, these days the internet is a tool often used in political activism, and these communities are flourishing due to the DIY ethos involved (Flew 2007, 62). What I mean is, if used correctly, the internet can be a powerful political motivator and anyone can use it to campaign – regardless of things like funding (Flew 2007, 65). As an avid popular culture fanatic, I am going to illustrate my point, by discussing the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) and Grateful Dead’s high profile ex-bassist, John Perry Barlow. If you have any interest in privacy laws and free speech then this is the post for you!
When I started the blog, I was asked to visit the EFF and as a law student, I found it quite interesting. For those of you that don’t know, it was established in regard to a growing need for online civil liberties. So if you feel you’re being unfairly prosecuted for something technological, then they will provide legal funds and assist you in the court process. In my view, the EFF upholds online privacy, personal freedom and strives to promote fair use (EFF.org 2008). I was surprised to find that an ex-member of Grateful Dead and self confessed anarchist was on the board of the directors, so I did some research. I’ve since discovered that Barlow is a widely respected academic who strongly opposes internet governance. Who’d even heard of such a thing? This really opened my eyes. I had no prior knowledge of any of this!
From what I understand, it is important that we have governance online –I suppose in the form of gatekeepers or moderators– though it should be independent of Government. What Barlow argues is that with Government comes bureaucracy, and inevitably, commercialism (Jayaka, 2008). It’s a complex topic to go into, however he makes a valid point. The internet is too precious to become a political instrument and we the puppets. Rather, we need our freedom online and it is worth fighting for.
I found Barlow’s words of wisdom fascinating and he has inspired me to continue exploring this issue. He is, however, without controversy. Look what he has to say about Intellectual Property Rights:
“I don't believe in intellectual property. The whole term is a recent invention. Copyright was never meant to be a form of property; it was a temporary licence on a monopoly to express. You didn't hear the term intellectual property more than 25 years ago. This is the invention of large organisations that are trying to own creativity as though it were real estate or steel or some other kind of physical stuff.” -John Perry Barlow (Jayakar, 2008)
Above all, he claims it’s about creating a new cyberspace economy; sharing rather than ownership, which will limit restriction.
...But who knows if this will happen and what the repercussions will be?
Referencing:
Davis, A. 2005. Planet:Jackson Hole Online. Interview: John Perry Barlow, Wyoming's Estimated Prophet http://www.planetjh.com/news/A_100072.aspx (accessed May 9, 2008).
Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2008. http://www.eff.org/ (accessed May 9, 2008).
Flew, Terry. 2005. Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New Media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Jayakar, R. 2008. Business Today: "What stops free flow of information is dangerous". http://www.india-today.com/btoday/20001206/interview.html(accessed May 9, 2008).
Wikipedia. 2008. John Perry Barlow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perry_Barlow (accessed May 1, 2008).
An important aspect of CMC to effectively enable democratic participation in virtual aspects of life. In fact, these days the internet is a tool often used in political activism, and these communities are flourishing due to the DIY ethos involved (Flew 2007, 62). What I mean is, if used correctly, the internet can be a powerful political motivator and anyone can use it to campaign – regardless of things like funding (Flew 2007, 65). As an avid popular culture fanatic, I am going to illustrate my point, by discussing the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) and Grateful Dead’s high profile ex-bassist, John Perry Barlow. If you have any interest in privacy laws and free speech then this is the post for you!
When I started the blog, I was asked to visit the EFF and as a law student, I found it quite interesting. For those of you that don’t know, it was established in regard to a growing need for online civil liberties. So if you feel you’re being unfairly prosecuted for something technological, then they will provide legal funds and assist you in the court process. In my view, the EFF upholds online privacy, personal freedom and strives to promote fair use (EFF.org 2008). I was surprised to find that an ex-member of Grateful Dead and self confessed anarchist was on the board of the directors, so I did some research. I’ve since discovered that Barlow is a widely respected academic who strongly opposes internet governance. Who’d even heard of such a thing? This really opened my eyes. I had no prior knowledge of any of this!
