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.