In week one of the course, unsure about what indeed the module I had chosen was, I referred to the book Digital Cultures Understanding New Media, edited by Creeber and Martin.
I have to admit I found the first few pages incredibly baffling! Returning to the same introduction a few weeks down the line, however, perhaps some of the content is now less frightening!
In the introduction, it refers to the concept of Web 2.0 being distinct from Web 1.0 "in that its websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information; it includes a social element where users generate and distribute content, often with freedom to share and reuse."
The reasoning behind Web 2.0, Creeber and Martin argue, was based on business and the continuation of the Web. Following the "dot.com" crash, a brainstorming session explored the successes; they looked at companies that had weathered the crash, and discovered that participation was an element that many had in common.
Many sites have succeeded in this endeavour, perhaps YouTube being one of the most notable.
Exploring online communities, I revisted b3ta.com. Created in 2001 and described by Dave Green in 2003 as "puerile digital arts community", they are one example of participation. Sometimes hugely inappropriate, but there are moments of great humour, technical prowess and creativity.
Virtual Reality – a term that, to me, conjures up images of the 1992 movie Lawnmower Man, but couldn’t it be argued that the term has a far earlier reference?
The suspension of reality, the immersion of the stage, perhaps the theatre is the original example of virtual reality. People have always wanted a distraction from the real, but with reference to real life events. From the 1964 book Simulacron 3, to more modern explorations, such as the Matrix and Existenz fiction and film have explored the concepts of total immersion. Our fascination with virtual worlds has found a place in modern life as we explore and build avatars in games such as The Sims, Second Life etc.
What is the next step? Will we see a future where divisions between real life and the virtual will become blurred?
Interesting developments can be seen in the work of the French company, Total Immersion. Below is an example of "augmented" reality software - an opportunity to create real time, immersive elements into live shows and performances.
I have already referred previously on how digital cultures have transformed the way we identify the self. Social networking has had a wide impact on how we promote ourselves. As technological advancements are now so readily accepted, shouldn’t we worry about where they may be moving?
Dr J Storrs Hall questions the intentions of computers in his book Beyond AI. He explores both the ethical and moral implications programmers may face if/when machines advance beyond human intelligence, but is this just SciFi?
Our notion is that as a human, what sets us apart from machines is our ability to rationalise and think about the world around us. But what if computers start thinking independently - will they rationalise the world in the way we so choose?
“Will we ever need to give robots respect”? Well we are all just machines after all, Rodney Brooks discusses in the above lecture. He doesn’t believe we will create AI that is capable of taking over the world, but maybe we need to feel that for these advancements to take place.
Artificial Identity – perhaps we are all now prone to creating our own “artificial” self online – A.L.I.C.E. and other similar Chatbots may currently give themselves away, but who’s to say that in the future our “800 Friends” on Facebook will all be artificial….!
Narcissus is feeling reflective today Narcissus, by Michelangelo Caravaggio, ca. 1598.
“In the future, everyone will be … famous for 15 minutes” Warhol 1968
The age of "celebrity" bread reality television – now everyone can experience their “15 Minutes” (or seconds/hours/days) with the role of social networking.
A fellow student confidently reported that she had over 800 “friends” on Facebook – when quizzed, she did not refer to them as acquaintances, mates, colleagues, contacts – they were her “friends”! Perhaps I am being a little unfair – perhaps I am revealing my own narcissistic qualities given that my Facebook friend-list is in double figures, and I have no desire to increase the numbers.
It did make me think:
Does Social Networking Breed Narcissm?
At the San Diego State University, Associate Professor in Psychology Jean Twenge, believes that social networking has had a direct effect on a “generation’s identity”. Her investigation (in conjuction with YouPoll.com) questioned over a thousand University students aged between 18-23. Two thirds thought that their generation was more narcissistic and that social networking had played a part in this. Facebook was creating “not just confident but over-confident” people. She identified the positives of social networking but also the negative: “[the] potential downside is they do tend to focus on certain parts of people personalities”
Interestingly, the findings established “self-centred narcissists have more friends”. With 94% of students at the San Diego State University accessing Facebook, she posed the question: is “identity being shaped” by social networking.