From what I understand, it is important that we have governance online –I suppose in the form of gatekeepers or moderators– though it should be independent of Government. What Barlow argues is that with Government comes bureaucracy, and inevitably, commercialism (Jayaka, 2008). It’s a complex topic to go into, however he makes a valid point. The internet is too precious to become a political instrument and we the puppets. Rather, we need our freedom online and it is worth fighting for.
I found Barlow’s words of wisdom fascinating and he has inspired me to continue exploring this issue. He is, however, without controversy. Look what he has to say about Intellectual Property Rights:
“I don't believe in intellectual property. The whole term is a recent invention. Copyright was never meant to be a form of property; it was a temporary licence on a monopoly to express. You didn't hear the term intellectual property more than 25 years ago. This is the invention of large organisations that are trying to own creativity as though it were real estate or steel or some other kind of physical stuff.” -John Perry Barlow (Jayakar, 2008)
Above all, he claims it’s about creating a new cyberspace economy; sharing rather than ownership, which will limit restriction.
...But who knows if this will happen and what the repercussions will be?
Referencing:
Davis, A. 2005. Planet:Jackson Hole Online. Interview: John Perry Barlow, Wyoming's Estimated Prophet http://www.planetjh.com/news/A_100072.aspx (accessed May 9, 2008).
Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2008. http://www.eff.org/ (accessed May 9, 2008).
Flew, Terry. 2005. Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New Media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Jayakar, R. 2008. Business Today: "What stops free flow of information is dangerous". http://www.india-today.com/btoday/20001206/interview.html(accessed May 9, 2008).
Wikipedia. 2008. John Perry Barlow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perry_Barlow (accessed May 1, 2008).
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Citizen Journalism
What is citizen journalism?
In relation to this topic, I keep coming across the term "pro-am" which before I go any further is important to discuss. This of course refers to the gradual shift that is taking place from the 'professional' to merely the enthusiastic amateur -- writing at a professional standard. Citizen journalism is a common example. We've seen how the internet (and more specifically, Web 2.0) has given everyone a voice.
These days, anybody can set up a blog, pull in some readers and hey presto! Suddenly you are a professional citizen journalist/blogger. Now, this is liberating in many ways... It's a revolution for the people. It's been described as a bottum-up reorganisation of the industry. We, as citizens, decide what we read and what is reported; there is more information on obscure topics and many contrasting opinion pieces. In general, news and current affairs become a part of 'civic' space like never before.
So then what is the problem with citizen journalism? Why can't we endulge in the choice of reading from both worlds -- the professional industry as well as the online pro-am?
The news industry has always survived it's economic, social (think 'moral panic'), political and technological hardships -- In other words, it has continued to re-invent itself or adapt in the face of change. So considering the rise in what can also be known as “participatory journalism” and “user-driven journalism”, should they be worried now? Technically, yes. Over the last few years, it has become abundantly clear that political and heirarchical influences have affected the flow of news and information. With the rise of citizen jounalism, this happens less and less.
It's important to remember, however, that not everyone owns a blog... and not everyone reads the news online. What would my grandparents do without their 6 o'clock news everynight?
What I am trying to get at is that, regardless of an increase in information and opinion, people will always want to find news and current affairs (on a "professional level") in specific times, at specific places. Whether that be in the newspaper of a morning, or a a bulletin during the day.
I think specifically what I want to look at from here is how grassroots citizen journalism can co-exist with professional journalism.
References:
Axel Bruns http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0804/10-burns.php
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/proameconomy
http://www.hypergene.net/blog/weblog.php?id=P327
http://www.journalismhope.com/node/28
In relation to this topic, I keep coming across the term "pro-am" which before I go any further is important to discuss. This of course refers to the gradual shift that is taking place from the 'professional' to merely the enthusiastic amateur -- writing at a professional standard. Citizen journalism is a common example. We've seen how the internet (and more specifically, Web 2.0) has given everyone a voice.
These days, anybody can set up a blog, pull in some readers and hey presto! Suddenly you are a professional citizen journalist/blogger. Now, this is liberating in many ways... It's a revolution for the people. It's been described as a bottum-up reorganisation of the industry. We, as citizens, decide what we read and what is reported; there is more information on obscure topics and many contrasting opinion pieces. In general, news and current affairs become a part of 'civic' space like never before.
