‘net culture & society

Here are links to the three EC blog posts I’ve written:

• Pundits in Muckrakers’ Clothing: Political Blogs and the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election
• Thanksgiving Live: An Interactive Media Experience
• A Blog Post About a Blog Post

Author D. Travers Scott is an assistant professor in the Communication Studies department at Clemson University. He is an alum of the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California, and holds a Master of Communication in Digital Media from the University of Washington. In his article, Pundits in Muckraker’s Clothing: Political Blogs and the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election, reprinted in Technology in Our Time, V.1, Social Life on the New Media Frontier, Scott analyzes the content of four political blogs, arguing that political “bloggers were activist media pundits.” This can raise all sorts of questions involving the relationship between these pseudo-experts and their role in the dissemination and analysis of political information.

Scott’s analysis included four English-language U.S. blogs during the final 14 weeks of the 2004 presidential election:

1. InstaPundit (instapundit.com)
2. Talking Points Memo (talkingpointsmemo.com)
3. Daily Dish (andrewsullivan.com)
4. Daily Kos (dailykos.com)

Through an extensive analysis of each post uploaded between July 20th to November 5th, 2004, Scott was able to determine that each blog, while ranging in political commentary (from campaign strategy, to analysis of media coverage, and regional polls, etc.) each blog acted as forms of surveillance.

Surveillance was indicated by reporting on any event observed in physical or media worlds. This included applying original research to fact-check media reports.

– D. Travers Scott, Pundits in Muckraker’s Clothing

Rather that providing purely personal and opinion-based commentary, these blogs would monitor mainstream media coverage of political candidates and campaigns, and provide research-based analysis of any and all events occurring pre-election.

Scott also observed the function of correlation — “editorializing, or connecting, interpreting and suggesting action in response to events” within the blogs (356). This could be attributed to the result of the injection of personal/collaborative opinions from the bloggers themselves. Yet, contrary to Scott’s own hypothesis, correlation was observed far less than surveillance.

Furthermore, the consistency found between the four political blogs suggests that, despite their ideological differences, blogs can be a relatively reliable source of political information. Rheir surveillance of mainstream political news further suggests an even greater reliability than that of major TV Networks such as CBS, NBC, or CNN. Since they don’t have as great a degree of financial wealth available as more popular political outlets, these political blogs find their worth in their merit.

Prior to the rise of the internet, political commentators were at the mercy of mass-media to get their voices heard. It was only through outlets such as newspapers, or TV programs, that aspiring political analysts could really get their voices heard. Furthermore, financial wealth was almost a necessity in order to collect content for analysis (only the wealthy could afford to take off from a real job to attend political events). The internet is able to empower ordinary individuals, who, although unable to attend political conventions and events, are able to instead follow mass-media news stories, and build their own individual stories from there.

source: http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/2008/05/john-edwards-to.html

The politically elite are no longer limited to the financially elite. The internet provides a medium for political voices to be heard, with little to no financial cost. Instead, worth is becoming measured through the constant devotion and vigilance of political bloggers to report the most current, and factually-sound news stories every day.

Robinson, Laura. Technology in Our Time. Volume 1. San Diego, California: Cognella, 2001. 351-365. Print.

The other day, I tuned into the Food Network and started watching one of their Thanksgiving specials. Thanksgiving is like the holiday of holidays for the Food Network, and they always have some fancy schmancy shows and specials happening the week leading up to the big day. This day, they were doing a Thanksgiving Live special, hosted by Food Network chef and host Alton Brown. He’s a popular personality on the Food Network – from hosting the Iron Chef, to cooking on his own show Good Eats – so it was no surprise that he was the host for this Thanksgiving special. He was busy chit chatting with fellow FN chef Bobby Flay about how to make the best Thanksgiving stuffing. There were at least 9 recognizable faces from popular Food Network shows scattered around the FN testing kitchen. They were all busy making a Thanksgiving feast. Alton weaved around all of them, stopping and catching up to show the viewers what was going on.