Mike Elgan, writing for infoworld.com considers whether social networking may be “interfering with the natural process of growing up”. With the ability to “constantly maintain contacts with peers”, there is no need to broaden social skills; to relate to people of different ages, backgrounds etc? http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/does-mobile-and-social-technology-breed-narcissism-830
In Matt Hills Case Study: Social networking and self-identity (Digital Cultures, Understanding New Media 2009 p120), he considers whether image capture may be “culturally evolving” – creating “altered and increasingly ‘photographic’ conceptions of self image. "
The DualView camera can recognise up to 10 faces, lighting them in the best way etc. This technology surely stems from the military? Am I the only one who thinks that this is Big Brother disguised as Narcissism?
Vlogdriver questions whether there is really anything wrong with focussing "on yourself to the exclusion of others”.
“Sites like [Twitter/Facebook] could not exist if people didn’t care what people were doing”
Is this really justification or is Vlogdriver also part of this “Narcisissm epidemic”?
“Narcissists function well in the context of shallow relationships” – Buffardi and Campbell state in their paper: Narcissism and Social Networking Web Sites.
“Owners have complete control over self-presentation on Web pages, unlike most other social contexts.”
Selection of “attractive photographs” and “self descriptions that are self-promoting” are the norm of social networking and “viewers utilize page content to form impressions of owners’ personalities”
They conclude that “often the real draw is the ability to maintain large numbers of relationships”. This way of “interaction and self-presentation” has become the norm, and forms part of peoples’ daily lives
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/34/10/1303 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Narcissism and Social Networking Webt Sites July 3 2008 Laura E Buffardi and W Keith Campbell
If social networking were taken away tomorrow, I have to quote the Facebook Song: “I’d carry around a picture of my face and a summary of me typed out on a page”
Narcissistic V is going to seek out shiny surfaces that smile back!
Were there consequences to the concept of “Rheingold’s” Virtual Community?
It is well over 20 years since The WELL (Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link) was created, and Howard Rheingold coined the phrase the “Virtual Community”.
What was established in those early years of online community? What were the early users striving towards? What was their purpose in creating these forums?
Wild Parties!
Looking back at these often awkward IRL (In Real Life) meetings of the WELL community back in 1989, it is perhaps strange to think these, by their own admission, “introverted”, “intelligent misfits” would be responsible for the social networking phenomena!
Howard Rheingold, speaking in the above footage said: “The WELL is a place that you can drop in on while you’re sitting their on your computer, anytime.”
His draw, back in 1989, was the loneliness he associated with being a writer: “you find a lot of writers in bars”
Even back then, he succinctly described the WELL as “a big stream of information”, a “tremendous tool” and a “great place to hang out”!
One man interviewed in the above footage, saw the WELL as: “not doing what it is doing with any given purpose”
He did, however, note that: “One of the problems in the world is there are no more neighbourhoods in the city”
This “relatively small section of society” created the early Virtual Communities; their desire, to find people with a similar thirst for knowledge
Virtual Communities as Communities
Jump forward to the late 1990s - Wellman and Gulia’s fantastic paper: Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities As Communities.
The concerns of the internet being the “ultimate transformer” in destroying the old world view of community were examined. They identified that communities at the time were based more on “shared interests” than “shared social characteristics”.
Their challenge in writing this paper was the “limited evidence available” at the time. Wellman & Gulia state: “Unfortunately, there have been few detailed ethnographic studies of virtual communities, no surveys of who is connected to whom and about what, and no time-budget accounts of how many people spend what amount of hours virtually communing”
Historically, this paper was generated in 1997, prior to the explosion in social networking sites such as Friendster, MySpace and Facebook. Furnished with the information now available, is it possible that their concept of virtual community interaction would differ? Certainly Facebook appears to bring together people with “shared social characteristics”.