So then what is the problem with citizen journalism? Why can't we endulge in the choice of reading from both worlds -- the professional industry as well as the online pro-am?
The news industry has always survived it's economic, social (think 'moral panic'), political and technological hardships -- In other words, it has continued to re-invent itself or adapt in the face of change. So considering the rise in what can also be known as “participatory journalism” and “user-driven journalism”, should they be worried now? Technically, yes. Over the last few years, it has become abundantly clear that political and heirarchical influences have affected the flow of news and information. With the rise of citizen jounalism, this happens less and less.
It's important to remember, however, that not everyone owns a blog... and not everyone reads the news online. What would my grandparents do without their 6 o'clock news everynight?
What I am trying to get at is that, regardless of an increase in information and opinion, people will always want to find news and current affairs (on a "professional level") in specific times, at specific places. Whether that be in the newspaper of a morning, or a a bulletin during the day.
I think specifically what I want to look at from here is how grassroots citizen journalism can co-exist with professional journalism.
References:
Axel Bruns http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0804/10-burns.php
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/proameconomy
http://www.hypergene.net/blog/weblog.php?id=P327
http://www.journalismhope.com/node/28
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Open Source Software
I didn't go the tute today, how embarrassment, but I will make what I can of the lab materials:
Are ALL the applications collaborative? Do they all involve DIY?
From what I gather, the vast majority of open source software users will never look at the source. (This is merely a personal opinion.) I'd also say that not everything involves DIY, though it is possible... Basically, you decide your own level of involvement.
I brainstormed that:
- famous open source examples are linux and firefox. It was spun out of a corporate entity, and everyone uses it, even nontechnical users.
-Emacs: more estoric application. It's a text editor mostly used by programmers and other power users, and most installations of it are heavily customized because it actively invites that feedback
From a legal perspective, there are two main schools of open source licencing/copyright. There is the GPL - GNU public licence. This says that a) you can't sell the code for profit b) you must provide the source code to any end users if you modify and distribute it. There's the BSD licence, which has it's roots in the Berkely Standard Distribution of unix (not *legally* unix, it must be noted, but unix in the sense that it's a unix-flavoured and compatible system. AT&T own the trademark "UNIX"). It says that the code under it is free, do whatever you want... BSD licenced code can be taken, changed, and sold for a profit under a different licence -- it's simply considered polite to contribute your code back to the project.
I suppose the lesson in all this ambiguity is, GO TO YOUR TUTORIALS.
References:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
SecondLife??
Call me old fashioned, but I really don’t understand what the appeal of SecondLife is. I know, I know, people come online to create a new image for themselves, slip into a different persona, and enjoy a new life for a change. But… Still, it’s not for me. I just see it as a waste of time. I read through the Four Corners transcript, and I see it was trying to inspire me to get excited about the phenomena that is SL. I read it with an open mind, but I am still not moved by the idea. At all!
Maybe I am young and naïve, but I just don’t know why some people need to turn to a ‘virtual life’ to satisfy themselves? How sitting in front of a computer, living a fake reality is somehow fulfilling? I don’t mean to offend anyone. I just don’t understand!
I imagine some people are living a life online that they feel they couldn’t have in real life… for example, some are promiscuous… I imagine in reality they might be married, or perpetually single – so perhaps SL has an element of wishful thinking attached? I’m young and fond of my life. I’m at that post-adolescent idealistic stage where I think I can be whatever and whoever I want to be. Could that be why I don’t want to join up?
I suppose it comes down to a different value system. I value my friends and family, my pets, my housemates, my house, my possessions, my garden… I love going to uni. I wont go as far as to say I love catching the bus and running down George St everyday, but you get the idea. I love life… It’s the best thing in the world. To me, what I achieve physically, mentally and emotionally in a day is much more important than what happens virtually. I’m not a virtual millionaire… but who cares?
No matter how much I read or how many testimonials I hear… I don’t think I will ever join SL. A brisk walk around my suburb, a coffee with friends, making my boyfriend smile, a stroll through the markets… That is what I enjoy. Not developing a weightless avatar in cyberspace.
“After a hasty makeover, the next lesson is how to communicate. In 'Second Life' you don't talk, you and your avatar type.
