Week 5: I Didn't Do It

In class this week an interesting point was raised about the embarrassing situation of putting on the Internet photos and videos of yourself doing silly things, then having people like employers see those things and the ensuing negative repercussions. Or worse still, someone else taking photos and videos of you, unbeknownst, and posting them up. Government legislation would be the last thing we need to "protect" people from such things... would anyone want some pencil-neck bureaucrat in a dark room somewhere reviewing every video, every photo, every message they post to determine whether it is "suitable" or not?

Hello Mao, hello Stalin, hello Goebbels.

As a result I think we are entering an "age of paranoia". People will start being on their best behaviour when stepping outside, terrified that their antics be caught and saved forever in cyberspace. At the same time people (young mostly) will become more adept at managing their "performances". They will learn to bifurcate their online personas into "good" and "bad" selves, probably maintaining two or more separate profiles. Then when something nefarious pops up their "good" side can deny all knowledge. Many people already do this to some extent; but it will always have limited utility, as Donath & Boyd point out, since someone in your list of cyber-friends who knows you well enough will wise up.

I foresee, perhaps a generation down the track, a backlash against this paranoia. People will simply not care who sees them making dickheads of themselves on the Internet. It will become a part of accepted social norm; no employer or prospective mate will hold a video of you throwing up against you, especially as there might be a dozen videos of them doing the same thing.

Week 4: Friend Request From Mr. Who-Gives-A-Damn

There is a lot of discussion about social networking sites these days, especially the nature of online relationships. Specifically, much of the literature that has studied this phenomena called "online friendships" and their differences from traditional face-to-face interactions seem to weigh against the virtual kind; there is a consensus that online relationships are inherently inferior to the real-life kind, that "quality" is better than "quantity". For example, Rosen hints that most online interactions can be reduced to reflexive exercises in status-garnering and emotion-rewarding, like rats punching at a food button. The conclusion is that that society (especially youth) is ultimately losing something by devoting more time to Facebook than real-life friendships.

But I am going to play Devil's advocate and post the question: Is this really the case? Who's to say what is "normal" and what is "aberrant"? (Or even "abhorrent".)

As an example: When I was a youngster some 30 years ago, television was being derided for ruining the family. The view was that everyone just sat drooling in front of the box rather than (say) talking over dinner; this was earmarked as abnormal behaviour, and quality family relationships were ultimately suffering. (There are people even today who refuse to have the "idiot box" in the house, although the crass puerility of TV content may have more to do with it.)

These days, by contrast, we see that TV is being lauded for bringing the family together in one place to enjoy quality time! And the Internet is now the feared family wrecker.

Such is the nature of things: As society accustoms itself to some new media, the setpoint of what is "normal" will ultimately move in response. And as new media gives people more "symbolic materials" (to borrow Thompson's verbose nomenclature) they will simply incorporate these to re-image their "symbolic projects" to suit. As for online friendships and social sites, good or bad... they appears to be the way for the (foreseeable) future. Maybe it's better just to go with the flow, lol rofl.

Week 3: I Am Not An Avatar!

From what I have read and personally experienced in the realm of VR environments, avatars can be summed up thus: There are no strict rules. People might use all kinds of justifications for making themselves look like a buff fireman or an oozing slime monster. But given the huge smorgasbord of faces, eyes, bodies and clothes presented by avatar-building applications, it seems peoples' choices are driven either by reckless clicking to see what looks cool, or making an avatar that resembles a slimmer version of their real selves. If given the option, most users will resort to simply picking from a small range of predetermined templates, throw on a pair of sunnies, and be done with it. Such is my experience.

(Note that I do not include gaming avatars here, because the design of these are driven by role playing and game mechanics far more than simple social interaction.)

Findings like those of Dean are interesting in their own right, and may find some application in the future -- but their time has not come yet. Why not? Because the vast majority of Internet users do not engage in 3D virtual environments. Although places like Second Life boast millions of accounts, daily usage ranks far below social sites like Facebook. It appears most internet users content themselves with the flat, 2D, repeated, "sterile" world of social networking sites for their online interaction needs. And what do most Facebook users use as an "avatar"? A photo of themselves. And herein lies the biggest irony: Far from hiding their real-life identities behind constructed electronic selves, everyone lays out their God-given "wetware" for all of cyberspace to see.

Week 2

For me, this week demonstrated that "New Media" can function as much as cultural, political and emotional capital as it can as pure entertainment. The form and way that new media is enjoyed and expressed speaks to us as much as its content. That's what I think McLuhan was trying to say in his horribly convoluted way – "the medium is the message". Of course there is nothing particularly profound or new about this (McLuhan was writing in the 1960s); indeed "media" in the broadest sense as described by McLuhan has served as cultural markers since time immemorial – what people wear, what they eat, where they go, what they read and listen to – and has both defined a persons' place in society and shaped their perception of their place.

Of course the same cultural markers still apply today – particularly our musical tastes – and always will. But as Levy states, in the electronic age the rules have changed. Hitherto cultural markers, whether music or books or some other media, required inputting money and/or time to obtain, and so carried something of the owner's "soul" in them. But now they can be copied with ease and little cost, and one's cultural identity is far more fluid; it can be both "shown off" and "manufactured" like it could never before, as Levy's iPod Playlist examples demonstrate. And so we might have public figures like K-Rudd filling his iPod with Barnsey or "Akkadakka" to put forward an image of the fair-dinkum Aussie, or someone like Amy Winehouse's playlist including Chopin "coz, it's like, really cool and sublime and stuff." Or we might just have some punk chick showing off on the train, or some awful ball-busting woman cementing her dominance by an electronic pissing contest.

Now, the iPod moniker itself has become a cultural icon. Far from being a genercized trademark for any MP3 player, it possesses the connotations once reserved for a Bang & Olufsen stereo or a Porche – cool and overpriced, marking the owner as both hip and a connoisseur. As Levy maintains, we want to know the "iPod playlist" as opposed to the pedestrian "musical tastes." All these things ensure the not-so-humble iPod is commandeered for cultural and political capital as much as mere entertainment. Naturally this strategy may backfire – Obama with his iPod is progressive, whereas George W with his white earbuds and mountainbike is just a dag.

So what do I listen to on my generic brand MP3 player? No playlist. Just the radio. But perhaps the lack of a playlist speaks volumes for my cultural identity as much as one filled with "The KLF" and "Iron Maiden"... it yells, "surprise me".

(ps. Woops! I went over the 200 word limit a bit. Sorry... sorry.)

Intro

Hello.

This blog is specifically for my KCB201 class. It will not be the remote bit interesting for the general public. Nope, not a bit interesting. Stop reading right now.

I mean it, this thing will bore you shitless. You will read this assessable prattling and want to kill me at the end for wasting your precious time. Time you could be using more profitably to read Wikipedia articles on the medieval alpenhorn or something.

That's it.