Blog #8: From Monkies to Macintoshes? A Process of Co-evolution.

Hey readers. Today I'm going to talk about evolution. Well.... the evolution of technology, that is. And how it relates to the evolution of us.

Chapter 12 of Siapera's book Understanding New Media mentions the views of Bernard Stiegler, who believes  that "Technology neither determines humanity nor is determined by it: instead it is understood as emerging alongside the rise of humanity, as an inextricable part of it" (Siapera, 2012) . 

Regarding all the topics we have discussed in our Social Media and Governance course, such as online gaming and social networking platforms, I see the possibility for impacts on humanity. Possibly not deterministic, but  I do tend to agree with the statement that technology is an 'inextricable' part of humanity. Today, socializing can be an activity that takes place completely online, through instant messaging, email, microblogging, etc. On average, youth tend to spend over 7 hours per day on some type of technical device. The issue with this is that, spending so much time on a laptop or a smartphone takes up time in the real world for interactions. However, doing all your socializing online allows people to keep 'in touch' with more people in their lives, with less transactional costs. It is in this sense that technology and humanity co-exist, and both affect each other.  

One article I read from the New York Times discusses socializing online and the possibility of it affecting younger generations' abilities to socialize in the real world (the article can be found at: New York Times).   this takes a different stance from Stiegler by assuming that advancements in technology are having negative impacts on the social skills of youth users. The article argues that because they are spending so much time on these platforms, students do not spend enough time talking to one another in traditional ways, such as on the phone, or in person; this lack of face-to-face interaction leads to social deprivation in some sense. 

However, I tend to agree more with Stiegler, and disagree with the view of this news article. This may be starting to turn into a more psychology-oriented debate, but I think that if a user of social websites is displaying symptoms of social anxiety, this is not because of their patterns of technology use, but rather, because of their own personal issues with social interactions, which would exist for them whether or not they used new social media to make their interactions. If anything, these people with less social skills may find it easier to communicate online. I suppose that by making this argument, I am taking the instrumentalist viewpoint, in which technology is simply a tool, completely neutral.
One study even suggests that teenagers who play videogames are actually improving their social skills by playing games online and through game systems. (The article can be found at:optimistworld.com). 

This is perhaps the opposite result from what one may expect, but surveys used in this study showed that over 70 percent of gamers played with others in their age group at least some of the time, if not in the same room (such as multiplayer games on a gameconsole). In this example, technology is a tool for entertainment, and teenagers are also using it as a social tool, having conversations and even get-togethers to play a game, share tips, etc. 
Back to the social platform example,people could communicate over facebook, for example, with their friend who is studying abroad (as I often communicate with my friends back in the U.S. since I am studying abroad now). In the days before computers and internet, a post card would be the equivalent of this. In the video games example, people are forming social bonds over playing multiplayer games on a computer or gaming system, rather than playing games outside of the digital environment. 

So, in my opinion, it seems that technology and humanity really are co-existing and co-evolving, rather than one causing direct changes to the other. As technological capabilities increase, people's ways of using them increase; regular, 'natural' human behaviors are repeated as humanity evolves, but ( continuously evolving) technology is aiding them.

Blog #7: Twitter and Politics

Dear Readers,

I am not a big fan of Twitter. The social network’s purpose is for users to be able to answer the question “what are you doing”? This is what the intent of creators was, and this is what it is used for.

So, people are using Twitter as a mode of self-promotion, and yet their similar interests as expressed in their ‘Tweets’ align them. Cool. My argument against using Twitter was the fact that I thought it would bring on the burden of people “tweeting” that they are eating a ham sandwich. I get enough of that on Facebook…  (note that I have continued to boycott using Twitter. I made an account and have not logged on since the day I created it).

However, reading about members of parliament (MPs) in the UK who have begun using Twitter as a means of updating the public about their political lives intrigued me, because although it could still be this same self-promotion that bothers me when it is done by ordinary people (i.e. guy eating the ham sandwich), I think self-promotion in the political arena is a great idea. Not only does it give potential voters a closer look at the candidates, but also, it allows these political figures to have even more power over their own image. That is, however, until mistakes are made… one example from the UK is the mistaken Tweet made by Britain’s secretary of state, Chris Huhne, in 2011: “From someone else fine,” it said. “But I do not want my fingerprints on the story C.” Although no one was sure what the message meant at first, it was obvious that it was intended to be private, and the rumor mill began in full force. This is a prime example of just how dangerous the personal usage of twitter by less tech-savvy politicians can have negative consequences as well.