There's a parrot. Oh, "How to talk." "Hello...Polly". "Hello, Polly."
Polly didn't reply.” (Four Corners)
^^ I enjoy talking and I’m a terrible typist. I can’t imagine going even one day without a single conversation… My worst nightmare!
I suppose I think that spending hours online to me, is a waste of FIRST life.
[nb. This is my honest opinion, I don’t mean to disrespect any SL fans, I’m happy for you if you enjoy it! Hopefully this will provoke some comments though! Please disagree with me, I want to be enlightened!!]
References:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1876134.htm
Maybe I am young and naïve, but I just don’t know why some people need to turn to a ‘virtual life’ to satisfy themselves? How sitting in front of a computer, living a fake reality is somehow fulfilling? I don’t mean to offend anyone. I just don’t understand!
I imagine some people are living a life online that they feel they couldn’t have in real life… for example, some are promiscuous… I imagine in reality they might be married, or perpetually single – so perhaps SL has an element of wishful thinking attached? I’m young and fond of my life. I’m at that post-adolescent idealistic stage where I think I can be whatever and whoever I want to be. Could that be why I don’t want to join up?
I suppose it comes down to a different value system. I value my friends and family, my pets, my housemates, my house, my possessions, my garden… I love going to uni. I wont go as far as to say I love catching the bus and running down George St everyday, but you get the idea. I love life… It’s the best thing in the world. To me, what I achieve physically, mentally and emotionally in a day is much more important than what happens virtually. I’m not a virtual millionaire… but who cares?
No matter how much I read or how many testimonials I hear… I don’t think I will ever join SL. A brisk walk around my suburb, a coffee with friends, making my boyfriend smile, a stroll through the markets… That is what I enjoy. Not developing a weightless avatar in cyberspace.
“After a hasty makeover, the next lesson is how to communicate. In 'Second Life' you don't talk, you and your avatar type.
There's a parrot. Oh, "How to talk." "Hello...Polly". "Hello, Polly."
Polly didn't reply.” (Four Corners)
^^ I enjoy talking and I’m a terrible typist. I can’t imagine going even one day without a single conversation… My worst nightmare!
I suppose I think that spending hours online to me, is a waste of FIRST life.
[nb. This is my honest opinion, I don’t mean to disrespect any SL fans, I’m happy for you if you enjoy it! Hopefully this will provoke some comments though! Please disagree with me, I want to be enlightened!!]
References:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1876134.htm
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Produsage...
Web 2.0 is a concept that is difficult to grasp, but I am satisfied that I finally understand! I interpret it, from the information delivered in class as well as readings direct from O'Reilly, as being the mechanism that allows and encourages us to contribute and share knowledge, ideas, creativity in all forms online. It is all about participation and interaction.
I agree with Axel Bruns who suggests that, despite the paradigm shift, web 2.o is poorly understood -- perhaps due to the fact that it is inadequately theorized. In the broadest of terms, his idea of 'produsage' refers to anything that actively involves the end user as a participant. (It form as a hybrid of production and usage.)
I agree with Axel Bruns who suggests that, despite the paradigm shift, web 2.o is poorly understood -- perhaps due to the fact that it is inadequately theorized. In the broadest of terms, his idea of 'produsage' refers to anything that actively involves the end user as a participant. (It form as a hybrid of production and usage.)
In contrast to the readings and lecture material, there are a number of articles in First Monday that oppose aspects of Web 2.0. I found Petersen's Loser Generated Content: From Participation to Exploitation quite interesting. He argues that Web 2.0 encourages us to participate but then 'sells us out' if you will, for commercial gain. This seems like a pretty pessimistic outlook, however he has a valid point. He uses the examples of myspace, flickr and Last.fm being sold for unbelieveable sums of money. No the networking site cannot claim ownership of the individual content, however it is the user 'community' and participation that is sold. The proof is there. Are we merely being exploited? Are users the new commodities that can be bought and sold?
Well, I would feel like an idiot if that is the case. Pleasure doing business with you, Blogger.
References:
Axel Bruns – Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage (ch. 1) Axel Bruns – "Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2141/1948
Friday, April 18, 2008
Thank you, youtube...
