Day Nine: Media Inventory
14 years ago
My Blog List
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Final Blog
As we come to the close of summer school I would like to thank you for reading my blog, it certainly has been an interesting experience posing as a citizen journalist, you never know, I might just keep it up!
Tutorial task 9
Media inventory:
This is a stock inventory of all of the media I have encountered today:
- I woke up to the alarm on my iPhone, and had an SMS waiting for me
- I turned on my laptop, checked my facebook, and my emails
- I listened to my iPod on my iPhone as I got dressed to come to uni
- I turned my laptop back on to check the Griffith portal to make sure class is still on
- at the bus stop I read the bus timetable- and read it again when the bus was 15mins late (yes I'm aware that doesn't actually convey my aguish to the bus but I feel like it helps)
- once the bus finally arrived, there was colorful sticker advertisement on the side of the bus, and many posters on the bus, advertisement for the go-card system, info about the fare increases, etc
- along the bus trip I saw billboards, street signs, stop signs, electronic road signs
- as the bus approached the uni I saw the 'Griffith university' signs, on campus there are a variety of bulleient boards, writing on the buildings for building and room numbers, more griffith uni signs
- in the lecture the lecture notes were displayed on the projector screen, Adam spoke to us, and videos and pictures were shown, I took notes during the lecture on my iPad, and may have checked my emails and facebook (of course not while you were speaking Adam)
- walking around campus I saw a guy wearing a Kurt Cobain tee shirt, with a picture of him in a straightjacket and the words "I hate myself and I want to die" on the back
- there was even advertisement from the uni about hygiene and safety on the back of the toilet door
I guess this would be a typical day in my life (while at Uni), and since we are only half way through the day there would be more, pretty much everything in reverse as I make the trip back home, then some TV.
I thought it would be more interesting/accurate to give an account of all the media I have experienced today, rather then trying to think of what I would have encountered on a typical day, because I would never have thought of half the things on my list.
It is somewhat amusing, possibly even a tad alarming to see how much media, in all its various forms that I encounter everyday, we are overloaded by messages everyday in modern society, and it really does highlight the message from todays lecture, that the media is invisible in our environment unless you selectively choose to pay attention to it!
This is a stock inventory of all of the media I have encountered today:
- I woke up to the alarm on my iPhone, and had an SMS waiting for me
- I turned on my laptop, checked my facebook, and my emails
- I listened to my iPod on my iPhone as I got dressed to come to uni
- I turned my laptop back on to check the Griffith portal to make sure class is still on
- at the bus stop I read the bus timetable- and read it again when the bus was 15mins late (yes I'm aware that doesn't actually convey my aguish to the bus but I feel like it helps)
- once the bus finally arrived, there was colorful sticker advertisement on the side of the bus, and many posters on the bus, advertisement for the go-card system, info about the fare increases, etc
- along the bus trip I saw billboards, street signs, stop signs, electronic road signs
- as the bus approached the uni I saw the 'Griffith university' signs, on campus there are a variety of bulleient boards, writing on the buildings for building and room numbers, more griffith uni signs
- in the lecture the lecture notes were displayed on the projector screen, Adam spoke to us, and videos and pictures were shown, I took notes during the lecture on my iPad, and may have checked my emails and facebook (of course not while you were speaking Adam)
- walking around campus I saw a guy wearing a Kurt Cobain tee shirt, with a picture of him in a straightjacket and the words "I hate myself and I want to die" on the back
- there was even advertisement from the uni about hygiene and safety on the back of the toilet door
I guess this would be a typical day in my life (while at Uni), and since we are only half way through the day there would be more, pretty much everything in reverse as I make the trip back home, then some TV.
I thought it would be more interesting/accurate to give an account of all the media I have experienced today, rather then trying to think of what I would have encountered on a typical day, because I would never have thought of half the things on my list.
It is somewhat amusing, possibly even a tad alarming to see how much media, in all its various forms that I encounter everyday, we are overloaded by messages everyday in modern society, and it really does highlight the message from todays lecture, that the media is invisible in our environment unless you selectively choose to pay attention to it!
Response to lecture 9
"The present is always invisible because it is environmental" (McLuhan, 1969)- the environment around us is invisible, unless cognitive attention is paid, you are not aware of the temperature, or the brightness of the light, it is there but unless specific attention is paid it is invisible from a sensory perspective. McLuhan's quote refers to the media in our environment. We are not aware of the media around us, unless conscious effort it is made to perceive it directly. all media within our perceptual field contributes to our environment, we belong to an ecosystem of the media, just as we belong to an ecosystem of the environment. Your experience of the media is not singular, we do not receive information from one media, we have tv, Internet, social interactions, media is intergretted into our every day lives, into our environment.
To move away from a conceptual ideal of understanding the role of the media in our environment, that the media is an invisible part of our environment, to a working application: the social, historical and technological context of media is always invisible. I think that is the message I have really taken away from this class is that media is part of our environment, and I'm only aware of the context and of the media itself now I hold it in conscious awareness.
