Social media has come a very long way in such a short time, this phenomenon is about to be once again revolutionised by 'Google glasses'. The idea behind Google glasses give us a wearable computer, that can accompany us any where at any time. It will display similar information as a smartphone but in a futuristic hands free way, through your very own voice commands. Google glasses is an innovative technology set to turn the current technological world of smart phones and tablets upside down. The Google glasses have already been launched and tested by numerous people who were rather amazed by what they can do with the glasses.
Although this phenomenon brings many new positive possibilities to technology it is not without its problems and downsides. Such as the price of the google glasses ($1000-$2000), customisation you cant really make into something you want it to look like or suit it to your 'look'. The Google glasses also brings up many issues such as privacy and confidentiality and distraction to those who are driving for example. The health effects of this gadget are also still unknown, it may have harmful effects you eyes and brain. So while this phenomenon is a great idea and a step-up in the technological world there is still a long way to go in assessing the cons of this innovative gadget.
Social media has become a popular tool for communication and entertainment in households throughout most of the world.
The largest population in the world of internet users is in fact China, however China also has one of the most restricted internets around the world. Great Firewall is said to be the" most technically sophisticated internet filtering/censorship systems in the world".
Internet access in China is provided by 8 Internet service providers (ISP), which are controlled by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. There are three main ways ISP's block online content:
There are many complex and multi-layered systems in place to censor the citizens of China from information that the government believes is threatening. China's
IP blocking
DNS hijacking
keyword content inspection/filtering
There is currently a website you can go to, to discover what internet sites are actually blocked in real time in China. Could you imagine getting on your computer or phone and logging on to our much loved sites of Facebook or Twitter and being told the site has been censored and is not accessible. The people of China are not completely without social media sites, there are substitutes in place to allow the Chinese to communicate via the Internet such as namely, Baidu (search engine like Google), Sina Weibo (micro blogging like twitter), Renren (equivalent of Facebook) and Youku Tudou (Video site like YouTube).
Chiu, Lin and Silverman (2013, pg.1) claim that "social media is exploding worldwide and China is leading the way". Yes social media has really taken off worldwide, but as for China leading the way I have to disagree. Of course most countries including Australia have some censorships but nothing like China, what is happening to human rights and freedom? I hope China doesn't lead the way of the social media realm I certainly do not want my internet usage constantly watched and censored, what people do in their spare time on the internet is up to them not the government.
To be honest I never quite knew the extent to which Chinas internet is censored I never knew there were so many substitute platforms available to the citizens of China. It just goes to show how much the government can control and influence peoples lives.
Along with all the great features of social media, there can also been quite a dark side. We are all currently aware of extremists groups, which more specifically are groups who have an extreme intolerance to certain people or groups. This intolerance is expressed quite violently and publically. For example white extremist groups which are driven by things like racial impurity, anti-Semitism and political hegemony. However these groups have moved and expanded online via social media platforms which are classified as eExtremists or online hate groups. As social media is great for uniting groups of people who share similar interests worldwide it acts as a powerful tool for these groups to spread there attitudes and messages out, to educate and train others and to recruit new members. Currently in the United States there 1007 known hate groups operating, such as the neo-Nazis, Klansmen, racist skinheads and black separatists. Another example of an extremist using the internet and social networks is Norwegian Anders Behing Brievik who has been held responsible for terrorist attacks in Norway, killing many innocent people.
What is even more outraging is that even an registered political party can be considered an extremist group, such a the Australian First Party. Which has been described as a minor extreme right wing political party that is federally registered in Australia. The policies of the AFP has been said to be based around the old fashioned beliefs of the labour party, they can be described as nationalistic, anti-multicultural and economic protectionist.
Reingold's utopian view of 'virtual communities' seems to me as quite the opposite to what these hate groups are proposing they are hardly communities with high desirability and 'perfect qualities'. More precisely the promote and create discrimination and violence with our society. As we can see from the Brievik example these types of hate groups throughout the Internet can have quite severe and damaging effects. Honestly in this day and age how can this sort of violence and discrimination still be widely apparent, why aren't there laws being implemented to monitor and combat these groups?