These questions have subsequently started to be explored; Matt Hartnell, writing on his blog entitled: Real Community is Enhanced with Technology states: “I would even suggest, as many have done before me, that community should build relationships and relationships should change lives. Social networking should ultimately lead to a real in-person uniting where people can actually meet each other.” http://blog.memberhub.com/real-community-is-enhanced-with-technology/
Dark Side / Consequence One of the consequences of virtual community, is the ability to find connections with people who “share” interests/thoughts/deviances etc. One recently high profile story reflects all these fears and concerns. Vanessa George, Angela Allen & Colin Blanchard met through a social networking site. Barbara Ellen, writing for The Observer: “the sheer ease of the internet has created new, less obvious kinds” of deviance. Perhaps, she concludes, they may not have actively abused if they had not found like minded people? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/04/vanessa-george-paedophiles-barbara-ellen
In my previous blog, “Power to the Digital Youth?”, I briefly posed the question: “is target marketing the biggest challenge to the youth movement?” This is indeed another consequence of Virtual Community – personal information is often available through social networking, and with so many applications merely a tick-box and a button click away, people do not often consider the potential consequences of freely providing details to the “community”. http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/facebook%20data%20protection%20row/1060467
Following on from this point, Micah, writing on his “Learn to Duck” blog says: “Suddenly, social networks and networking became solely focused on the ability to market oneself, and much like standard ‘real world’ social groups began to value participants based on their connections rather than the value brought to the group itself. ‘Followers’ and ‘Friends’ have become currency.” He does conclude, however that good: “Communities have one characteristic that cannot be manufactured: Trust.” http://learntoduck.com/socialmedia/death.community
Future Community / Positive Consequence? Mark H. Leichliter, asks: “Can Cyber Social Networks Help Rebuild Real Community?”. He looks at the opportunity to harness contacts on a global scale through education. A fantastic vision for the future: creating a new generation of Global Citizens through virtual community. http://globalization.suite101.com/article.cfm/new_age_globalization
Perhaps some communities are gradually dying out too? Second Life’s popularity is dwindling – does the community aspect make or break technological trends? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8367957.stm
I conclude with the wise words of “future” Rheingold:
“We need to live in community”, but there is “a certain magic that happens with people, physically, together”
This week, we were set the task of answering a question proposed by another group. Their question:
“If media technology develops and changes overtime, does that mean we as human beings are also a form of technology as we change and develop overtime?”
Admittedly, this question puzzled me; we have now spent a number of weeks discussing a variety of subject areas in our Digital Cultures module. On a number of occasions our lecturer, Dr Gavin Stewart, has advised us to be weary of using words such as “Media” and “Technology” – the very title of the module was chosen to avoid any confusion!
I looked at the dictionary definition of these two words as a starting block:
Media Technology: A generic term that refers to various topics because the term "media" is generic. (!) Technology: the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment Media: a method or way of expressing something
We had already spent time discussing “what is technology?” – investigating it’s routes, I looked at the dictionary definition and started to explore this idea.
Isaac Asimov, author and biochemistry professor, wrote in an essay (available in “The March of Millennia” 1991) that he: “,,,related the evolution of civilization to the development of technology, beginning with the discovery of fire by early hominids. His premise was that it was this crucial technological breakthrough that first distinguished our ancestors from other primates and gave them their evolutionary advantage. As with all subsequent technology, fire made greater demands on primitive communication skills as well as expanding opportunities for their practice. It also increased the food supply of the upright animals who mastered it and made it possible for their range and numbers to increase. As Asimov explained it, from then on natural selection would have ensured that humans developed the intelligence to become master tool designers and this, in turn, led inevitably to a new and faster kind of change: the evolution of culture.” http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+legacy+of+Isaac+Asimov.+(science+fiction+author)+(Cover+Story)-a013566105
Technological advancements have helped the human race evolve over thousands of years – but have we “changed and developed”? Changed? Yes! Developed? This, to me, is the interesting part of the question.
Has technology actually allowed the human race to stop developing: “… those who look at things in an evolutionary context say modern technological changes are not likely to affect significantly the human species because while technology might change human behaviour -- the way we think or other aspects of our humanity - it also can supply solutions that prevent our genes from dealing with our problems.
“John Hawks, a professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin, explained evolution is all about natural selection and genes, and humans have evolved because superior genes led to the procreation and survival of those with the most robust genetic makeup.” http://blog.nj.com/digitallife/2008/04/technology_revolution_or_evolu.html
So we as a species have advanced to such a level that we can stop the development of our race?