*** Essay Update! Up and raring along on the essay front now! I am using second Life as my example and found a bunch of great articles (E.g. Walbot, 2009; Boellstorff, 2008; Varvello et al, 2008)
In my search to see if Reingolds concept of 'virtual community' is useful im comparing and contrasting it with the concept that internet interactions are 'participatory genre'
To move away from a conceptual ideal of understanding the role of the media in our environment, that the media is an invisible part of our environment, to a working application: the social, historical and technological context of media is always invisible. I think that is the message I have really taken away from this class is that media is part of our environment, and I'm only aware of the context and of the media itself now I hold it in conscious awareness.
*** Essay Update! Up and raring along on the essay front now! I am using second Life as my example and found a bunch of great articles (E.g. Walbot, 2009; Boellstorff, 2008; Varvello et al, 2008)
In my search to see if Reingolds concept of 'virtual community' is useful im comparing and contrasting it with the concept that internet interactions are 'participatory genre'
Response to lecture 8: 2nd life vid
In today's lecture we watched a four corners documentary looking at the online game 'second life'. I had been vaguely aware of the game, as having been a previous Sims addict (it's so sad there are no support groups!), it had been described to me as Sims gone viral, but seeing as I barely had enough time for my first life, it never really interested me. The video gave insight into a different aspect of the game, rather then the socially limiting, possibly psychologically scarring effects of having a life online rather then engaging in life hyped by other media. No the focus of this documentary was big business! It described how users had made real life millions off selling imagery property or items in the game. This raised an interesting point to me: ownership on the Internet. In previous classes we had look at issues of creative commons and copy right- issues of ownership of work you publish on the Internet, and how you may give others the right to reuse, edit and broadcast your work. It's interesting to contrast ownership on figurative of a mile of space on cyberspace as in second life, and ownership issues of works you publish on the Internet. In second life, you are paying real world money for imaginary property, ownership is not only stated by Second Life, but it is implied by the fact that you have paid money for something. But does ownership exist on the Internet? If nothing is tangible on the Internet, you can't physically touch or hold your Second Life property, nor can you touch and hold your blog or a paper you have written and placed on the Internet. If nothing on the Internet is tangible then can ownership can ever really exist?
*** Essay update! You have pushed me too far copyright! I found getting my head around the legal jargon on copyright just too difficult without a law degree! Inspired by todays lecture I have switched to the essay topic on whether Reingolds concept of 'virtual community' is useful for understanding todays online activity. I started off by reading his original 1993 work, it was entertaining, and interesting from a historical perspective, in him speaking about his daughter thinking his friends were trapped in his computer (I wonder how a 7yo in how modern society with view his internet interactions?), but Im not sure i really like his definition!
I found a few articles talking about virtual communities (E.g. Wellman, 1996; Erickson, 2002; Gefen & Riding, 2004)
The one I particularly liked was Wellman (1996), who disagreed with Reingolds definition of virtual community and suggested that it may be more useful to view online interactions as participatory genre rather than a 'community'
*** Essay update! You have pushed me too far copyright! I found getting my head around the legal jargon on copyright just too difficult without a law degree! Inspired by todays lecture I have switched to the essay topic on whether Reingolds concept of 'virtual community' is useful for understanding todays online activity. I started off by reading his original 1993 work, it was entertaining, and interesting from a historical perspective, in him speaking about his daughter thinking his friends were trapped in his computer (I wonder how a 7yo in how modern society with view his internet interactions?), but Im not sure i really like his definition!
I found a few articles talking about virtual communities (E.g. Wellman, 1996; Erickson, 2002; Gefen & Riding, 2004)
The one I particularly liked was Wellman (1996), who disagreed with Reingolds definition of virtual community and suggested that it may be more useful to view online interactions as participatory genre rather than a 'community'
Response to lecture 8: Jason Nelson
In the introduction to this class we were introduced to the work of Marshall McLuhan, who conceptualised the idea of how we use media and communication as "media is the message". The work of Jason Nelson is an example of art where the medium is not merely the way in which the message is conveyed but media is the message.
The pieces of Jason Nelsons work I reviewed are:
-Stunning Harmful Songs:
An interesting piece which integrated video, sound and pictures. There are options of different songs, 1-9, which have a different theme, heaven, dead etc. I am not sure what the intended message is here, one of the themes is entitled 'Sabastopole', where a background picture of a city of beautiful lights, with fireworks type graphics and the heading 'Sabastopole, city of the future' is contrasted with a video of a graveyard, and Jason signing repeatedly the word Sabastopole. My interpretation of this piece is demonstrating the human path of destruction, despite any advancement in society or technology life still ends.
-game, game, game, game and again game:
This game integrates images, sounds and movies presented as a game platform is a true example of multimedia net art. Although, in all honest opinion this does not appeal to me, i found it loud and distracting, yet im sure this medium does appeal to a certain audience.
-poetry cube:
I like this piece the most, poetry presented in a spinning cube, where at any point the receiver can alter the poem, editing the order of the lines to make a new piece of work. This piece is interactive, more so then the others because not only is the audience clicking buttons and engaging with the piece they are actually altering what they see, changing the meaning interpretation of the piece
The pieces of Jason Nelsons work I reviewed are:
-Stunning Harmful Songs:
An interesting piece which integrated video, sound and pictures. There are options of different songs, 1-9, which have a different theme, heaven, dead etc. I am not sure what the intended message is here, one of the themes is entitled 'Sabastopole', where a background picture of a city of beautiful lights, with fireworks type graphics and the heading 'Sabastopole, city of the future' is contrasted with a video of a graveyard, and Jason signing repeatedly the word Sabastopole. My interpretation of this piece is demonstrating the human path of destruction, despite any advancement in society or technology life still ends.