Personally I believe that the future of these hate groups and the 'dark side of social media' will continue to prevail and grow with support unless higher intervention is becomes apparent. Individually we all need to learn to recognize when an extremist website is crossing the line of free speech to negatively targeting minority groups.
AVATAR= Hindu word meaning incarnation, the gods incarnated as human beings. This has been passed onto the present where one can incarnate themselves virtually.
Have you ever created a avatar/second identity online? Maybe you portrayed yourself as more attractive and or possessing traits you desire to have in real life?
Virtual worlds are becoming ever so popular and maybe even a crucial dimension of mediated reality in technological communities. We now have environments where one can escape the present realm and enter into a second life to posses a completely separate identity, also called avatars. Individuals are spending more and more time whether it be during work or leisure ours living their second lives. It is proposed by some that creating an identity possess two characteristics, exploration and commitment. Exploration is the time where one is searching and discovering their identity (beliefs and goals) and commitment is a time when one decides on and is content with this current identity (Junglas, Johnson, Steel, Abraham, & Loughlin, 2007). Interestingly further research is discovering more about identity creation through the use of virtual worlds. It has been said that virtual worlds enable individuals to investigate and discover their personality through men's that are not as accessible in reality. The notion of these second lives or identities may be particularly appealing as they offer an endless array of personalities and behaviours which one can immerse themselves in. It also gives you the advantage of remaining anonymous, and a distraction from the reality of life, work and family pressures. Some examples of environments that offer these opportunities are Second Life and World of Warcraft. Programs such as second life enables individuals to creatively construct a life by designing and reinventing a second identity. It very much so disengages one from reality, down to the point of not allowing you to use your real name when stating up an account.
As with anything there are pros and there are cons. For some the anonymity may act as as tool to explore their identity in a safe environment, but it can also give rise to issues such as trust. Are any of these avatar identities genuine? Further it can disengage/distract you from reality so much that you prefer you life online better than your real life. There have been many incidents were partners, husbands and wives have seen their relationships being destroyed. Those living a second life are finally fulfilling fantasies that they have always dreamed of, neglecting real world relationships and responsibilities. There are many incidences of online cheating and real world heartbreak. People are finding new partners online, having affairs and even getting married, while their real life partners are left behind to pick up the pieces. However in spite of the relationship chaos there have been some happy endings. A couple who met and married online, became inseparable constantly living there lives happily online. This ended up not being enough and they eventually met in real life, and the connection was still apparent. They both left their previous partners and married in real life on their virtual wedding anniversary and also had a baby together.
Yes identity in a virtual world is replicating reality as a consumer society, idealising yourself and pursuing a more attractive life; surprisingly there are even major companies establishing a presence in second life such as American apparel, Toyota, Warner Bros and Adidas but to some it is much more important than 'just a game'. It is a way of life, it is relationships, work, leisure, family and so much more in a digital form. It has been proposed that people connect and react to technology socially and emotionally on deeper levels than we ever thought (Reeves and Nass cited in Meadows, 2008). Around half of the people spending time in virtual worlds, stated that their friends in second life were equal to or better than their real life friends, most spent 20 hours or more online and a quarter of those admitted that the best part of their week occurred in their second life.
Baudrillard coined the term hyper reality which is a condition in which reality has been replaced by simulacra which is when a symbol or sign loses its concept in reality, it then proceeds to simulate the simulation. Baudrillard believed that hyper reality moves beyond that of combining of the real and the symbol that represents it; it now has formed into a symbol that actually represents something that doesn't exist for example the tooth fairy. He notes that we live in a world that has been substituted for a copy world where individuals seek only simulated stimuli. Which ties in well with the virtual world as individuals, enjoy their life in the virtual/simulated world.