Alton had an iPad strapped to his hand, and there was a twitter feed rolling at the bottom of the TV screen. A few minutes into watching the special, Alton looked into the camera, and said “We have an incoming Tweet from a fan. It’s a question for Bobby Flay!” and he proceeded to talk to Flay about the best way to make a lump-free gravy out of turkey droppings. Throughout the show, Alton constantly brought up questions from Twitter users, Skyped with a few Food Network fans, and even polled the audience into which recipes they wanted to see the chefs make the most.

Now, I’ve seen Twitter and Skype used on TV plenty of times. Oprah used to hold interviews on her show with the use of Skype. News programs constantly have twitter feeds running along the bottom of the screen highlighting Tweets. But for some reason, this just seemed different altogether. Twitter, e-mail, Skype, and even phone calls, were all taken by Alton Brown throughout the course of the show. What was different about this though was that sometimes, the Tweets, or polls, would actually determine the direction of the show. In the middle of the program, Alton turned to the screen and asked the views “Would you rather see Giada make her famous mashed potatoes, or her equally delicious green bean dish?” A few minutes later, he announced that the polls were closed, turned to Giada, and said “The votes are in, and the viewers have chosen: mashed potatoes!”

Maybe I’m just out of the loop, or maybe I’m just easily impressed, but I was honestly amazed when I was watching Thanksgiving Live. It was like watching one of those “Choose Your Fate” books come to life – you could even compare it to the Little Brother novel we had to read for class. It was a show whose script was determined right then and there by the viewers themselves. They got to choose what they wanted to watch, who they wanted to hear from, and how the whole show came together in the end. It was TV in its most interactive form yet.

Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase “The medium is the message.” He argued that throughout time, it wasn’t necessarily the content itself that influenced users, but the way in which the content was delivered. For books, the linearity of plots influenced the ways in which its readers thought about other things. For housewives in the 50’s, the heavy dialogue of soap operas allowed them to move around and do their chores, and still be able to keep up with the story lines. Now, with this new interactive experience between users and television, it’s almost empowering to see the amount of determination that is left to the users themselves. The internet promotes a sense of individuality among users – and we can see how this is beginning to trickle into other media outlets. The Internet is now determining the way in which other forms of media grow. Food Network has undoubtedly realized this, and has decided to give the users a greater voice during the programs they air. Who knows – maybe one day, all television will be run this way, with users determining the fates of their beloved television characters at the click of a button.

Little Brother is a novel written by Cory Doctorow, a Canadian-British blogger, journalist, and science fiction author. The novel focuses on a high school boy named Marcus Yellow (also known as w1n5ton), and his three friends, Darryl, Van, and Jolu, who attempt to protect themselves from the ever-infringing government’s use of technology. Marcus himself is a techno-geek, who in the first few pages of the novel has already hacked into the school’s server and tricked it’s gait-recognition cameras. The overall plot revolves around a terrorist strike, and the subsequent response of the Department of Homeland Security, who attempt to use technology to relieve us of our basic human rights. Marcus and his friends strike back, using technology against itself. It’s a fight between freedom and oppression — and technology is the weapon being used by both sides.

The novel takes place in San Francisco. I’m not exactly sure what year this is — it could almost be happening right now.  The Tenderloin is still a run-down mess, cable-cars are still in use, people still have library books, and cell phones are still limited to incoming calls and SMSes. All the technology mentioned is already in existence (gait and face recognition cameras, trackers, microwaves…), making this seem more contemporary than science fiction.

Doctorow’s novel was written in response to the overwhelming use of technology as a means to spy on people. He believed that we were in a transition into a “new kind of technological state” in which anything and everything we did was either illegal or being tracked. This novel speaks out against these concerns, both through the story itself, and through the unique way in which Doctorow has presented it to the people. He has left his novel to be manipulated, attributed, adapted, and redistributed, with little to no restrictions. It is essentially a novel without copyrights. He gives his readers the freedom to do what they wish with the novel he has written.

This book is meant to be part of the conversation about what an information society means: does it mean total control, or unheard-of liberty? It’s not just a noun, it’s a verb, it’s something you do.