For the one day that I used my Twitter account, I followed Obama’s page, and realized his page is not truly updated by him, but instead by his constituents. I was a little disappointed. But to be fair, he is a busy man. And having such a strong presence in new social media must involve a lot of upkeep. Today in my social media and governance class, the professor showed us a video that I thought was a great way to ‘showcase’ Obama’s successful presence on new media platforms, and I could not resist the temptation to post it (The link can be found below). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO5T1beyRA0

This video shows many social media platforms used by the Obama administration, and Twitter is included in these. Micro-blogging can be a great way to build identity and positively influence a politician’s self-presentation. But seeing examples of user error, such as that of Britain’s secretary of state Chris Huhne, shows the possibility of harm to a politician’s reputation. The social media footage shown in the above video was put together by the Obama administration, not Obama himself. This being said, it is probably smarter that politicians, especially those with such important positions such as Barack Obama, stay away from personal Twitter account posts, etc in order to avoid potentially damaging user errors. Or, if they are politicians with slightly less sway than Obama (i.e. the members of parliament) then perhaps they should have a little crash-course on using these platforms.

Post #6: Ludologic View of Videogames, Ergo Ergodicity?

Dear Reader,

After seeing the title of this entry, you are probably a little confused. That is, unless you have read Chapter 11 of Eugenia Siapera’s book Understanding New Media, as I just have. This chapter has made me aware of the debate currently going on in the gaming world, known as the ludology vs. narratology debate. The ludology side of this debate addresses the fact that, unlike other forms of media such as novels and films, video games cannot be analyzed simply for their narrative; they must be studied in terms of their ‘ergodicity’ as well. ‘Ergodicity’ refers to the work put in by the players of the game, such as following the rules of the game, collaborating with other players, etc. As a young adult who was raised without many videogames, these debates are something I have never thought about before. I always assumed that violent games consisted of a bunch of mindless violence. But now, I am starting to see why the violent videogames debate is not so black and white.

Screenshot of original Wolfenstein-3D game I played,
courtesy of : examiner.com

 When I was little, my brother got a PC for his bar mitzvah, along with some extra money for games. One of the games he purchased was called Wolfenstein-3D. This game was a first-person shooter (FPS) game, in which the main character was a soldier, trying to kill enemies (Nazi soldiers and their bosses) in the World War II castle-lair of Wolfenstein. 

I don’t remember very much of this game, but I do remember just how much fun I had playing it when my brother left his old PC and went to college. That is, until my parents saw me and consequently forbade me from playing this game. I assumed that most violent games were like this FPS game: shoot people before they shoot you, and getting rewarded for it. However, now there are games such as World of Warcraft (WoW), which are must more complex in narrative, and strategy. It is online, meaning that the setting can be player-versus-player (PvP), and also players can team up to reach more difficult goals together (Wikipedia, 2013). I think the game is about conquering lands and defeating mystical creatures such as dragons. To be honest though, I have no interest in the content, and only went as far as Wikipedia for a summary. However, after comparing the evolution of videogames (from Wolfenstein-3D, to WoW), I can see how the ludology vs. narratology debate could arise. While WoW has violence in the game, it still has the potential to promote teamwork and strategizing, while also creating an entertaining challenge for gamers (the ludology perspective). While Wolfenstein-3D is a horror game based upon killing, it is a game of good vs. evil; the main character is only shooting Nazi war-lords (the narrative perspective, and perhaps the ludologic as well, because you can only shoot bad people by the rules).

Remember the Virginia Tech shooting a few years ago? A troubled student of the technology university came to school armed and killed 32 people on campus. Within weeks, an anti-video game activist, Jack Thompson, blamed Bill Gates and the promotion of his game Counterstrike, for the occurrence and promotion of violence in general. I remembered reading about this case in an opinion article on Yahoo! and agreeing that it was a little far-fetched. (Here is the link to the article in case you are curious: http://voices.yahoo.com/anti-gaming-activist-jack-thompson-blames-bill-gates-308979.html?cat=3). 