I just found a different video that also answers the question: WHAT IS WEB 2.0???
For those of you in KCB201, I found this one a little more informative. We've all heard of the buzz words, but now they are actually explained.
OT: I get the impression that every Web 2.0 enthusiast gets a kick out of doodling on a white board during his/her presentation.
For those of you in KCB201, I found this one a little more informative. We've all heard of the buzz words, but now they are actually explained.
OT: I get the impression that every Web 2.0 enthusiast gets a kick out of doodling on a white board during his/her presentation.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Week 7 tutorial - From Production to Produsage
Hello! Today I re-read over this blog, only to realise that I have failed to actually say much about myself. Well that's about to change...
You've probably picked up on this from reading the title but surprise, surprise my name is EMMA! I am not usually so blunt, however this blog is for academic purposes. I'm 20 years old and I study Creative Industries (Media and Communication)/Law at QUT, Brisbane, Australia. (Believe it or not I did actually read The Handbook for Bloggers & Cyber Dissidents, specifically the chapter on how to blog anonymously...)
This week I am becoming more familiar with blogging. I will admit, I find it all a bit daunting. With an increase in networking through sites like del.icio.us, my little rants could find their way onto the computer screens of academics, industry-based professionals and other members of the public... It's a tough crowd! On the other hand, maybe no one will visit. I might be too boring and drive everyone away?!!
In relation to this weeks material, as a law student and dedicated nerd, I found the EFF: Legal Guide for Bloggers quite interesting. It's great to be able to read through guides which will assist me in blogging, as it's something that I am quite unfamiliar with. I found that while it is annoying to be ethical at times; for e.g. by referencing intellectual property/respecting privacy rights, it's something I feel quite strongly about. I will endevour to be a 'responsible blogger' as I feel it increases fairness and credibility. Moving on...
If truth be told, I actually wasn't at the tutorial this week. Regardless, I did the readings and specifically for the purposes of this blog, I found a copy of the tute question to discuss. Please, leave all applause until the end.
How is Web 2.0 different from Web 1.0?
I noted that Web 2.0 is based on collaboration between users. In contrast, older websites (web 1.0) were wellknown avenues of one-way information. This point is summarised well in the youtube video featuring Tim O'Reilly, who describes 2.0 as a platform where users add value.
References:
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=542
http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/
You've probably picked up on this from reading the title but surprise, surprise my name is EMMA! I am not usually so blunt, however this blog is for academic purposes. I'm 20 years old and I study Creative Industries (Media and Communication)/Law at QUT, Brisbane, Australia. (Believe it or not I did actually read The Handbook for Bloggers & Cyber Dissidents, specifically the chapter on how to blog anonymously...)
This week I am becoming more familiar with blogging. I will admit, I find it all a bit daunting. With an increase in networking through sites like del.icio.us, my little rants could find their way onto the computer screens of academics, industry-based professionals and other members of the public... It's a tough crowd! On the other hand, maybe no one will visit. I might be too boring and drive everyone away?!!
In relation to this weeks material, as a law student and dedicated nerd, I found the EFF: Legal Guide for Bloggers quite interesting. It's great to be able to read through guides which will assist me in blogging, as it's something that I am quite unfamiliar with. I found that while it is annoying to be ethical at times; for e.g. by referencing intellectual property/respecting privacy rights, it's something I feel quite strongly about. I will endevour to be a 'responsible blogger' as I feel it increases fairness and credibility. Moving on...
If truth be told, I actually wasn't at the tutorial this week. Regardless, I did the readings and specifically for the purposes of this blog, I found a copy of the tute question to discuss. Please, leave all applause until the end.
How is Web 2.0 different from Web 1.0?
I noted that Web 2.0 is based on collaboration between users. In contrast, older websites (web 1.0) were wellknown avenues of one-way information. This point is summarised well in the youtube video featuring Tim O'Reilly, who describes 2.0 as a platform where users add value.
References:
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=542
http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Voyeurism
As discussed in my last blog, online communities are not about proximity – unlike most ‘real life’ communities. Rather, they are more about common interest and or values. I discussed how in certain circumstances, political circles can segregate themselves by flocking together in their own eco-chamber. I’ve been thinking a lot about this, though I’ve shifted my focus to morally unacceptable behaviour i.e., deviant virtual culture.