In a paper entitled: Evolution, Diet and Health, the writers identify some fascinating links between technological advancements and human “devolution”:
“…food procurement is inextricably linked to energy expenditure, a relationship which establishes a range of body composition appropriate for any given species. The ratio of fat to muscle generally varies with season, but typically within fairly narrow limits; hyperadiposity, as it exists for many contemporary humans, is rare or nonexistent for other primates. The necessity for physical exertion, unavoidable for most humans until the industrial era and, especially, the 20th Century, ensured substantial muscularity, in the proportionate range existing for current free-living nonhuman primates. In the present, however, obtaining food energy is no longer dependent on muscular exertion: from childhood on, calories are available at the lowest cost in human experience without reciprocal energy expenditure.” Evolution, Diet and Health S. Boyd Eaton, MD and Stanley B. Eaton III Departments of Anthropology and Radiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia USA http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboydeaton/eaton.htm
Advances in travel and food production have changed our eating habits, leading to new issues linked to diet and exercise(diabetes, obesity etc), but have we changed? The body probably hasn’t developed or changed, but the results of how we “use and abuse” possibly have!
Could technological developments also directly affect the reproduction of our species? “Dr. Alverne and colleague Dr. Virpi Lumma reviewed and discussed new research supporting the conclusion that use of the pill by women disrupted their variation in mate preferences across their menstrual cycle. The authors also speculate that the use of oral contraceptives may influence a woman's ability to attract a mate by reducing attractiveness to men, thereby disrupting her ability to compete with normally cycling women for access to mate” http://www.physorg.com/news174140457.html
The pill inextricably changed womens’ lives; could it be possible that it could also potentially stop the development of the human race? Not something I believe, but indeed an interesting point relating to the set question.
In an article for LiveScience, Charles Choi states that recent research shows that brains have actually shrunk by 10% over the last 5000 years!
Far from seeing that the human race has stopped evolving, he discusses how the human body has adapted to contend with disease. He gives the example of sickle cell anaemia, a mutation against malaria, where the red blood cells change shape, impairing blood flow, damaging tissues but also preventing the malaria parasite from “infesting blood cells” http://www.livescience.com/history/091113-origins-evolving.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Livesciencecom+%28LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed%29
Medical technology and research can only be a good thing in directly battling the negatives of evolution.
So, diet, transport, medical technologies have changed human beings? Possibly….! Have these advancement positively changed human beings? I will leave that answer to you! On a lighter note, the below blog link indicates that younger people now use their thumbs to press doorbells due to natural adaptation through texting and social networking! http://www.searchsecurityasia.com/content/opposable-thumbs-texting-and-promiscuous-willingness-interact-and-connect-21st-century-secur
The opposable thumb, that which separates us from much of the animal kingdom, is also developing and changing over time?!
Lessons I have learnt this week: answering questions set by others’ in the group is very hard!
Perhaps I am the one who needs to change and develop overtime?!
To answer this question, there is a requirement to ask: What are the divisions between blogging and journalism? If there are divisions, how do we identify what falls into either catergory? Finally, in a time of convergence, will we find a happy medium in the future where professionals will fall into neither of these areas?
Dana Blankenhorn, a business journalist with over 30 years experience covering the online world, tried to answer firstly: Is Blogging Journalism? His short answer: No! “To say that a blog is any one thing is to misunderstand what a blog is … A blog is instant publishing”. It can be so much more than an opinion or piece of journalism; it can be a “diary”, a “community”, a “picture collection” etc.
Is Blogging Journalism? (Blankenhorn) April 29 2005 -http://mooreslore.corante.com/archives/2005/04/29/is_blogging_journalism.php
Course Director of the MA in Online Journalism at Birmingham City University’s School of Media, Paul Bradshaw outlines his thoughts in a post entitled: “Stop asking me ‘Is blogging journalism?’” He states that many journalists choose to forget and overwrite the “principles and ethics” of the profession. The “explosion in blogs” is a direct result of the publics’ perception of journalists being “less trustworthy” than politicians, but that some of the best bloggers are “pricincipled and ethical journalists”!