-game, game, game, game and again game:
This game integrates images, sounds and movies presented as a game platform is a true example of multimedia net art. Although, in all honest opinion this does not appeal to me, i found it loud and distracting, yet im sure this medium does appeal to a certain audience.
-poetry cube:
I like this piece the most, poetry presented in a spinning cube, where at any point the receiver can alter the poem, editing the order of the lines to make a new piece of work. This piece is interactive, more so then the others because not only is the audience clicking buttons and engaging with the piece they are actually altering what they see, changing the meaning interpretation of the piece
Monday, January 24, 2011
Tutorial 7: political participation
In an effort in to become politically active (as with Adams many literary quems, the term 'active' is one of mine... now that I am 'politically active', will I someday deactivate?- yet totally off topic)...
I have engaged in a variety of activities to 'push' my political agenda and become involved in the political area:
-As a Gold Coast resident I completed a longitudinal study on GC council consultations
-I twitted Barrack Obama & Julia Gillard (Juls is looking forward to a BBQ for Australia day tomorrow)
-I voted in a government e-poll, indicating that I do believe Australia is doing enough for climate change
-I wrote a response to professional news blogger Janet Albrechtsen blog 'Turnbull tolls own death knell', that I believe her analogy of Malcom Turnball as Shakespears Brutus is apt
With the political activation (or state of being politically activated) I achieved in 40mins in the tutorial maybe it is possible that the internet is becoming the new political area?
I have engaged in a variety of activities to 'push' my political agenda and become involved in the political area:
-As a Gold Coast resident I completed a longitudinal study on GC council consultations
-I twitted Barrack Obama & Julia Gillard (Juls is looking forward to a BBQ for Australia day tomorrow)
-I voted in a government e-poll, indicating that I do believe Australia is doing enough for climate change
-I wrote a response to professional news blogger Janet Albrechtsen blog 'Turnbull tolls own death knell', that I believe her analogy of Malcom Turnball as Shakespears Brutus is apt
With the political activation (or state of being politically activated) I achieved in 40mins in the tutorial maybe it is possible that the internet is becoming the new political area?
Response to lecture 7
"Oh won't somebody please think of the children!"... I bet you can hear Helen Lovejoys voice in your head right now.
In today's lecture the concept of government filtering content was introduced. From an idealised perspective protecting children's innocent eyes from the evils of pornography seems to be a noble pursuit. But as was discussed in the lecture, if censorship of content is introduced in any capacity where does it end?. If the government was to filter content they deem 'inappropriate' are they not filtering our rights as adults to view content that via any other media we are allowed to view. And if a filtering system was to be introduced to our Australian Internet system, blocking pornography, removing our rights to view pornography, what is to stop the government 'filtering' any other content they perceive as inappropriate? What if anti-government content was perceived to be inappropriate? What if any content from an opposing political party was deemed inappropriate for citizens to view. Any internet content filtering system would censor not only content but our rights. If the government, religious groups, parents and Helen Lovejoy are concerned about what children are viewing on the Internet then there needs to be more parental involvement in childrens Internet usage. Don't want your child looking at porn, or sites on how to construct bombs? Than don't let your child use the Internet unsupervised (or have access to large amounts of fertilizer), censoring my rights as an Australian is not the answer to your problem.
*** Essay update! I am starting to majorly struggle with the concept of copyright, the concepts here are either so abstract or so overly specific that you do not imply to the general concept of what copyright is. There is also so many years of history to review :/ copyright you are starting to wear on my last nerve! On the plus side I have found some good case examples for creative commons!
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/OER_Case_Studies
In today's lecture the concept of government filtering content was introduced. From an idealised perspective protecting children's innocent eyes from the evils of pornography seems to be a noble pursuit. But as was discussed in the lecture, if censorship of content is introduced in any capacity where does it end?. If the government was to filter content they deem 'inappropriate' are they not filtering our rights as adults to view content that via any other media we are allowed to view. And if a filtering system was to be introduced to our Australian Internet system, blocking pornography, removing our rights to view pornography, what is to stop the government 'filtering' any other content they perceive as inappropriate? What if anti-government content was perceived to be inappropriate? What if any content from an opposing political party was deemed inappropriate for citizens to view. Any internet content filtering system would censor not only content but our rights. If the government, religious groups, parents and Helen Lovejoy are concerned about what children are viewing on the Internet then there needs to be more parental involvement in childrens Internet usage. Don't want your child looking at porn, or sites on how to construct bombs? Than don't let your child use the Internet unsupervised (or have access to large amounts of fertilizer), censoring my rights as an Australian is not the answer to your problem.