Voyeurism is always something my parents were concerned about while I was growing up, as we lived in a house that faced a park. At night when the lights were on, anyone in the park could see in at what we were doing. I can understand my parents concern, as you know about the types that frequent public parks in the middle of the night.
Lurking doesn’t just take place in the bushes, however. In fact, the internet has provided society with the perfect tool to hone in on someone in particular. We’re all our own private investigators. I bet everyone reading this is guilty of internet voyeurism/lurking to some extent. I do it! I love to stalk around on myspace... Nobody knows I'm looking! Excuses aside, the internet lurking is a pretty scary thing, considering what is out there for people to find. Since creating this blog for an assignment, I’ve been looking around on Blogger and actually came across an old blog of a guy I went to school with. I mentioned it to him and after getting embarrassed he said something along the lines of “oh man, I don’t even remember that. I thought I deleted all that stuff”. I suppose we all forget how easy it is to put things on the internet without considering the consequences.
Flew outlines the option of having one or more online ‘personas’. He discusses how some people deliberately participate in the act of ‘trolling’; making misleading statements to fool people in particular online communities. His example was those who pose as medical professionals which could potentially endanger the lives of others. I thought in particular to the shocking case of Megan Meier, a girl who killed herself after being tricked by some school yard bullies over myspace. Read more about this here: http://www.bloggernews.net/111714
In retrospect, I can definitely see how having online personas can be a good, safe thing… a creative outlet if you will. However this article brought my attention to many serious issues -- some of which I didn't even know existed! (To be clear, I don't want to suggest that these forms of deviant behaviour are products of the internet. Merely, I believe that the internet encourages it, by allowing people to get away with anti-social behaviour in a variety of different ways.)
I'd like to talk more on this, especially since I think this post is a bit ambiguous... I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, I think I will need to do some further reading.
References:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Voyeurism is always something my parents were concerned about while I was growing up, as we lived in a house that faced a park. At night when the lights were on, anyone in the park could see in at what we were doing. I can understand my parents concern, as you know about the types that frequent public parks in the middle of the night.
Lurking doesn’t just take place in the bushes, however. In fact, the internet has provided society with the perfect tool to hone in on someone in particular. We’re all our own private investigators. I bet everyone reading this is guilty of internet voyeurism/lurking to some extent. I do it! I love to stalk around on myspace... Nobody knows I'm looking! Excuses aside, the internet lurking is a pretty scary thing, considering what is out there for people to find. Since creating this blog for an assignment, I’ve been looking around on Blogger and actually came across an old blog of a guy I went to school with. I mentioned it to him and after getting embarrassed he said something along the lines of “oh man, I don’t even remember that. I thought I deleted all that stuff”. I suppose we all forget how easy it is to put things on the internet without considering the consequences.
Flew outlines the option of having one or more online ‘personas’. He discusses how some people deliberately participate in the act of ‘trolling’; making misleading statements to fool people in particular online communities. His example was those who pose as medical professionals which could potentially endanger the lives of others. I thought in particular to the shocking case of Megan Meier, a girl who killed herself after being tricked by some school yard bullies over myspace. Read more about this here: http://www.bloggernews.net/111714
In retrospect, I can definitely see how having online personas can be a good, safe thing… a creative outlet if you will. However this article brought my attention to many serious issues -- some of which I didn't even know existed! (To be clear, I don't want to suggest that these forms of deviant behaviour are products of the internet. Merely, I believe that the internet encourages it, by allowing people to get away with anti-social behaviour in a variety of different ways.)
I'd like to talk more on this, especially since I think this post is a bit ambiguous... I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, I think I will need to do some further reading.
References:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Virtual Communities
I will now give my two-cents on this weeks reading.
The word ‘community’ is flung around often in this article. Flew notes that it is a warm and persuasive word; one that never seems to be used unfavourably. It’s true, I for one associate ‘community’ with words like bonding, relationships, common interest, safety... For example my online community consists of friends and relatives on facebook, and I suppose my online contacts on MSN (which I hate to admit, is still my guilty pleasure). Similarly, a male acquaintance of mine is an avid follower of Neil Strauss (creator of “the game”) and belongs to a closed virtual community. It’s basically a forum for Brisbane pick-up artists involved with “gaming” to swap advice and experiences. My curiosity got the better of me and I tried to log on once – much to my dismay, it’s locked and you cannot join unless you’re invited/initiated (by the way, this happens in person… another example of online and ‘real life’ cultures converging!).