   Now, looking at it from the scholastic perspective, I see just how narrow-minded Thompson’s argument really is. A university-aged student who murders that many innocent people, and then commits suicide, obviously has his own personal problems, and one incident such as this is not enough to pin the blame on a videogame, nonetheless, a videogame producer! Although Thompson’s argument may look good on paper to some, there are many other aspects to take into account, such as the rules of the game, the setting, and the game-playing culture in general. These are all things I failed to take into account, before having read Siapera’s chapter on gaming. Now that I have, I see that violent videogames are punished too harshly; to simply dismiss them as games of mindless killing would be a narrow-minded stance. 

Post #5: My Understanding of the Digital Divide and Society-Driven Barriers

It is interesting to note just how social/economic inequalities translate to inequalities in all other areas of life. Chapter 4 of Vincent Miller’s book Understanding Digital Culture points out just how prevalent this digital divide truly is, and quoting another researcher, we not that “…the digital divide is a social and political problem, and not merely a technological one” (Van Dijk, 2005).

Image credit: iStockphoto 

 It is hard to disagree with this simple conclusion; whether we like it or not, our society is capitalist, and inequalities are unavoidable. Van Dijk also provides us with four potential barriers to ICT access, three of which result from these inequalities.  These four barriers include: motivational access, material access, skills (or the ability to use ICTs), and usage access. If we lived in a Utopian society without hierarchies however, a digital divide would probably be a matter of personal preference, rather than a matter of lack of means. In other words, people may live without internet access not because of availability issues, but merely because they choose not to.  

When I was a child, I used to wish that I could turn into a sparrow and go live in the forest, free of all of my chores and rules. Today, sitting in the library doing my course work, I sometimes am tempted by the same dream: “Ahh, a day without homework, internet research, and online deadlines!” However, I realize that we live in a society that demands ICTs. Either you have it, or you do not. If you do not have it, chances are you want it. Even if we lived in this fluffy, non-competitive ‘utopia’, once ICTs have been introduced, everyone will probably want them just as much as now. Perhaps the desire of all things digital will be rooted in different reasons, but it would still be there. 

Yeah sure, there might be a group of people who have that day dream of mine 100 percent of the time, and willingly choose to live a life free of ICTs, and even other basic comforts. In fact, one of my own family members was like this. She joined a travelling group of festival goers, mainly those involved in the counter-culture Rainbow Gatherings, who became camping nomads in the off-seasons. From what she told me, their lifestyle seemed to be a hobby for them. Living was non-competitive, and people obtained what they needed through a trading and barter system. However, even my own relative decided that it was time to call it quits, go back to school, and buy a computer. She recently got a smart phone, and learned to use the texting application Whatsapp so that we can keep in touch while I’m abroad. I had to teach this relative how to use Whatsapp, I still she sometimes asks me questions that I would otherwise assume to be obvious. But she has overcome most of her effective access barriers (regarding her motivation and skill with ICT usage), and I am proud of her. 

Now, I am not saying that all people who choose this type of lifestyle will one day decide that they want ICTs. But I am saying that even without a capitalist society, the strong desire for ICTs will continue to exist. The only difference is that those who are without want to be without, and have made the educated choice to be so. Here the only ‘barrier to access’ present in this utopian world would be ‘motivational access’, as all other barriers would disappear.  