*** Essay update! I am starting to majorly struggle with the concept of copyright, the concepts here are either so abstract or so overly specific that you do not imply to the general concept of what copyright is. There is also so many years of history to review :/ copyright you are starting to wear on my last nerve! On the plus side I have found some good case examples for creative commons!
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/OER_Case_Studies
Tutorial 6
1. What is the weight of the world’s biggest machine? How much did it cost to build?
Liebherr T 282B
This monster machine Liebherr T 282B is a large earth-hauling dump truck designed in 2004 by a German manufacturer and became the largest earth-hauling truck in the world. The top level model is driven by a 10.5 ton, 90 liter diesel engine, producing 3650 horsepower (2700 kW).
Features
Weight: empty - 203 tons; maximum capacity - 365 tons; maximum operating weight - 592 tons
Length: 14.5 m long
Height: 7.4 m tall
Wheelbase: 6.6 m
Top Speed: 40 mph or 65 kph
Costs: US$3.5 M
http://www.bukisa.com/articles/40463_worlds-largest-machines-ever-built
2. Find a live webcam in Antarctica. Can you find a place to stay in Antarctica?
I couldn’t find a live webcam, but this is Aussie and updated every 10mins
Place to stay:
Closest I could find for the general public, there are research hubs etc for researchers.
3. When and what was the first example of global digital communication?
First example of global digital communication was the Telegraph invented in 1836.
4. What is the cheapest form of travel from the Gold Coast to Melbourne?
Plane: $46.34
- Who is Douglas Engelbart? What is he know for?
Douglas Engelbart was a revolutionary and a founder in computer science. He invented mouse, display editing, windows, cross-file editing, outline processing, hypermedia, and groupware.
He is known for the mouse, and being mentioned in our lecture the other day.
6. What is the best way (quickest, most reliable) to contact Stephen Conroy? (Who is this guy?)
Stephen Conroy is the Australian Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
Contact info for his Electorate office
Suite 1B
494 High St
Epping Vic 3076
Tel: 03 9408 0190 Fax: 03 9408 0194
7. What song was top of the Australian pop charts this week in 1990?
:( Couldn’t find
8. How would you define the term 'ontology'? In your own words, what does it really mean?
on·tol·o·gy
[on-tol-uh-jee] Show IPA
–noun
1.
2.
(loosely) metaphysics.
In my words: Ontology is philosophical debate of whether we exist or not, sort like is this all a dream, if I pinch you and you cry does that mean your really here, or do I really exist or is this all a creation of mind and if I accidentally stop holding this in conscious thought will the universe collapse and no longer be.
9. What type of camera is used to make ‘Google Street View’?
Dodeca 2360, this camera could take the picture in several angle (the corner) at the same time (consisted of 11 lenses) with the resolution 2400 x 1200 pixel with the speed until 30 frame per the second (fps).
this camera price around $45000.
10. Three computer operating systems that are NOT Apple OS or MS-Windows operating systems?
GNU/ Linux
Unix
AmigaOS
Response to lecture 6
Todays lecture looked at video games from an academic standpoint. What intrigued me most about this lecture or even about this concept of studying video games was how they were studied and what different disciplines took away from the study of video games. As discussed in the lecture, while social scientists may be interested in the effect of the games on the individual, a humanities perspective is concerned by what meanings are made through games, while this is contrasted still by the industry and engineering approach focuses on the technology in context.
As my academic perspective rests in the social science genre, i lean towards the impact of video games on the individual (although to state the obvious, i doubt anyone genre of study set out to say 'this is what i will study of video games, this and nothing else', I would deduce that looking retrospectively this is how the genres study naturally alined themselves based on the needs and interests of the particular genre…but I digress)
How the video games impact people, physically, psychologically and emotionally is an interesting topic, and often hyped by the media. Often it is the evils of video games that is portrayed; how they are makes kids anti-social, non relateable in the real world, giving us carpal tunnel, deformed thumbs, making kids blood thirsty or desensitised to violence… etc etc
My own research into the topic, aware from the stories under the media glare, revealed there is a host of literature out their boosting the positive effects of video games on the individual, such as development of hand eye cooridnation (e.g. Ballard, Hayhoe, Li & Whitehead, 1992; Averch, Landsittel & Rosenberg, 2005) and opportunities to facilitate learning (E.g. Gee, 2005; Graziano, Peterson & Shaw1999).
*** essay research update! I have decided on the topic of creative commons and copyright. Trawling through countless journal articles, websites & books to try to get a grips on the concept and reach of copy right. This does highlight why creative commons is a useful tool though because copyright is near impossible to understand!
As my academic perspective rests in the social science genre, i lean towards the impact of video games on the individual (although to state the obvious, i doubt anyone genre of study set out to say 'this is what i will study of video games, this and nothing else', I would deduce that looking retrospectively this is how the genres study naturally alined themselves based on the needs and interests of the particular genre…but I digress)
How the video games impact people, physically, psychologically and emotionally is an interesting topic, and often hyped by the media. Often it is the evils of video games that is portrayed; how they are makes kids anti-social, non relateable in the real world, giving us carpal tunnel, deformed thumbs, making kids blood thirsty or desensitised to violence… etc etc
My own research into the topic, aware from the stories under the media glare, revealed there is a host of literature out their boosting the positive effects of video games on the individual, such as development of hand eye cooridnation (e.g. Ballard, Hayhoe, Li & Whitehead, 1992; Averch, Landsittel & Rosenberg, 2005) and opportunities to facilitate learning (E.g. Gee, 2005; Graziano, Peterson & Shaw1999).