Writing in April 2009, Bernard Lunn, “serial entrepreneur” and Chief Operating Officer at ReadWriteWeb argues that although some bloggers are becoming journalists, professional journalism is not dead: yet! When he makes his points, he discloses: “I do not come at this from a long career as a journalist. This is a personal, blog-style view of the journalism profession by somebody who cares about the outcome.”
He identifies that many bloggers are: “passionate experts first and journalists second. Somebody who blogs about technology could not credibly switch to politics, and vice versa. The journalism profession is adept at taking somebody from a story on a bank robbery and allocating them to a political sex scandal. Their professional skills enable journalists to be switch-hitters.”
The idea that a blogger is an enthusiast with very useful specific knowledge and skill certainly takes nothing away from it’s importance. Lunn just feels that bloggers and journalists are currently two very separate entities. He has the romantic view that, above many other things, journalists ask the probing questions, without clouding them in opinion:
Journalists have “An assumption that everyone knows more than you, and that your job is to find, cultivate, question, and listen to your sources, and then come to a view”. There is also the issue of money – but in Journalism 2.0, he is confident that they will find a “new model”.
Journalism 2.0 – Don’t Throw Out The Baby (Lunn) - http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/journalism_20_dont_throw_out_the_baby.php
http://central.hcrhs.k12.nj.us/mchalemk1/2009/03/27 So if it can be identified that currently there is a definite divide between journalism and blogging, is there such thing as a professional blogger? The answer appears to be rather complex. Professional blogger, Yehuda Berlinger, says: “I didn’t really plan it, but I dreamed it.” He sees blogging as it’s own being, making no association directly with journalism. He does discuss how he was disciplined with his attitude to posting prior to making the leap from “enthusiast” to professional blogger.
The major point of interest to me in his blog post: “I turned to the professionals … Some of these are specifically about blogging, while the others are about branding. Both are key.”
Professional blogginghttp://jergames.blogspot.com/2007/06/how-i-became-professional-blogger.html Branding and marketing appear to be major contributing factors in the field of blogging – I understand that to make money, this is incredibly important, but does this affect the quality of writing and compromise expert knowledge at the expense of blog traffic? Perez Hilton (perezhilton.com) is an example of this. The “professional blogger” who has made a career out of his own “celebrity” rather than his skill as a writer.
People like opinion – all traditional print media have their own stances (as publications), but is there a danger that individual bloggers spend too much time on their blog’s popularity and position than on the quality of it’s content?
Gatekeepers? In an interview with the Online Journalism Review, Paul Andrew, journalist/author with over 30 years experience with the Seattle Times, saw an important link between traditional journalism/media and blogging: “"It's the role of institutional media to act as gatekeepers," he says, "but what you have in print publishing today is a consolidation that's inimical to the diversity that exists in everyday life. With the rise of the Internet, people don't need to be bounded by those traditional filters anymore."
Blogging as a Form of Journalism (May 2001) http://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1017958873.php Convergence? Notes taken at “The Fall & Fall of Journalism” conference at the London School of Economics in February 2005 can be found on their Media Group Blog:
“Journalists are blogging because they feel they have to show they are in touch with the online public”. This is an important point. The areas of blogging and journalism need to converge, to a degree, to benefit the most important factor: the readership!
http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/0060.html
In Steve Outing’s article for Editor & Publisher entitled: “When Journalists Blog, Editors Get Nervous“, he tries to address the concerns employers have with blogging. This article was written before the Facebook explosion, so much of it’s content perhaps does not hold the same relevance as it would have in 2004, but he does make the point: “Most newspapers, trying to maintain an aura of objectivity, are bland. In time, … the voice of blogging will [hopefully] enliven newspapers and humanize journalists.”