Will we all end up living a "second life"? I personally think individuals who are attracted to and take on an avatars and live a second lives are people with certain types of personalities, it is not everyone's cup of tea, so no I don't think we will all end up living second lives. There is also research on how second life affects real life. Just think if everyone lives their lives sitting behind a screen, no one will be moving from their seat no exercising,
The ideas of consumerism and production have almost always been seen as two distinct concepts, however we have recently been presented with the notion of 'produsage'. The word 'produsage' gives a shared meaning to both consumers and producers. The traditional boundaries between the two have been blurred and broken down and as a result individuals are able take on a hybrid role enabling them to be users (consumers) as well as producers of information and knowledge. This movement or advancement as some may propose has been mainly influenced by our great technological improvements and the introduction of various social media platforms. An Australian media scholar named Axel Bruns introduced this new concept in his book titled "Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage".
Have you ever contributed important information to a page on Wikipedia, posted a blog or uploaded a video concerning a particular product or issue? Most of us would be nodding our heads, whether we are aware of it or not we are all individually partaking in the production and consumption of information and knowledge. Even if you don't necessarily produce information I'm sure you access content that has been created through produsage. I know I have, using Wikipedia to get my head around an idea or watching YouTube videos.
Axel Bruns explains produsage as characterised by 4 different features. Firstly the creation of information is open to all users not just the single author, the information is free to be evaluated and modified to suit everyone. Secondly there is no leadership or order in place. Bruns explains that for produsage sites to work there needs to be a large number of participants. He notes that produsage sites do not have a formal government rather they are fluid heterarchies that are organised through ad hoc meritocracies. Thirdly, produsage sites consist of virtually unfinished content that is being continuously evaluated. It is a multi-layered document which is repeatedly being over-written. And finally the content on a produsage site is acknowledged as common property and that all who contribute are able to receive reward or incentive.
It is important to take into account the ethics and merits of the content being produced. How can we guarantee that the information is reliable and trustworthy?
Again we ask how does produsage fit in with Howard Jenkins' views of participatory culture? It actually fits in significantly well if not its just been given a different name. The two concepts are intertwined, both identifying with the idea of consumers also taking on the role of the producer. As for the future of produsage, I believe there is more to come, more and more people will gravitate to the idea and also contribute. It will one day just become the 'norm'. This notion is only going to advance further, as our technological means advance also. Separate producers and consumers will be long gone and there will be no looking back. Because both the consumption and production has been put into our own hands and we as individuals benefit from this.
Social media offers yet another benefit and step forward for society. Today we move into the world of politicians and their use of social media. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube shine through again being utilised for political elections and campaigns. Literally anyone with the Internet has the means to access all online information and as we all know news can become viral in a matter of minutes. These tools aid improvement for politicians campaigns, with the opportunity to reach a broader audience and demographic. Recent findings show politicians in this day and age should be using social media to keep up with the 'digital natives', that is young people who are glued to the internet and social media. Using these social media platforms will attract younger generations to actually take interest as it is now being paraded in their Facebook newsfeed or in the Twittersphere which has great potential to draw in more possible voters. Politicians would be crazy not to jump on board and take advantage of social media to gain more coverage and to better succeed in their campaigns.
US President Barack Obama was seen as the 'game changer' in digital politics. He very successfully embraced social media in the 2008 election to its full advantage, to actually build relationships with his citizens which allowed him to create a conversation. In contrast Barack's opponent John McCain only saw social media as a means for distributing information to the public and as a result lost the election. It has been made clear that McCain didn't realise that to use social media as successful tool you must listen as well talk. It is crucial that politicians understand that social media is vital, but only if there is two-way communication. Barack created an environment of government transparency which had never been experienced in american politics. Obama-Biden campaign stats-
5 million supporters on social networks
2.5 million followers on Facebook alone
sent 13 millions emails
had 4 million digital donors
50 million viewers watched 14 million hours of video on YouTube (which was only 3 years old)
1800 videos were posted to YouTube (most held more than 1 million views)
It just goes to show that using new means such social media is just as crucial if not more as traditional means such as knocking on doors in an effort to get citizens to the polls. Politicians on Twitter, photos on Instagram, videos on YouTube and Facebook updates about policy will now be the political norm. The way politicians interact with their citizens has forever changed.