*** essay research update! I have decided on the topic of creative commons and copyright. Trawling through countless journal articles, websites & books to try to get a grips on the concept and reach of copy right. This does highlight why creative commons is a useful tool though because copyright is near impossible to understand!
Saturday, January 22, 2011
My video: Messages through non-traditional forms of communication
Messages through non-traditional means of communication from Amanda Marie on Vimeo.
Messages through non-traditional communication by Amanda is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
This is a video I created, using only my own material and material available on Flickr under a Creative Commons licence. All images taken from Flickr were given attribution throughout the video. It was designed as a narrative piece demonstrating unique messages through non-traditional means of communication. I hope that the views will reflect upon the way they express their messages and the forms of media and communication they use. This video is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commerical, ShareAlike license. I therefore invite people to reuse my video, edit or change it as you wish, as long as you do not use it for commercial purposes, and that you share it under the same terms I have.
Response to lecture 5
Response to lecture 5:
Open source software
Today's lecture introduced the concept of 'open source software', not only as a lecture topic but also a new realm of computer to this lay-person. Open source software, as described in the lecture, was born about from the ideal of collective good for the community, sharing intellectual capacities and programming skills among a community to create resources and share them among the community. Open source software, from a computer techy standard point differs from propriety software in a fundamental way, open source soft allows you access to the source code, so you, as a capable programmer could alter the program... Something that could send you to gaol if you attempted to do so to some propriety software such as windows. But how it differs from propriety software from a socialist perspective is what caught my attention. One of the fundamental defining qualities of open source software is that it can be copied and shared, meaning that you are welcomed to make a copy of your software, share it with a neighbor, or put it on the Internet, for others to benefit. Open source software (in my perspective) is creating a shift in society and the nature of software, a shift from profiteering to community.
My experience in open source software. As we were urged in the lecture I have downloaded GNU/Linux and currently using it as my operating system on my computer. So far I am impressed with the software, it is easy to use and follows a similar format and function to the big name operating system. In the spirit of open source software, although I can't make a contribution to the software itself, I am making an effort to contribute to community by spreading the word. I have introduced the concept of open sourced software and assisted a few family and friends to download GNU/Linux and/or Mozilla firefox. In hopes that my contribution to the free software movement will be to extend the community and maybe make computing a little better for some.
Open source software
Today's lecture introduced the concept of 'open source software', not only as a lecture topic but also a new realm of computer to this lay-person. Open source software, as described in the lecture, was born about from the ideal of collective good for the community, sharing intellectual capacities and programming skills among a community to create resources and share them among the community. Open source software, from a computer techy standard point differs from propriety software in a fundamental way, open source soft allows you access to the source code, so you, as a capable programmer could alter the program... Something that could send you to gaol if you attempted to do so to some propriety software such as windows. But how it differs from propriety software from a socialist perspective is what caught my attention. One of the fundamental defining qualities of open source software is that it can be copied and shared, meaning that you are welcomed to make a copy of your software, share it with a neighbor, or put it on the Internet, for others to benefit. Open source software (in my perspective) is creating a shift in society and the nature of software, a shift from profiteering to community.
My experience in open source software. As we were urged in the lecture I have downloaded GNU/Linux and currently using it as my operating system on my computer. So far I am impressed with the software, it is easy to use and follows a similar format and function to the big name operating system. In the spirit of open source software, although I can't make a contribution to the software itself, I am making an effort to contribute to community by spreading the word. I have introduced the concept of open sourced software and assisted a few family and friends to download GNU/Linux and/or Mozilla firefox. In hopes that my contribution to the free software movement will be to extend the community and maybe make computing a little better for some.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tutorial task 4
Xanga: terms of use
In researching Xanga terms of service, (a blog site I use frequently, but of course have never actually taken the time to read this document previosuly, nor have I had the slightest thought as to whether I am abidding by these terms of use or whether Xanga itself is meeting their side of the agreement), I found it interesting, in outlining the rules for conduct and content that this is simply a list of unacceptable behaviour, rather then what is acceptable. It appears that how exactly they would like their Xanga community to behave is somewhat undefined (in reading this i was reminded of the infamous definition of child pornography- 'I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it').
According to xangas terms of use you may NOT:
-misrepresent yourself
-post material that is offensive, hateful or invades someone else privacy
-post anything that promotes or instructs anything illegal or harmful
-break the law of your present region
-upload viruses
-stalk people
etc etc
In regards to posting anything that promotes or instructs anything that may be illegal or harmful; the online community of Xanga features many niche clique communities around the themes of self harm, suicide, eating disorders and drug use. Many post feature inappropriate content, instructions in these various themes, or graphical pictorial representations of these themes. Xanga's terms of use later go on to explain that they do not monitor, nor are they responsible for the content posted on their website. But if Xanga is not responsible then who is? Many profiles featuring this sort of content are private, hence can only been seen by the users xanga friends and not the general public.
these two however seems important:
upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements);
upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights (“Rights”) of any party;
So you cannot post anything you do not own yourself. However xanga themselves later state that the site does not in anyway monitor content posted on their site, nor are they responsible for this content.