Editor & Publisher (Outing) - http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/stopthepresses_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2092374 Future Blournalism?! Perhaps one of the most interesting developments is “Live Blogging” – Keith McSpurren from Cover It Live likens it to a “bit of a radio show”. An opportunity for “interactive readership” with a controlled host who gives their professional opinion and skill-set to the details. They are currently growing live blogging up to a point where it is “useful”. It performed well as a product in the runup to the US presidential elections:
News, as defined by askOxford.com: “newly received or noteworthy information about recent events”
According to Bill Thompson, technology reporter for BBC news online: “Today’s internet presents information in bite-sized chunks, linked into a rich tapestry where the connections often carry as much meaning as the words themselves” Bill Thompson (2008) Changing the way we think [Online] Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7459182.stm [Accessed: 15 October 2009]
Blogging is a relatively new development but has been adopted swiftly. The emmergence of Microblogging has increased the speed of information but also our demand for News as it happens – quicker than can be assembled and distributed by traditional News gathering methods. Our requirement is to know what is happening write now – John Battelle refers to this new phenomena as “Super Fresh” Web – linking through both Microblogging and Social Networks to stories and matters of interest. John Battelle (2009) Super Fresh [Online] Available from: http://battellemedia.com/archives/004932.php [Accessed: 15 October 2009]
According to Steven Johnson, writing for Time Magazine: “Increasingly, the stories that come across our radar … will arrive via the passed links of the people we follow [on Twitter]. Instead of being built by some kind of artificially intelligent software algorithm, a customized newspaper will be compiled from all the articles being read that morning by your social network. “ Steven Johnson (2009) How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live [Online] Originally published in Time magazine 5 June 2009 Available from: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1902604,00.html [Accessed 15 October 2009]
Could we then, however, be accused of not keeping ourselves informed of newsworthy events and rather allowing ourselves to be directed to the stories our peers present to us via Blogging and Social Networking? This also poses the question: could Blogging fuel a story? Could Blogging create the story?
Steven Johnson points to this development “As the tools have multiplied, we're discovering extraordinary new things to do with them. Last month an anticommunist uprising in Moldova was organized via Twitter. Twitter has become so widely used among political activists in China that the government recently blocked access to it, in an attempt to censor discussion of the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. A service called SickCity scans the Twitter feeds from multiple urban areas, tracking references to flu and fever.”
Does the power to alter the way News is both created and delivered through Blogging and Microblogging give it a deserved place in this medium? Jay Rosen referred to Citizen Journalism as “the people formerly known as the audience”. In a direct response to this, he received an open letter on his Blog: “The people formerly known as the audience are simply the public made realer, less fictional, more able, less predictable. You should welcome that, media people. But whether you do or not we want you to know we’re here.” (2006) The People Formerly Known as the Audience [Online] Available from: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html [Accessed 15 October 2009]
Could these developments be enhancing the News “experience”? Writing in: We Media How Audiences Are Shaping The Future Of News And Information, Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis believe that these activities should be embraced: “Reporters and editors will need to be empowered to grow communities of interest online. As the value of their communities grows so will it enhance the value of the media organization.” Bowman, S & Willis, C (2003) ‘We Media: How Audiences Are Shaping The Future Of News And Information’ The American Press Institute [Online] 60 Available from: http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/download/we_media.pdf [Accessed 15 October 2009]
Are we now so wired to accept new technological advancements that Blogging as a phenomenon will be surpassed by the next big thing, or perhaps one day will we tire of seeking out News and choose again to have it delivered to us by traditional media?
When looking to understand who controls the Internet, it is important to establish the theoretical history behind linking computers.
www.leidenuniv.nl/.../index.php3-c=5.htm The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), precursor to the Internet, was created at a time when the US Department of Defense became aware of the positive and strong link that University research could have to homeland security. Writing in Behind the Net – The Untold History of the ARPANET, Michael Hauben (1973-2001) said: “[ARPANET] was formed with an emphasis towards research, and thus was not oriented only to a military product. The formation of this agency was part of the U.S. reaction to the then Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik in 1957.”
By commissioning ARPANET through University funding and research, the early divisions between it’s end use as a military weapon or knowledge machine can be recognised: “This community spirit has a long history beginning with the early ARPANET. The early ARPANET researchers worked as a close-knit community …” Mark Hauben (1992) Behind the Net - The untold history of the ARPANET Or - The "Open" History of the ARPANET/Internet [Online] Available from: http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/~acc/docs/arpa--1.html (Accessed: 22 October 2009)
ARPA, as the name would indicate, looked to research and development. The project was passed to the Defense Communications Agency by the mid-1970s and the divisions were finally recognised when in 1983 the network was split between the Internet and Milnet.