I got thinking about this. They all seem pretty full of themselves, which is why I assumed the community was locked… on the other hand, after reading Flew’s article I wonder if maybe they are just trying to remain exclusive. What I mean is, it’s quite common for communities to be infiltrated by those with a dramatically different point of view, often to upset the other members. (In this case, that would have been me!). In further support of this, I can incorporate one of the sites I found via del.icio.us (See? It all comes together now!). In Boyd’s Social Technology and Democracy, he coins the term ‘homophily’ online, to suggest that people with common interests join the same online communities. This yields positive and negative repercussions… He uses an example in the text of when an online community of cat lovers were infiltrated by a “tasteless” website. You can just imagine what happened there.
I love the way I can type an area of interest into google and find websites and forums full of like-minded individuals. Furthermore, I like cats and am sympathetic of the online attack from the so-called “tasteless” website.
Cats
Regardless, I can’t help but associate closed/locked online communities with the word “segregation”. It’s unfortunate that some communities are infiltrated, however, that’s the way the world is… We all have differing opinions! I am of the view, and Boyd’s article supports this claim, that virtual communities become disjointed from the “real world” if they lack balance. I will go one step further to suggest that this is when they can become dangerous (more on this further on).
Boyd provides an example for lack of balance; the Berkley Anti 54 movement. Many Berkley students protested this online, however they were clustered together in student communities; specific to their college. This created an 'eco-chamber' of similiar views and didn’t allow the movement to reach the mainstream media. Boyd claims that despite convergence culture, micro-cultures can form and trap users into a segregated online cluster.
Flew also discusses this notion. He mentions that for some people, the internet is a way to escape social situations in which you could feel awkward, by only connecting to like-minded individuals. In a political context, this can mean creating “electronic equivalents of the gated communities and architectural barriers that offer the well-to-do freedom from troubles associated with the urban underclass". My interpretation of this is that the internet can deliberately create new means of segregation. This could actually increase the upper class power struggle and vicariously, continue to oppress those underprivileged or in the minority. This can segue nicely into a ramble about the digital divide but I will save that for another time.
Last but not least, I question the term “community” in a virtual context. Sure, it offers like minded people a chance to share advice, thoughts and ideas, but what about in a morally unacceptable context? I am going to dwell on this for the time being.
References:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Boyd, D. 2005. Social Technology and Democracy. http://www.danah.org/papers/ExtremeDemocracy.pdf (accessed April 12, 2008)
The word ‘community’ is flung around often in this article. Flew notes that it is a warm and persuasive word; one that never seems to be used unfavourably. It’s true, I for one associate ‘community’ with words like bonding, relationships, common interest, safety... For example my online community consists of friends and relatives on facebook, and I suppose my online contacts on MSN (which I hate to admit, is still my guilty pleasure). Similarly, a male acquaintance of mine is an avid follower of Neil Strauss (creator of “the game”) and belongs to a closed virtual community. It’s basically a forum for Brisbane pick-up artists involved with “gaming” to swap advice and experiences. My curiosity got the better of me and I tried to log on once – much to my dismay, it’s locked and you cannot join unless you’re invited/initiated (by the way, this happens in person… another example of online and ‘real life’ cultures converging!).
I got thinking about this. They all seem pretty full of themselves, which is why I assumed the community was locked… on the other hand, after reading Flew’s article I wonder if maybe they are just trying to remain exclusive. What I mean is, it’s quite common for communities to be infiltrated by those with a dramatically different point of view, often to upset the other members. (In this case, that would have been me!). In further support of this, I can incorporate one of the sites I found via del.icio.us (See? It all comes together now!). In Boyd’s Social Technology and Democracy, he coins the term ‘homophily’ online, to suggest that people with common interests join the same online communities. This yields positive and negative repercussions… He uses an example in the text of when an online community of cat lovers were infiltrated by a “tasteless” website. You can just imagine what happened there.