In terms of your rights, privacy and ownship of the content you create and publish to Xanga, the terms of use state:
CONTENT SUBMITTED TO XANGA.COM
(This section refers to Content that you create)
You retain all ownership rights to your Content. Except for its ownership of the collection of all content on Xanga, as described below, Xanga does not claim ownership of any Content you publish in your area of the Website (“Your Xanga Site”).
When you publish your Content on Xanga, you grant Xanga a temporary license to “rebroadcast” it. We need this license to be able to show your Content to other members and visitors. For more information about this temporary license, check out our Copyright FAQ.
By publishing Content on Your Xanga Site you grant Xanga a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, distribute, transmit, publicly perform and publicly display the Content (as well as permit others - including without limitation Xanga’s co-brand, content and syndication partners - to do the same) solely for the following purposes:
According to the terms of service; anything you create and post on Xanga, you own... however you give Xanga the right to re-broadcast your material, however they wish, and to be used by any of the other sites/companies own by xanga.
As Xanga features a disclosure that they reserve the right to 're-broadcast' your material, this lends support to the theory that while they may not monitor all the content on their website, they must be at least aware of all of the inappropriate content.
In researching Xanga terms of service, (a blog site I use frequently, but of course have never actually taken the time to read this document previosuly, nor have I had the slightest thought as to whether I am abidding by these terms of use or whether Xanga itself is meeting their side of the agreement), I found it interesting, in outlining the rules for conduct and content that this is simply a list of unacceptable behaviour, rather then what is acceptable. It appears that how exactly they would like their Xanga community to behave is somewhat undefined (in reading this i was reminded of the infamous definition of child pornography- 'I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it').
According to xangas terms of use you may NOT:
-misrepresent yourself
-post material that is offensive, hateful or invades someone else privacy
-post anything that promotes or instructs anything illegal or harmful
-break the law of your present region
-upload viruses
-stalk people
etc etc
In regards to posting anything that promotes or instructs anything that may be illegal or harmful; the online community of Xanga features many niche clique communities around the themes of self harm, suicide, eating disorders and drug use. Many post feature inappropriate content, instructions in these various themes, or graphical pictorial representations of these themes. Xanga's terms of use later go on to explain that they do not monitor, nor are they responsible for the content posted on their website. But if Xanga is not responsible then who is? Many profiles featuring this sort of content are private, hence can only been seen by the users xanga friends and not the general public.
these two however seems important:
So you cannot post anything you do not own yourself. However xanga themselves later state that the site does not in anyway monitor content posted on their site, nor are they responsible for this content.
In terms of your rights, privacy and ownship of the content you create and publish to Xanga, the terms of use state:
CONTENT SUBMITTED TO XANGA.COM
(This section refers to Content that you create)
You retain all ownership rights to your Content. Except for its ownership of the collection of all content on Xanga, as described below, Xanga does not claim ownership of any Content you publish in your area of the Website (“Your Xanga Site”).
When you publish your Content on Xanga, you grant Xanga a temporary license to “rebroadcast” it. We need this license to be able to show your Content to other members and visitors. For more information about this temporary license, check out our Copyright FAQ.
By publishing Content on Your Xanga Site you grant Xanga a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, distribute, transmit, publicly perform and publicly display the Content (as well as permit others - including without limitation Xanga’s co-brand, content and syndication partners - to do the same) solely for the following purposes:
- Displaying, distributing and promoting Your Xanga Site
- Promoting and marketing Xanga’s products and services and general operation of the Xanga Service
- Promoting and marketing the products and services of Xanga’s partners and affiliates
- Promoting and marketing products and services related to your Content.
According to the terms of service; anything you create and post on Xanga, you own... however you give Xanga the right to re-broadcast your material, however they wish, and to be used by any of the other sites/companies own by xanga.
As Xanga features a disclosure that they reserve the right to 're-broadcast' your material, this lends support to the theory that while they may not monitor all the content on their website, they must be at least aware of all of the inappropriate content.