Post #4: Fishing for Love and Friendship in an Online Ocean

Image found on Flixter.com

Hey readers. Have any of you ever seen Napoleon Dynamite? In this indie/off-beat comedy, the brother of main character and pseudo-protagonsit Napoleon, Kip, is involved in an online relationship. A short, nerdy white guy, viewers could safely assume that he was altering his appearance to please his online 'girlfriend'. when they finally meet, the girl friend is a larger, african american woman who, after an online relationship, winds up influencing him in offline life (as seen in the meme above, where is he sporting a 'do-rag'). this example of course is extremely cliche and full of social stereotypes, which is part of the overall hilarity. however, this type of situation really does exist!! Kip is what many may call a 'catfish'. For my un-knowing readers, a 'catfish' is a person who creates one or more online personalities with traits in order to make others become infatuated/fall in love with them. These 'catfish' can maintain virtual relationships, sometimes for years, without ever meeting this person so as to keep an unexpecting victim in love with a person who does not exist. This term has become much more well-known since the airing of a show in fall 2012 on MTVcalled 'Catfish'. The show aims to help someone in an online relationship see if their virtual lover is real, or a 'catfish'. Of course, I am only mentioning this to bring context to the term, not to support the viewing of MTv dramas (you don't want to get me started ranting on them). 
Anyway. Reading Carter's article on the study of social media, and how she has gathered research through story-telling inspires me to think more about relationships that are sparked on line, and how they are altered/different than those that may occur offline. the first the i think of is: would i be more likely to talk to someone online that i would not otherwise have any contact with? this goes back to my cliche, goofy Napoleon Dynamite example; the brother comes from back-woods small town and has a pet llama. his girl friend is from the other side of the country, and took a greyhound bus to meet him. would they otherwise have met ortalked to each other in real life? probably not. passing by each other on the street would not offer the opportunity for the same kind of boundless self-exposure as you have available on line. social contexts set social boundaries, while online relationships are freed from these boundaries. This observation of mine is a direct example reflecting Castell's opinion on this matter. He states that "ethnicity and race still exist in network society, but they do not longer have the power to provide strong identities" (2000 [1996]). This (fictional, but semi-accurate) example shows that what Castell has observed is true. 
A real life example is also fairly easy to find. For example, a quick search online has led me to a fairly charming example of a couple who found each other online, and wound up getting married. The husband had chosen the internet as a way to meet people, as he was confined to a wheelchair and was tired of the shallow offline world "...with many women only focused on appearance". http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/internet-dating-does-have-a-lot-of-things-going-fo/1753019/
So, here is an example from real-life, where a relationship that might otherwise not exist was started online; someone who was tired of the shallow external, offline world of dating was able to find a true kindred spirit online, no 'catfish'-like characteristics included. Reading about examples like this has begun to alter my attitude toward online relationships. I had a friend when I was thirteen who 'dated' a boy online for a year. He lived on the other side of the country, and they never met. I always thought it was a little odd, and still, I myself would never engage in one of these faceless, immaterial relationships, where my virtual boyfriend could actually be a 50-year old man living in his mother's basement! However, I do see the value in this ability to engage in relationships, without the pressures that exist in the offline world. It gives everyone with a computer and an internet connection the chance to find someone who they can relate to. This kind of social 'internet advantage' is one that I do not look down upon quite as much now. I only advise not to let yourself get lured in and 'hooked' by a 'catfish'

Post #3: Does Social Media Lead to Degradation of Social Movements’ Member Base?

Occupy Movement Poster, 'Occupy, Year Two'
Can be found at: http://www.nicholasmirzoeff.com/O2012/2012/08/

     Social media has allowed for the onset and quick spreading of many social movements such as the Arab Spring and Occupy Movements, all over the world. Both  of these uprisings became well-known through the internet, and social media has been a aid in organizing protests, as well as for sharing tips and experiences for planning better and more effective demonstrations. Social media also allowed for a stronger support group, connecting protesters internationally. A prime example would be in Julia Skinner’s article, ‘Social Media and Revolution’, where she mentions the protests taking place in Egypt in support of Occupy Oakland, after their campsite had been broken up by police.

     Skinner describes the social movement/social media phenomenon by looking at several different paradigms, and a few of these paradigms have helped me understand my own thoughts and feelings about the way social media has perhaps influenced movements like these in a negative way.

     

     The first mentioned is the physical paradigm, by which information is seen as a physical object, recorded in text, video, sound, etc. This view promotes research into the spread of information, and how it has perhaps been helped, or hindered by, social media and the internet search engines used to navigate through them.The cognitive paradigm, on the other hand, is fairly critical of the physical paradigm, taking the view that information is simply information and meaning brought to it is situational; the focus lies in how individuals appraise this information. The cognitive paradigm is very general, and is useful in understanding trends because it examines factors that may contribute to determining what is ‘trendy’.