Little Brother reminds me of the Choose-Your-Fate Goosebumps books I used to read when I was younger — but on some serious steroids. Instead of being limited to the multiple paths R. L. Stine had written, we are now the authors. It’s a great concept for what Doctorow advocates — and it only seems logical. He advocates for social activism against the potential oppression of technology, as well as the sustainment of basic civil liberties. What better way to advocate this than give us freedom over his novel? While this approach may not work for some authors, it’s an interesting approach to the subject. I can only wonder what various ways readers have adapted what he has written.

Authors of this study include: Gilad Lotan, big data analyst and visualist; Erhardt Graeff, grad student and researcher at the Center for Civic Media, MIT Media lab; Mike Ananny, Assistant Professor at Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism; Devin Gaffney, ; Ian Pearce; and Danah Boyd, who I’ve written on earlier in the course. Lotan dealth with the topic of Social Flow within the overall study, while both Graeff and Pearce worked on the Web Ecology Project. Ananny and Boyd worked on Microsoft Research regarding the Arab Spring Revolutions.

The article overall revolved around the relationship between Twitter and the Arab Spring. There is special attention given to the role Twitter played in comparison to mainstream media — and whether online tools such as blogging and Twitter began to replace mainstream media as the source of information. The authors propose that “Twitter and other social media tools can be leveraged to spread information,” and that, “social media may have the potential to provoke and sustain political uprisings by amplifying particular news and information” (5). Through an analysis of data collected from Twitter during the heights of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings, they were able to conclude that:

news on Twitter is being co-constructed by bloggers and activists alongside journalists. This confirms the notion that Twitter supports distributed conversation among participants and that journalism, in this era of social media, has become a conversation (Gillmor, 2004). Specifically, in the context of a major news event like a natural disaster (Sutton, Palen, & Shklovski, 2008) or the Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions, these conversations involve a host of interested parties.

These findings can help shed light on the true role of social media in influencing news media online. It also begs the question of how Twitter should be used, and whether it can be an appropriate tool to disseminate information to the greater public. We must also consider whether or not it is better or worse that these news stories are presented in a bias format.

Overall, I can’t help but think of the previous article I read, in which Ulises Mejias argued against this idea of Twitter as a determinant in the Arab Spring uprisings. Yet, Lotan et al. does provide substantial evidence arguing otherwise. It’s hard to truly come up with a definitive answer on whether Twitter and other social media sites did in fact provide the medium for revolution to arise.

When it comes to the relationship between news dissemination and the role of online journalists, I found it interesting that the article said individual journalists sometimes had a greater rate of dissemination than news organizations. There seems to be this rise in individualized identity online. Rather than following news organizations, or corporations, social media users tend to lean toward more “personal” accounts. When I say “personal,” I am talking about this illusion of online journalists having an independent voice online — the tweets and photos we see of these celebrities come from the people themselves, making it seem more “honest” and “open.” The “personal” touch of this can influence readers to follow and trust the tweeters more. It could be this rise in individualized journalism that helped to disseminate information regarding the Arab Spring. Especially when you consider the political atmosphere at the time, it only seems logical that those involved in the uprisings would rather trust the voice of individuals, rather than listen to organized media — it was a political institution in the first place that gave rise to the injustice in these countries.

Ulises Mejias is an Assistant Professor of New Media in the Communication Studies department at SUNY Oswego. You can find his blog here. In this article, The Twitter Revolution Must Die, Mejias argues that we must stop “branding” the uprisings in Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern countries as the “Twitter Revolution,” or “Facebook Revolution,” and instead recognize that these are in fact “human revolutions.”

Mejias questions the true extent social media played in the recent revolutions. He brings up arguments from both sides, stating that some believe the internet has a sort of “super power” in it’s ability to liberate and connect people together, while at the same time failing to build long-lasting alliances. He claims that “both sides are, perhaps, engaging in a bit of technological determinism?one by embellishing the agency of technology, the other by diminishing it.” Even more so, Mejias fears that this preoccupation with the role of Facebook/Twitter/YouTube in sparking revolt 1. “depoliticizes our understanding of the conflicts” and 2. “whitewashes the role of capitalism in suppressing democracy.” This embeds an association of social media and digital products with democracy into our thinking. Essentially, it can make us believe that countries without Facebook or Twitter are potentially undemocratic. Furthermore, it would make us believe that the corporations behind these products are for the people.