However politicians should also be conscious that social media can be something of a double edged sword. Everything and anything including politics will make into the digital realm. Individuals can take a negative spin and expose or play up a politicians 'bad' side. Politicians should also be aware of their digital image. There is a need to connect with citizens maybe using humour and playful characteristics to provide entertainment but you still must be strictly professional and portray to the community that you are able to successfully run the country.
The phenomenon of political social media coincides with Howard Jenkins view of participatory culture. Which is the encouragement of individuals as consumers to seek out new information and make connections between different media content. In this digital era we no longer have separate media producers and consumers it has now been transformed we are all participants who are encouraged to interact with each other. This creates conversation which creates a buzz and sends media content spiralling. This pretty much hits the nail on the head for Obamas campaign social media connected him to the people, started a conversation and the rest is history.
As for the future of electioneering, it seems as though anything is possible for digital politics; as modern technology is continuously being improved. All i know for now is that the focus will be on the inclusion of the citizens.
As a society we desire to live in a world with government transparency, of late this idea has become central to us. Government Transparency mainly occurs via 4 channels:
Proactive dissemination by the government themselves
The release of requested materials by the government
Public meetings
Leaks from 'whistleblowers'
However as we escalate into a 'techsavy' era this idea has become almost effortless. There is now an increasing existence of digital activism, and we are presented with social media in a new light. Individuals are taking the issue of corruption into their own hands. ICT's (information and communication technologies) and social media now have a new role to play in disseminating information and reducing corruption within organisations, corporations and governments. The strengths of these anti-corruption social media strategies are:
Collaboration
Participation
Empowerment
Real time updates
A campaign called ACT- against corruption today is a global campaign developed by UNODC and UNDP which focus on how corruption holds back the efforts to achieve the international Millennium Development Goals and how it effects education, health, justice, democracy, prosperity and development. This campaign is linked to many social media sites to spread the word, that individuals have the right to say no and act against corruption. Such as a Facebook page- ACT-act against corruption today and Twitter- #actagainstcorruption.
One of the most influential and well known online anti-corruption activist is Julian Asange. Julian Asange is associated with the organisation Wikileaks. Which is an international online, non-profit organisation which publishes secret information from anonymous sources.This organisation considers itself as similar to investigative journalists who aim to convey transparency to the world. Being used as an online tool it has the advantages of allowing for a faster and wider broadcast of information.
There is much debate over the cost and benefits of the Wikileaks approach and on how individuals perceive Julian Asange, is he a whistleblower, terrorist, activist or hacktivist? I personally believe he is a combination of them, however I would not go as far to say he is a terrorist. My stance is that Julian Asange is taking a stand for our rights, he is exposing the government and their wrongdoings, revealing it for what it really is and embarrassing the nations involved. There are not many people out there as courageous and brave to publicly take a stand against the government .
WikiLeaks ties in relatively well with Henry Jenkins (American media scholar) view of participatory culture, that individuals should not only act as consumers but also as contributors and producers of published media. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange does exactly that encourages both consumption of the media but to also be involved.
However there is also much contention around the future of Wikileaks and whether it will survive. There has been suggestions that the organisation may not actually be able to continue to exist, because the state combined create so much power and will eventually find a way to eradicate anyone who is willing and capable to expose them and there mysteries.