     After reading this second paradigm, I started thinking of how my own experiences have proved that meaning of a social movement really does depend on experiences. One example I thought of yesterday. I was in class preparing to present on the PETA movement with a fellow classmate, and I noticed a box that said some of my Facebook friends ‘liked’ PETA (and so did one million other Facebook users), so I should, too. To me, this is ridiculous. First of all, two of the ‘friends’ who liked it I know are huge carnivores! Secondly, I know one of them from middle school, and I know for a fact that she doesn’t know much about where her food comes from or whether it is humanely raised. (One time, I was eating organic raisins and she asked me if organic = low fat… HAH! ) Anyway, these are two main platforms of the PETA movement, veganism, and humane treatment of animals.  So, why does this girl ‘like’ their page? It tends to make me think that perhaps the movement has merely become a fad in which people say they support an extreme cause they know little about, just to look well-rounded.

     Thus comes my point that the cognitive paradigm really is an important angle to look at these phenomenons. While I appreciate the informational aspect of it all, I think that taking these social movements online really changes their meaning for others, and possibly detracts from a strong member-base. What I mean by strong is, people who will actually do the dirty work, i.e. participate in protests, canvas, the whole nine yards.

     A third perspective Skinner mentions is social informatics, which I think really could help comfort my thoughts about social movements losing a serious member base. Hashtags and other such social media devices set information for movements like this up in easy  to find categories, and people who follow the online pages of movements can easily get the most up-to-date news by simply clicking on a link. While it bothers me that some people may say they support a cause just for show, the fact that social networks make news updates and background information so easily available to users allows for those who may not be so well-versed to easily read up on it. And who knows, that extra background may just be enough to turn the fair-weather supporters of a social movement into real, street level activists sitting in the camps of the next Occupy Wallstreet – type event. 

Post #2: Banter About Globalization (or all the things that went through my head after reading Castell’s article)

     The public sphere is the place where people come together as citizens, to articulate their autonomous views and perhaps even have an effect on society in this way (Castells, 2008).

     

     As defined by Manuel Castells in his article “The New Public Sphere”, globalization is the process that constitutes a social system with the capacity to work as a unit on a planetary scale in real or chosen time”. Incidentally, it is our modern communication technologies which aid in connecting people and making globalization an everyday phenomenon. Globalization is a part of this ‘public sphere’;  assuming that communication networks form a public sphere, this means that our digital era of internet networks and mass media can be included in this.

     

     Castells tries to argue within his article that there is, indeed a global civil society, which is inclusive of this public sphere. He then lists four types of actors of this global civil society. But I am not going to go into all of those, I’d rather just go into two: social movements, and public opinion. These two really interest me because I don’t know about you (yes YOU, whoever happens to be reading this), but whenever I hear the term ‘globalization’, I think of the fact that I’m in Europe, and where ever I go, there is at least one McDonald’s, Starbucks, Subway, or other American fast food enterprise a stone’s throw away. However, having the ability to buy some storefront in another country, on another continent, is not the only example of globalization. Before I continue, think, for a moment, of what comes to mind when you hear the term 'globalization'. 

     

     Social movements are a big contribution to a globalized society, and they are definitely more successful with the social networks we have today. Castell’s article actually mentions one group known as The Zapatistas, who formed a social movement that was opposed to the economic, cultural, and social effects of globalism; NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) was their main platform example. Though they may not have had all the social media resources of Youtube and Twitter at their disposal. obviously they were able to make a big enough impression that they are a relevant example in the world of academia. Then, there is public opinion which, by my perception, is along the same caliber as social movements; public opinion can be displayed through social movements, as well as on social network outlets such as Facebook, Youtube, a blog hosting website, etc. Although grassroots movements such as the Zapatistas’ still do form, and have the potential to greatly impact society, the social media we have today allows one person to express their opinions to hundreds, even thousands, of viewers, with just a laptop, or perhaps a webcam.  