The concept of linking machines to share and spread information without the requirement for one static source was seen as an advantage to the US Military. Paradoxically, the notion of creating something that had no centre caused its own security risks.
Now You Are In Control: Hackers and Hacktivism
http://w3.cultdeadcow.com/cms/index.html “The wonderful device meant to enrich life has become a weapon which dehumanizes people. To the government and large businesses, people are no more than disk space, and the government doesn't use computers to arrange aid for the poor, but to control nuclear death weapons. (8)” Metac0m (2003) What Is Hacktivism? 2.0 [Online] Available from: http://www.thehacktivist.com/whatishacktivism.pdf (Accessed: 22 October 2009)
The Military and Government may have believed in their ability to control the Internet, but there have been a number of cases when weaknesses have been proven. Mirroring the 1983 movie, WarGames, one man rocked U.S. defences in 2001-2002 by successfully hacking into networks controlled by the Army, Navy, Air Force, DoD and NASA. Gary McKinnon (http://freegary.org.uk/) is still awaiting extradition to the U.S. on the grounds of maliciously causing over $700,000 in damages to security systems. http://www.londontv.net/freegarymckinnon.html Even encryption tools utilised today by such agencies were initially met with distrust and risks to military security: “Philip R. Zimmermann is the creator of Pretty Good Privacy, an email encryption software package. Originally designed as a human rights tool, PGP was published for free on the Internet in 1991. This made Zimmermann the target of a three-year criminal investigation, because the government held that US export restrictions for cryptographic software were violated when PGP spread worldwide. Despite the lack of funding, the lack of any paid staff, the lack of a company to stand behind it, and despite government persecution, PGP nonetheless became the most widely used email encryption software in the world.” Philip Zimmermann [Online] Available from: http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/background/index.html (Accessed: 22 October 2009)
If the Internet has been identified as a potentially dangerous weapon, could we all be accused of complacency? It could be taken that hackers are the knowledge seekers and they have a duty to show us the loop holes. Do we all rely too much on the idea that the Internet is under our own individual control and therefore are we guilty of not questioning the safety and security of digital technology?
Jonathan Zittrain, Professor of Internet Law at Harvard Law School, asked the question: Can we trust the Internet to regulate itself? He believes that the control should be the shared responsibilty of everyone concluding:
Controlling The Future ‘We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness,’ O'Brien had said to him. He knew what it meant, or thought he knew. The place where there is no darkness was the imagined future, which one would never see, but which, by foreknowledge, one could mystically share in.’ George Orwell (1949) Nineteen Eighty-Four
Perhaps the most disconcerting question is: Who will control the Internet in the future? Vernor Vinge (retired Professor of Mathematics, Computer Scientist and Science Fiction Author) speaking in September 2005 at the Accelerating Change conference at Stanford University when discussing Technical Singularity (self-improving intelligence) said:“as we get embedded processors and as they get more ubiquetous…the environment around us is coming close to waking up” 20.04 “[Is it] possible humans are operating under the illusion that we are self aware?” 34.24 Vernor Vinge (2005) Accelerating Change Conference Available from: http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail711.html http://cdn.itconversations.com/ITC.AC05-VernorVinge-2005.09.17.mp3 (Accessed 23 October 2009)
Is it possible that in the future, digital technology itself will control the Internet, and what questions does that pose for governments, the military and the people?