With the uprise of many digital platforms there is becoming an increase in the various ways in which social and political activists can promote and access an intended audience, but in doing so it empowers the citizens they have a chance too, a more easily accessible and efficient medium to be involved and take a stand. This has seen great progress and is a big shift from more traditional means of 'taking to the streets'. Sure its easy to hit like on a Facebook page showing your support for a current issue you feel strongly about but are we missing something? Is it naive of us to think that by simply clicking like on Facebook that some sort of action becomes of this? I also am guilty of this, every now and then I will be moved reading about an important issue where justice needs to be served and find myself clicking away at that like button along with hundreds of thousands of other individuals hoping to make a difference and change the world.
There are many opinions/perspectives surrounding digital activism, is it good is it bad? The internet and different social networking platforms do mobilise political campaigns and give it greater scope and gives the potential to reach a wider range of people all over the world (optimistic perspective) however, it also somewhat distracts the general population and encourages laziness, it promotes the idea that 'hey if you hit like a change will happen and our society will benefit'. There is also a fear for anti-demographic control of technology, that governments can gain control over the activists (pessimistic perspective). Unfortunately political and social change hasn't been totally revolutionised there is still a requirement for physical action in the real world (persistent perspective).
Getup! Action for Australia is an organisation established to hold politicians to account. they are working toward a "parliament with economic fairness, social justice and environmetal sustainability at its core". They run campaigns such as 'end victim blaming, marriage equality, refugee and asylum seekers and many more'. There are currently 628, 624 members of Getup! This organisation also uses social media platforms to promote their campaigns such as Facebook, Youtube and Twitter.
Here we have a campaign from Getup! Addressing the issues surrounding refugees and asylum seekers. The government has sent Australia's detention centres off shore to Manu island. Below is a video from forgotten children who detained on Manu island.
Displaying campaigns like this through out the digital sphere, results in greater recognition and it will potentially never leave the internet world, it there for everyone to see time and time again.
I think it would be hard to find someone, particularly young people in the 21st century who do not own a mobile phone. 20 or even 10 years ago we would never have dreamed of where our technology would be today.
I remember my first mobile phone it was big, bulky, had a black and white screen and i used it only to text and call people and hey maybe a game of snake here and there. I thought it was the best thing ever! Little did i know in the next 5-10 years this great phone would be revolutionised. We now can pretty much run/control our entire lives from our smartphone. It actually has become a part of our lives, or even a part of you!
There are so many positive ways smartphones can aid our lives. It is the ultimate convergence, it allows us to maintain multiple connections at any place and any time with anyone on multiple platforms. It is reshaping our communication. In saying that the phone becomes a part of you, when you loose does it do it cause you to go into a state of absolute terror in the same way it would to think if you lost a limb? Perhaps not that extreme but i know personally i freak out at the thought of loosing my phone, i get that mini heart attack when i search my bag anxiously looking and i cant find it.
Even though there are so many advantages and benefits we receive from our smartphones are we being all that smart with them?? Are we all so consumed and absorbed with our digital connections we forgot about our real life ones? Are we putting our relationships in jeopardy, passing off face to face conversations with simple texts? Can we ever actually escape or unplug? Think about jobs in this technological world, having a smartphone enables you to contactable 24/7, are you expected to be accountable every minute of your life? This 24/7 contact with work can cause crisis/neglect in other aspects of your life. Are you sitting down for dinner with your family or in front of screen replying to emails. Another example could be when we are with our friends are we actually with them or playing on our phones, do we actually want to be elsewhere.
I think we use our phones as a distraction or a cure for boredom. I know for example whenever I am waiting in line somewhere i just whip out my phone and have a little check and see what others are up to, if anyones contacted me. I even see parents using their phones are distractors for their children At my work mothers come in looking for new clothes so they shove a phone in front of their child's face to shut them up. It amazing to see they actually know how to operate them!
However once kids get old enough some parents feel a sense of confidence and security in that they can keep in touch and know their kids are safe. It gives you a wider reach of home beyond the actual house itself. Sherry Turkle mentions how getting a goodluck message from her daughter is like getting a big hug. It also helps parents with organising and communicating etc.
All in all mobile devices like anything has its pros and cons. However either way they do have the potential to change our lives and who we are.