    

      Of course, this is not to say that social movements cannot benefit from social media in the same way. One example is Courage Campaign, http://www.facebook.com/CourageCampaign an online grassroots network that works to push progressive change, and empower those who want to see it happen. Based out of California, this online network is powerful in that it links all social movements with similar interests together; this organization takes on multiple ‘progressive’ platforms, and thus makes whatever social movements it supports even stronger. Of course these issues are mainly based in the United States, but if nationwide organizations can do this, then why can’t international organizations? And in fact, they have. Last year there was the international Kony Campaign, with release of a canvassing video by Invisible Children, another non-profit organization, to promote the arrest of Joseph Kony, a war criminal, by the end of 2012. This campaign was big on my campus; there were posters everywhere, rallies, and viewings of the film. However, the first place I found out about this movement? Facebook.

     

     My point is, after reading Castell’s article, I really began to realize just how limitless people really are in regards to speaking their opinion, and forming alliances (and potential movements) with those people concerned with the same issues. Perhaps I would agree that globalization on the commercial level (i.e. that Dutch McDonald’s around the corner) is not such a great thing, but the fact that people all over the planet with an internet connection can express their opinion, and create a global community… that is indeed a great thing. 

Post #1: Keitzmann's Research Tools and Social Media

       According to the definition of Eugenia Siapera in her book Understanding New Media, new media are those modes which are constantly evolving; by this definition, social media modes such as blogs lay within the category of new media, as their creator and consumer popularity is continuing to rise.

     Blogs such as this can be analyzed through Keitzmann's social media concepts. In the article, Unpacking the Social Media Phenomenon: Towards a Social Agenda, Keitzmann uses a 7-part (or “honeycomb model”) to demonstrate different pathways for analysis of  social media phenomenon. For example, the identity block involves how much users of social media choose to expose and portray themselves. Getting back to the very example of blogs, I typed ‘popular political blogs’ into a search bar, and found some interesting results. One blog I came across was a center-leftist political blogger with a page called the Daily Howler (http://dailyhowler.blogspot.nl/).

       As you can see if you visit the link, the blogger provides little information at first about him (no age, no hometown, zodiac, etc). But as you read on, you can quickly gather where his interests lay, his attitude toward the subject matter, and even catch a glimpse of his political stance. Perhaps there is a degree of self-presentation in this blog, or fictitious representation. However, due to the political subject matter, this is unlikely.

       Another one of these analytical parts focuses on the group. Who follows this blogger, and why? As pointed out in Keitzmann’s article, the value of the social media increases, as the number of consumers increases; it seems that this blogger has a relatively high number of followers, so the value of his blog is increased. However, chances are that this group maintains similar ideological stances with the blogger, so perhaps this ‘howler’ is simply preaching to the choir. But is this a bad thing? It all depends on what kind of user-based relationship and reputation the blogger is going for.

       Jumping to another, perhaps more applicable example, we have the social media network, Facebook. Facebook originally started off as a network strictly for IV-league students and faculty; this was Facenbook’s identity. The users all had this main defining feature in common giving them a strong relationship. Keitzmann views relationships as referring to how well users relate to each other, leading to conversation, sharing and even possible ‘friendship’ . Of course this relatability is much more likely if all users share something in common, such as, in this case, their IV-league education. Thus, the users, and their relationship towards one another, as well as the platform of the network, all work together to form Facebook’s reputation. However, this reputation (which, according to Keitzmann, is built based on expectations from these past actions and patterns), was altered with the introduction of Facebook to the public. 

     This changing of Facebook's user base has made the types of relationships much more varied. People can create for themselves an identity using a multitude of variables. The presence, or availability of users is much stronger; Facebook has a chat window and icons to show whether people are on or offline, and the network even sends notifications to phones so people can continue their conversations on the go. Sure our ‘howler’ posts in his blog every day, but his presence does not have nearly the same level of immediacy as is provided via Facebook. So, Facebook is a much stronger social media tool than the blog, which cannot possibly be as wide-spread, and address as many groups of people. Most likely, the followers of the ‘howler’ have their own Facebook page to express all of the other interests they want to share.

As pointed out by a shaded in honeycomb model, despite its change of reputation, relationships are still perhaps the most important concept in understanding the Facebook phenomenon. 

       Today, every ‘Tom, Dick, or Mary’ could make a Facebook account, regardless of their scholarship, and relate to each other through ‘liking’ and conversing about movies, bands, political movements…the list goes on . It is social media phenomenon such as this that can inspire and evoke questions in the media researcher, and prompt the usage of one or more of  these seven analytic paths.