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.” Another Brick In The Wall, Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUASiDg-kg4 Far from being anti-education, Pink Floyd’s 1979 song is “an anthem about reclaiming stifled individuality”. http://www.thewallanalysis.com/secondbrick.html Identifying the benefits of informal learning through digital cultures has only recently been grasped by education systems around the world. A three year study carried out at the University of Southern California and University of California, Berkley, entitled “Kids’ Informal Learning with Digital Media: An Ethnographic Investigation of Innovative Knowledge Cultures” discovered that: “New media allow for a degree of freedom and autonomy for youth that is less apparent in a classroom setting. Youth respect one another’s authority online, and they are often more motivated to learn from peers than from adults. Their efforts are also largely self-directed, and the outcome emerges through exploration, in contrast to classroom learning that is oriented by set, predefined goals.” http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/files/report/digitalyouth-TwoPageSummary.pdf The paper does recognize, however that: “…adults can still have tremendous influence in setting learning goals, particularly on the interest-driven side where adult hobbyists function as role models and more experienced peers.” Teachers and adults “…should facilitate young people’s engagement with digital media” as through their experiences they are “picking up basic social and technical skills… [needed] to participate in contemporary society”
A very important element of child development is socialisation – although there are dark sides to digital trends (ie Happy Slapping, Cyberbullying), peer to peer learning can be incredibly productive.
The power that media change has had on all faculties of youth culture is quite phenomenal. Peter Barron (editor of BBC’s Newsnight) likens “what’s going on with [the] digital media industry” to being not unlike what the music industry experienced in the late 1970s. The advent of punk created a deluge of artists who threatened many of the multi-million pound major record labels who were unwilling to adapt to the youth-led market. (Damien Steward) Digital Cultures: Case Study: Making Television News in the Digital Age (2009) p 56
Continuing with this point, appreciating the power of digital youth can be seen with the success of “the peoples’ favourite”, the Arctic Monkeys. Prior to being signed in 2005, they created a huge following by harnessing the internet and social networking to push their product.
Steve Lamacq, in an interview for the BBC at the Reading Festival 2006 said: “They’ve gathered a huge and fiercely loyal fanbase without the permission of the traditional mainstream media” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43TdJQtXw3M
More recently, however, Jack White (White Stripes, The Raconteurs, The Dead Weather) has publically identified some of the difficulties of a generation who have “grown up downloading music”.
Speaking in an interview on 29 October 2009: “… White has claimed the music industry was in a ‘dying era’, and told how artists now had to use ‘trickery’ to make money … every meeting he had with labels was ‘depressing’ and in 10 years’ time it would be difficult for bands to make a living” http://www.chorleycitizen.co.uk/leisure/cinema/showbiz_news/4713231.White_fears__dying_era_for_music_/ How you continue to make money in all aspects of media from a generation that have harnessed the power of digital culture is a question in itself – one perhaps I will review at another time. It is now, however, so ingrained with youth culture. Some independent animation studios are looking at innovative ways to greatly cut production costs (to keep profits high) by harnessing the “globalisation of content” (outsourcing different tasks to contacts in different countries.)
This youth power, however, could be seen as something to be embraced, not feared. Grammy award winning songwriter, Allee Willis, speaking in conversation with Peter Hirsberg, chairman of the board of advisors at Technorati, summed it up quite succinctly: “with millions of collaborators what is a song, because to look at them certainly as fans is missing what this medium is about”
Hirshberg stated in his address at EG ’07 Conference: “What the entertainment business is struggling with, the world of brands is figuring out” http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/barking-robot-derek-baird/8d875d9181b671999b0c9063d9a2c522 The power really falls with big business “connecting with consumers”. Is, therefore, target marketing the biggest challenge to the youth movement?
“We don’t need no thought control”?
Perhaps I should end on a more positive note; Nicholas Negroponte, writing in the epilogue of Being Digital: “My optimism is not fueled by an anticipated invention or discovery. Finding a cure for cancer and AIDS, finding an acceptable way to control population, or inventing a machine that can breathe our air and drink our oceans and excrete unpolluted forms of each are dreams that may or may not come about. Being digital is different. We are not waiting on any invention. It is here. It is now. It is almost genetic in its nature, in that each generation will become more digital than the preceding one. The control bits of that digital future are more than ever before in the hands of the young. Nothing could make me happier.” http://archives.obs-us.com/obs/english/books/nn/ch19epi.htm Being Digital; Epilogue: An Age of Optimism
Time to embrace the potential power of the digital youth, and time for me to scour: http://napsterization.org
Exploring online communities, I revisted b3ta.com. Created in 2001 and described by Dave Green in 2003 as "puerile digital arts community", they are one example of participation. Sometimes hugely inappropriate, but there are moments of great humour, technical prowess and creativity.