Response to lecture 4
Response to lecture 4: privacy on the Internet
"Facebook is a conditioning system to teach us to under value your privacy"- this was an eye opening quote from the video in today's lecture. I think the Internet as a whole conditions society to under value your privacy. As Internet users in the web 2.0 age, the read-write age, a shift has occurred from simply being consumers of the Internet, to being producers and contributors of the Internet. But under what pretence of ownership or privacy do we place this information on the Internet. As a (somewhat) informed Internet user, I believe that I have duped into believing that I am protecting my privacy on the Internet. When it comes to the use of social networking sites, where there has been public concern, and media attention given to issues of privacy, I personally in no way delude myself into believing that the information I freely place on these sites is private. Although I make my personal fb profile private, the I understand that the information I put on my profile is seen and can be used by everyone I choose to share it with, and the owners of facebook, and everyone facebook chooses to sell this info to. I therefore take it with a grain of salt, if I wouldn't want the world to see it I do not post it on the Internet. But what about the information that you don't post on the Internet? It had never occured to me, that every google search I have ever done is attached to my google account, that every msn conversation I have ever had is stored and property of the company supplying me with this technology. Although we as consumers of the Internet appear to be at least aware of privacy issues regarding social networking and the content we publish on the Internet, there appears to be a vail of false anonymity regarding our general use of the Internet. When our ISP, and the platforms we search the web on (e.g. Google) track our every mouse click, what implications does this have to our offline lives?. While google may only use my search history for 'marketing' purposes at present, what is to stop them from freely publishing this information, or selling it when google hits hard financial times. Moreover on this topic, if everyone thing we have ever searched for or viewed on the Internet is monitored and recorded, is this simply the price we pay for access to this technology, or is this beginning to mirror social control. Do we as willing consumers not deserve privacy? How far are we from the 'big brother' type monitoring of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and if we are, how do we reserve this and regain our privacy? But as with John the Savage, I do so "like the inconveniences" (1932, Huxley).
"Facebook is a conditioning system to teach us to under value your privacy"- this was an eye opening quote from the video in today's lecture. I think the Internet as a whole conditions society to under value your privacy. As Internet users in the web 2.0 age, the read-write age, a shift has occurred from simply being consumers of the Internet, to being producers and contributors of the Internet. But under what pretence of ownership or privacy do we place this information on the Internet. As a (somewhat) informed Internet user, I believe that I have duped into believing that I am protecting my privacy on the Internet. When it comes to the use of social networking sites, where there has been public concern, and media attention given to issues of privacy, I personally in no way delude myself into believing that the information I freely place on these sites is private. Although I make my personal fb profile private, the I understand that the information I put on my profile is seen and can be used by everyone I choose to share it with, and the owners of facebook, and everyone facebook chooses to sell this info to. I therefore take it with a grain of salt, if I wouldn't want the world to see it I do not post it on the Internet. But what about the information that you don't post on the Internet? It had never occured to me, that every google search I have ever done is attached to my google account, that every msn conversation I have ever had is stored and property of the company supplying me with this technology. Although we as consumers of the Internet appear to be at least aware of privacy issues regarding social networking and the content we publish on the Internet, there appears to be a vail of false anonymity regarding our general use of the Internet. When our ISP, and the platforms we search the web on (e.g. Google) track our every mouse click, what implications does this have to our offline lives?. While google may only use my search history for 'marketing' purposes at present, what is to stop them from freely publishing this information, or selling it when google hits hard financial times. Moreover on this topic, if everyone thing we have ever searched for or viewed on the Internet is monitored and recorded, is this simply the price we pay for access to this technology, or is this beginning to mirror social control. Do we as willing consumers not deserve privacy? How far are we from the 'big brother' type monitoring of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and if we are, how do we reserve this and regain our privacy? But as with John the Savage, I do so "like the inconveniences" (1932, Huxley).
Response to lecture 3
Blog for day 3:
In today's lecture, the question was posed that if there is 'social media' is there also anti-social media? As a psych student, I find it difficult to switch off my inner social analyst and hence found this question particularly of interest. I do not believe that there is anti social media. As with Adams kōan about the term 'social media', as media is social by definition and hence this buzz word is comparable to explain this phenonmia as social-social technology. Because media is social by nature it cannot be anti-social. But aside from the lexical problems with the concept of anti-social media, it doesn't exist in a real sense as well (rather then just a literary one). Social media, people interacting through the use of Internet technologies is big business. Social networking sites, such as facebook (which will be the focus here) are profiteering business ventures, aimed not at connecting people, but rather exposing as many people as possible to there sponsored advertisement, and lining their pockets- creating online social networks is merely the medium to expose their 'consumers' to their 'product'. But this is done in a very specific and interesting way (from a social research perspective). Facebook and other social networking sites tap into peoples innate psychology need to belong. The whole structure of facebook is to accept other uses as 'friends' in your virtual world, these users are not termed 'other Internet users that I possibly know in the real world and wish to take some web-based interaction with' they are termed friends for a specific reasons. The premises of facebook is to interact with 'friends', comment on their status updates, poke them, write on their walls, tag them in photos, and more importantly receive this social interaction in return. Facebook terms such as friend, and accept (as when another user confirms you as there friend) are all designed to feed the users psychological dependence to belong, to feel a sense of acceptance by peers and engage in positive social interaction. The more pleasurable the experience is, e.g. The more friends a person has to interact with, the more the person seeks to use the service, and hence the more opportunities facebook is presented with to expose you to their products or put simply show you their sponsored ads. Therefore a social network that allowed for anti social behaviour would be counterproductive getting consumers in by fostering their need to belong. Furthermore, parody sites, such as those mentioned in the lecture, connecting like minded anti-establishment dishearten facebook users... Isn't any commonality driven social interaction on the Internet social networking? Food for thought at least.