I love the way I can type an area of interest into google and find websites and forums full of like-minded individuals. Furthermore, I like cats and am sympathetic of the online attack from the so-called “tasteless” website.
Regardless, I can’t help but associate closed/locked online communities with the word “segregation”. It’s unfortunate that some communities are infiltrated, however, that’s the way the world is… We all have differing opinions! I am of the view, and Boyd’s article supports this claim, that virtual communities become disjointed from the “real world” if they lack balance. I will go one step further to suggest that this is when they can become dangerous (more on this further on).
Boyd provides an example for lack of balance; the Berkley Anti 54 movement. Many Berkley students protested this online, however they were clustered together in student communities; specific to their college. This created an 'eco-chamber' of similiar views and didn’t allow the movement to reach the mainstream media. Boyd claims that despite convergence culture, micro-cultures can form and trap users into a segregated online cluster.
Flew also discusses this notion. He mentions that for some people, the internet is a way to escape social situations in which you could feel awkward, by only connecting to like-minded individuals. In a political context, this can mean creating “electronic equivalents of the gated communities and architectural barriers that offer the well-to-do freedom from troubles associated with the urban underclass". My interpretation of this is that the internet can deliberately create new means of segregation. This could actually increase the upper class power struggle and vicariously, continue to oppress those underprivileged or in the minority. This can segue nicely into a ramble about the digital divide but I will save that for another time.
Last but not least, I question the term “community” in a virtual context. Sure, it offers like minded people a chance to share advice, thoughts and ideas, but what about in a morally unacceptable context? I am going to dwell on this for the time being.
References:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Boyd, D. 2005. Social Technology and Democracy. http://www.danah.org/papers/ExtremeDemocracy.pdf (accessed April 12, 2008)
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Week 6 Tutorial - Terry Flew's "Virtual Cultures"
How do online cultures organise themselves?
In the article New Media: An Introduction, Terry Flew discusses how online and offline cultures organise themselves. He suggests that the Internet has never been strictly a mechanical process, rather something that has always benefited from social influence and human engagement. It is with this reasoning that he claims online culture is not a separate entity, rather one that integrates and co-exists with our 'real life' culture.
In class I was asked to relate this to my own personal Internet usage to see if I agreed with Flew's statement. This was an eye-opener, because I have never considered myself to have an 'online culture'... I don't play warcraft, I don't use Secondlife... I surf the net all the time out of interest and for uni, but apart from email, my only social networking was in places like facebook. This however, is where I found my offline and online cultures converging. I thought about how the main purpose of facebook is to interact with people, especially those I've lost touch with since finishing school. This departs completely from it's virtual mechanism aspect and focuses more on blurring the line between virtual correspondence and real life interaction. In other words, although some of us participate in a virtual culture, a lot of the time it is based on social relationships and/or previous human interaction.
I found this weeks reading and tute material particularly interesting. And now here I am with a blog! I suppose now I can consider this part of my ever-growing virtual community.
Refererence:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
In the article New Media: An Introduction, Terry Flew discusses how online and offline cultures organise themselves. He suggests that the Internet has never been strictly a mechanical process, rather something that has always benefited from social influence and human engagement. It is with this reasoning that he claims online culture is not a separate entity, rather one that integrates and co-exists with our 'real life' culture.
In class I was asked to relate this to my own personal Internet usage to see if I agreed with Flew's statement. This was an eye-opener, because I have never considered myself to have an 'online culture'... I don't play warcraft, I don't use Secondlife... I surf the net all the time out of interest and for uni, but apart from email, my only social networking was in places like facebook. This however, is where I found my offline and online cultures converging. I thought about how the main purpose of facebook is to interact with people, especially those I've lost touch with since finishing school. This departs completely from it's virtual mechanism aspect and focuses more on blurring the line between virtual correspondence and real life interaction. In other words, although some of us participate in a virtual culture, a lot of the time it is based on social relationships and/or previous human interaction.
I found this weeks reading and tute material particularly interesting. And now here I am with a blog! I suppose now I can consider this part of my ever-growing virtual community.
Refererence:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)