…as digital networks grow and become more centralized and privatized, they increase opportunities for participation, but they also increase inequality, and make it easier for authorities to control them.

Just because we are relieved of our physical and spatial boundaries, the internet doesn’t necessarily give us true freedom. We must remember that there are companies behind these services. We can already see how these companies use computer-based analysis to market certain products toward us. Their privacy policies are questionable at best. The certain Web companies have even aided the government in spying on their users.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/ThvBJMzmSZI[/youtube]
We cannot ignore the fact that social media played a role in providing a convenient way in organizing a revolution — but they are merely the medium. They are not the reason. These are people, not computers, fighting for their rights. It is unfair, and even offensive, to give Facebook the credit. Political tyranny, and social distress drove the people to rise up against the government. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube merely made it easier to do so.

Henry Jenkins is the Provost’s Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California. He previously worked at MIT as the Director of the MIT Comparative Media Studies Program, and has authored 12 books. The list of his endeavors is quite long, and a more detailed background of Jenkins can be found here.

This article, Nine Propositions Towards a Cultural Theory of YouTube, was written by Jenkins back when YouTube was still relatively new. It can definitely be said that the times have changed since its writing. Jenkins claimed that YouTube’s ability to share and post videos would have significant impact on society, from educational implications, to political influence. He traced out his theory into nine propositions:

1. Jenkins claimed that YouTube’s diversity between institutional users, from political leaders, to amateur photographers, would create a renegotiating of power. It would essentially level the playing field between users, regardless of social rank.

2. He claims that YouTube can be used as a form of participatory culture, in which interest groups, fan communities, and subcultures, can all come together to express a shared vision, as well as promote innovation. YouTube does not act as a form of personal expression — rather, it is a space where people with similar interests can come together.

3. YouTube is a site governed by ” amateur curators [who] assess the value of commercial content.” This content then gets re-distributed back into the public — sometimes giving it a greater audience than it previously had. It becomes a place where something lesser known can gain popularity through the support of strangers around the world.

4. Jenkin’s refers to YouTube’s sharing function as a new form of online communication. Rather than making content exclusive, YouTube allows users to share videos on other websites, whether it be MySpace, Facebook, or their personal blogs. Jenkins describes it as a change from “stickiness” to “spreadability,” in which the site allows users to reach wide audiences through the use of other sites, rather than hold spectators within the confines of YouTube itself.

5. In regard to news media, YouTube allows users to post stories that may not garner the attention of national media networks. Smartphones have allowed users to carry a camera with them wherever they go, making them able to shoot the stories that broadcasters may miss. It’s national coverage to its fullest extent.

6. In his sixth proposition, — and here’s where my greater analysis comes in –Jenkins speaks on the potential of YouTube to promote participatory public culture. YouTube will become more than just a place for people to post videos. Rather, it will create discussion for the public, allowing them to supplement actions they are taking in the real world. Jenkins also recognizes the possibility of this proactivity as not always benefitting the public, or being a positive influence. A more current example of this proactive use of YouTube can be the recently leaked video of candidate Mitt Romney. An anonymous person taped Romney during a private fundraiser speaking about the american peoples. This recording was uploaded to YouTube during the height of the presidential race, exposing Romney’s words, and hurting his campaign. While uncovering the truth may not necessarily be a bad thing, there is the right to privacy to consider. Can furthering one’s own political (or other) concerns be more important than preserving the privacy of others? And, to what extent will people go in order to share information with the world? The possibilities YouTube opens for “normal” people to get their messages heard can be beneficial, but also sometimes worrying. It is important for users to not abuse their power, or put themselves or others in danger, for the sake of public exposure.

It is true though, that YouTube has positively helped certain causes through it’s sharing capabilities. Quite possibly the most shared video of all time is Kony 2012. Disregarding widespread conspiracy behind the video, Kony 2012 helped inform countless people of the conflicts happening within Africa. Through the efforts of private organizations, the video was made, and used to promote the capture of one of the most notorious rebels in Africa at this time. While the video’s short-term effects were seen worldwide, the downfall (as with all YouTube videos) is that long-term goals are thwarted by the constant influx of new and entertaining videos released everyday. Can YouTube really make a large enough social impact when the concerns of society are distracted constantly by newer and newer uploads? There may be better platforms out there for more lasting affects on the world — yet, in small doses, engagement through YouTube does make a greater impact than not.