In today's lecture, the question was posed that if there is 'social media' is there also anti-social media? As a psych student, I find it difficult to switch off my inner social analyst and hence found this question particularly of interest. I do not believe that there is anti social media. As with Adams kōan about the term 'social media', as media is social by definition and hence this buzz word is comparable to explain this phenonmia as social-social technology. Because media is social by nature it cannot be anti-social. But aside from the lexical problems with the concept of anti-social media, it doesn't exist in a real sense as well (rather then just a literary one). Social media, people interacting through the use of Internet technologies is big business. Social networking sites, such as facebook (which will be the focus here) are profiteering business ventures, aimed not at connecting people, but rather exposing as many people as possible to there sponsored advertisement, and lining their pockets- creating online social networks is merely the medium to expose their 'consumers' to their 'product'. But this is done in a very specific and interesting way (from a social research perspective). Facebook and other social networking sites tap into peoples innate psychology need to belong. The whole structure of facebook is to accept other uses as 'friends' in your virtual world, these users are not termed 'other Internet users that I possibly know in the real world and wish to take some web-based interaction with' they are termed friends for a specific reasons. The premises of facebook is to interact with 'friends', comment on their status updates, poke them, write on their walls, tag them in photos, and more importantly receive this social interaction in return. Facebook terms such as friend, and accept (as when another user confirms you as there friend) are all designed to feed the users psychological dependence to belong, to feel a sense of acceptance by peers and engage in positive social interaction. The more pleasurable the experience is, e.g. The more friends a person has to interact with, the more the person seeks to use the service, and hence the more opportunities facebook is presented with to expose you to their products or put simply show you their sponsored ads. Therefore a social network that allowed for anti social behaviour would be counterproductive getting consumers in by fostering their need to belong. Furthermore, parody sites, such as those mentioned in the lecture, connecting like minded anti-establishment dishearten facebook users... Isn't any commonality driven social interaction on the Internet social networking? Food for thought at least.
Response to lecture 2
Response to lecture 2
Today's lecture discussed a brief history of the computer and of the Internet. As a amateur social scientist, (or just your average bachelor of psychology student), the part I found intriguing about this account of history was the social and cultural context that dictated the creation of the computer and of the Internet. For example, the works of Lady Byron in her creation of the punchcard system could be seen as the forerunning for computer programming, but because of her gender, her work was not acknowledged as her own. One can't help but wonder the advancements that could have been possible if her work and abilities were fostered instead or ignored. Another example of a great mind to fall victim of their social climate was Alan Turing. Turing worked on a team during world war 2, to create the first 'computer' which was used to decode messages from the German military, and later went on to introduce the world to the concept of artificial intelligence. Despite his contribute to society, and (at least acknowledged retrospectively) his contribution to the creation of the computer, Turing was persecuted for his lifestyle chooses, as a homosexual in a historical period of blatant homophobia, Turing went on to commit suicide. The work of Turing also highlights another historically relevant contribution, that of the military. The influence of the military can also be seen in the creation of the Internet, in the form of monetary backing. To an extent, the military is responsible for shaping the direction of both the creation of the computer and of the Internet.
Today's lecture discussed a brief history of the computer and of the Internet. As a amateur social scientist, (or just your average bachelor of psychology student), the part I found intriguing about this account of history was the social and cultural context that dictated the creation of the computer and of the Internet. For example, the works of Lady Byron in her creation of the punchcard system could be seen as the forerunning for computer programming, but because of her gender, her work was not acknowledged as her own. One can't help but wonder the advancements that could have been possible if her work and abilities were fostered instead or ignored. Another example of a great mind to fall victim of their social climate was Alan Turing. Turing worked on a team during world war 2, to create the first 'computer' which was used to decode messages from the German military, and later went on to introduce the world to the concept of artificial intelligence. Despite his contribute to society, and (at least acknowledged retrospectively) his contribution to the creation of the computer, Turing was persecuted for his lifestyle chooses, as a homosexual in a historical period of blatant homophobia, Turing went on to commit suicide. The work of Turing also highlights another historically relevant contribution, that of the military. The influence of the military can also be seen in the creation of the Internet, in the form of monetary backing. To an extent, the military is responsible for shaping the direction of both the creation of the computer and of the Internet.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Open Source movement vs free software
The fundamental differences between the open source movement and free software, explained from a conceptual standpoint. This is an interesting account that explains the differences in terms a lay person can understand, applies examples to the theoretical explanation.
Social media's merit in modern media era
I posted this video because I found it interesting the use of social media to report on world issues of the main stream media. As technology expands our reach of the global and our interconnectivity, i believe social media with its instant updates will be the media outlet of the future.
You need to get off facebook :)
I posted this video as it gives an interesting perspective on societies over reliance on social networking. Social network sites such as facebook have become, to some extent, a tool of social pervasion rather than social networking. It is thought provoking, given my current context of studying 'New Communication Technologies' to think about some of the negatives of social media.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
intro post
Intro post for New Communication Tech. In our introduction it was suggested that we share our first experience of the Internet. As a 22 year old in the, so called 'technology age', I fail to recall even an early experience of using a computer, as one may fail to recall an early experience of feeding ones self, as this behaviour as become so ingrained in not only my behaviour, but in society and life as a whole. My failure to recall an early experience may attest more the functionally of the Internet and societies reliance on modern technology then any recollection of computer use would... Or possibly just an indication of early onset Alzheimers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)