7. Jenkins states that YouTube can be used to monitor, as well as exploit, upcoming trends within society. The users are consumers — and their interests and wants are available for the public to watch. It’s almost creepy in a way — users videos being analyzed so that corporations can sell them things.

8. Proposition 8 takes into account the concept of the digital divide, and the implications behind users and non-users in the context of YouTube. Especially when more technology than merely internet availability is necessary for YouTube uploads, some may be unable to express themselves through the use of video — and are therefor left out, while others prosper.

9. Last, but not least, YouTube’s primary demographic is white middle class males. Jenkins claims that YouTube, along with other social media sites, expose this ongoing gap of socioeconomic status and lack of diversity. Within Jenkins’ comments, some responders claim that this proposition isn’t necessarily true — while white middle class males have the more popular videos, there are thousands upon thousands of uploads available within the YouTube library that aren’t even in english. It almost seems unobservant to consider YouTube as being dominated by white suburban culture. Rather, YouTube has managed to provide its services to the world as a whole — we merely fail to look hard enough at all the content it truly provides.

…in today’s society, computer and video games are fulfilling genuine human needs that the real world is currently unable to satisfy. Games are providing rewards that reality is not. They are teaching and inspiring and engaging us in ways that reality is not. They are bringing us together in ways that reality is not.

Jane McGonigal is a research director at the Institute for the Future. McGonigal is an academic of the video game industry, dedicating her research to the study of computer and video games, taking into account psychological, social, political, and performance theories to understand the makings of a “good game.” In this excerpt from her book, Reality is Broken, McGonigal analyzes the affects of gaming on society, arguing that constant game-play is more than mere escapism. Furthermore, the phenomenon of gaming can be used advantageously for society.

McGonigal references the ancient civilizations, claiming that the game Mancala was used to temporarily suspend hunger during times of famine and war. It was a survival technique, allowing men to satiate themselves with activities when food was scarce. Society is still hungry, not for life’s basic necessities, but for excitement, for something to quench their boredom — something gamers are unable to find in the real world. This can partly be attributed to the lack of rewarding careers available to most of the population. This need to be rewarded, unfulfilled by reality, is found instead through the unlocking of achievements and level-ups found within the realms of Oblivion and CoD. People are tuning out of their unsatisfying realities to become fictional heroes and mythical champions. Games are becoming more appealing in a way that reality’s present state cannot. McGonigal recognizes this disparity between the real and fantasy worlds, and proposes this: find out what makes these games appealing, and apply it to the real world.

It does make sense, in a way. But at the same time, how are we to transform our environment to reflect such fantastical places? Her proposition is to develop games that attempt to reorganize social interaction online. Utilize this market that others consider useless for the sake of bettering humanity. Games will be developed to encourage communication and engagement, subsequently bringing the world together, one gamer at a time.

In a world where social injustices and instability seems to dominate even the strongest of nations, we don’t necessarily look to the gamers to solve all the problems. I’ve always thought the time my brother spend playing Battlefield or Skyrim was a waste. Then again, I’m the one with the Zelda ringtone on my phone. But games are that, just games. They’re supposed to be fun and meaningless — but growing up in a family of 5 kids, it’s becomes easy to see how something as simple as Mario Kart can bring us all together for a good time.

The best character in Mario Kart 64 (:

My eldest sister is 29, my brother 22, I’m 20, and the two younger sisters are 19 and 15. One of the few ways for us to get together in the same room, without arguments, is to stick us in front of the TV and going at it in Mario Kart. Even now, with most of us past our teens, we’ll never get over the fun we have together trying to race to first place. I still lean to the left and right whenever Yoshi turns on screen. Expanding this past my household, McGonigal’s concept of social change through gaming is easier to understand. Why wouldn’t people come together for something fun? And when these games become tailored specifically to promote social change, it becomes all the more easier for everyone to get along. And now, with online gaming possible through consoles, millions are easily connected. Games exist that delve into the deepest of human emotions: fear, anger, loyalty, even love at times. It almost seems obvious that this technology could be harnessed to reroute these feelings outwardly towards our fellow human beings. I, for one, wouldn’t mind a little extra gameplay if it meant bettering the world.

Danah Boyd is a Senior Researcher at Microsoft Research, a Research Assistant Professor in Media, Culture, and Communitation at NYU, a Visiting Researcher at Harvard  Law School, a Fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center, and an Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of New South Wales (danah.org). On top of these many positions, Boyd also maintains a blog. Her research centers around social media, and it’s implications on society. This reading, Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of the Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life, deals specifically with social media and it’s affects on the middle and high school aged children.

This article, which details Boyd’s research regarding social network sites, establishes a relationship between technology and the younger generation, and questions why and how social networking influences teenage social life. The study itself was conducted over a two year period and monitored teenagers on MySpace. It was determined that teenagers flock to MySpace for many reasons: to segregate themselves from adults (parents), to establish a sense of identity, and to become celebrity-like figures within their social groups.

I would agree that the influence of technology is important to understand, but for me at least, this all seems almost common sense. This is where I find interest in this study — this is all common sense for me, but maybe not the older generation. Many people who lived and participated during the MySpace days would probably read over this and thing and wonder why it’s such a big deal. Mundane tasks like making a profile and creating a “top 8” are blown into these great social acts. What we, the users, don’t realize is, stuff like this didn’t exist. We assume social media is just a regular part of life — not anything that merit’s academic research. But it does. Step back and look at it from a different perspective: to anyone outside of the internet generation, this is something honest-to-god bewildering. We’ve become assimilated to the idea of social networking without realize that there was a world that existed without it.

Andrew Keen, a London native, is a British-American author and professor, whose Alma mater includes the University of London and UC Berkeley. He has written two books, The Cult of the Amateur, and Digital Vertigo — the latter being last night’s reading, and today’s blog topic. Keen’s ambivalence of the internet’s influence on society becomes apparent within the first few pages of the book. He’s launched a vendetta against “Web 3.0.” Within the introduction of Vertigo, we get a sense of what Keen’s going to talk about through his recollections of conversations between social media Magnates, an extended analysis of his encounter with the Auto-Icon of prison architect Jeremy Bentham, and his inner-conflict of posting a tweet. The haunting image he describes of Bentham sets the tone for what comes to follow, metaphorically associating the transparency of social media with that of Bentham’s corpse on display in the center of London. Through his examples, he attempts to flesh out the battle between social tyranny (as a result of the growing social media empire) and our own individual liberty. Can we exist outside of the social media context? Or must we sacrifice our privacy for the sake of remaining relevant?

Within his first chapter, “The Simple Idea of Architecture,” Keen again mentions the architect Bentham, and the way in which he was able to socially reform the architecture of buildings in such a way as to allow for the maximum amount of transparency possible. From this, Bentham created the concept of the Panopticon —

a circular building of small rooms, each transparent and fully connected, in which individuals could be watched over by an all-seeing inspector. this inspector is the utilitarian version of an omniscient god — always-on, all-knowing, with the serendipitious ability to look around corners and see through walls

Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr — these are our modern day Panopticons, at least that’s what Keen would have us believe. The difference is that we are both the architects, and the prisoners. Society itself is our overseer. Keen’s likeness of social media to a prison shows his clear dissent towards social transparency. We have built, and perpetuate our own prison; through tweets, status updates, check-ins at restaurants. We allow the rest of society to be our all-seeing inspector. But unlike that of Lessig, Keen questions whether this transparency can equate to social connection. Within the concept of the Panopticon, it doesn’t. As individuals, we are trapped within our prison cells, constantly watched, but always alone. This is social media — at least in Keen’s eyes.

It’s hard to come up with a definitive answer as to whether social media is bad or good. We can, though, recognize that social media has managed to niche itself into society. Maybe in moderation, it can be a good thing. We can stay in touch just enough to keep friendships alive from a distance, but hide away enough to keep ourselves sane. But what of the people who absolutely refuse to tweet? Are they the outcasts? Do they cease to exist? For all we know, they may be more living than the rest of us.