Living in a surveillance society

After listening to what Luke had to say on surveillance, I started to think about how we are never really alone.

Most of the population is kept under surveillance from the minute they wake up to the time they fall asleep. If we turn the television on our viewing patterns are monitored by the big media corporations. Everything we do on the computer is monitored and stored; the same goes with our mobile phones. National security, Google, and Microsoft are just a few of the corporations out there that record and follow all of our movements.

I heard a man recently talking about surveillance; he said that the automotive industry is starting to fit new vehicles with tracking devices. I don’t know if this is entirely true, but if it is true then I hope new buyers are aware. Google Earth is a fairly new product that allows us to view anywhere we want. It is services like these that show us just how advanced surveillance is becoming. Our mobile phones are tracking every step we take, and now Iphone Apps are just increasing this surveillance.

The increase in technology is allowing surveillance to grow, making it easier to track and store every single movement that we make. Sometimes I worry at how fast technology is growing, leading me to wonder if this surveillance is going to get any worse? I just hope that in the future it doesn’t become mandatory that we have to have small devices surgically placed in our bodies.

Are we passive audiences?

There's always the argument of whether media platforms audiences are passive or actively engaging in or within the media sphere. For instance, the discourse of television studies argues that tv audiences are passive, where they just receive the informations on tv without any degree of interactivity.

But the thing is, with new media platform such as the internet, the argument seems to change for a little bit. We can now argue that new media platform users are no longer passive dolls that sit in front of a computer or ipad and just receiving without contributing, or interacting with it. My perspective on this particular argument is quite simple: i do agree that we are not as passive as many many studies suggested we were as an audience.

Internet itself is an interactive media platform. Unlike most of the media platforms such as the print media and the traditional broadcasting media platforms, where the audience are provided with every information that they might need to know and the discourse of agency seems to be absence in such traditional media platforms. For instance, you can't choose specifically what you want to watch on tv, although we do get the limited choices of few channels with different programs, but it is not tailored to cater every individuals.

I would definitely see internet as a new media platform with more agency, and in other words, more choices and more things to choose from that actually might cater to different crowds. And by that, it sort of transform us from the audience that will just sit in our tv room watching the pre-selected programs that might not cater to us at all, to an active participant where we search for what we want to watch or do specifically.

We are more interactive on internet platform, providing that we are able to construct our personal viewing or using experience in an individual way. Internet are a celebration of individualism, and it does not really urges anyone to conform in one way or another. In contradiction to this, traditional media platforms assumes that there is this imaginary household(argues by John Bignell, 2004) that they are cater to, where they assume every audiences that they are catering to are somehow collective individuals that shares the same interest. The way that they are assuming their audience to be somehow collective and sharing the same interest has transform the audience themselves into passive receiver that does not have distinguishable interests.

Internet as a new media platform is way complicated than just assuming us to be all the same. We are no longer passive audiences that get fed by loads of informations, but instead, we search online for informations or things that will entertain or educate us, and we no longer rely on spoon-fed information. And internet audiences or users are now seen as prosumer than just passive audiences because we produce and consume at the same time. For instance, sites like youtube or twitter generates their content from user-produced materials, and it is also the user themselves who consumes these materials for their own entertainment purposes. We are not passive audiences or users if we are actively producing and interact with the internet.

I would say that the discourse of media audiences being passive will only be applicable if the audiences are just merely being a spectator. But in the internet, we are not just spectators, but we actually construct and interact on this virtual space.

On Facebook, no-one can hear you scream...

...primarily because no-one is listening. The wonderful thing about "democratic" forums such as blogs, Facebook, YouTube, cubicle walls in public school toilets, is that everyone can have a say - if they have a permanent marker handy in the case of the toilet wall.

As I like to say, the wonderful thing about democracy is that it gives everyone an equal opportunity to disagree with each other. Which is precisely why the rail-link from Downtown to Mt. Eden etc, will not get done until Steve Jobs has had his brain removed and preserved in a robot made from recycled iPod nanos.

I'm going to be slightly cynical here. YouTube comments rarely dip into anything that could be called... thoughtful. Often the height of intellectual endeavour tends to be "LOLZ, TEH KAT Fe!! down Lolz!!!!!!! ^^ XD." Only a truly twisted mind would use that many exclamation marks. Facebook "likes" and groups are, as rightly pointed out, not a statistical reference. They are products of the moment, something that rallies or amuses people for a split second. Personally I have over 400 likes and I could probably name about 12 or so.

Everyone has a say. So chances are no-one is actually listening. You have to be of unusual skill or just post at the right time, self-marketing is extremely important. Being hot is an easy form of self-marketing, because every guy on Facebook wants to be friends with that girl with a chest big enough to crush his head.

We are supposed to be "prosumers" or perhaps even... The Engineers of Generation LOL. I don't believe in this model, or the producer-distributor-consumer one. Everyone is an audience member at some point, even the producers. And not nearly everything that gets produced gets consumer. Look at this blog. We all contribute and that's fantastic. But no-one comments. We all stand and give grand speeches while those who aren't orating block their ears.

I'm not saying that it should be a utopia where everyone posts carefully thought-out comments with well-considered arguments and opinions. Hell no! Actually I don't know what I'm saying, but I do know that we have a lot of crap to wade through before we find that post/comment/rant that is a little diamond in a bucket of pointy LOL-shaped rocks.

Just make sure it is a diamond, because often the sparkle sells better than the stone.

P.R. (Post-Rant): This blog would be a lot more interesting if people actually commented on stuff. Just saying.

Facebook as the 'social watercooler'

In light of the new Paul Henry controversy, I’d like to reiterate what was discussed around three weeks ago about society searching for news and current events through different and unconventional mediums.
Paul Henry’s inappropriate ethnic slurs struck a chord with a large portion of society, essentially portraying him as a racist small-minded bigot; ultimately a xenophobe. Yet on the other side of the fence there is a huge fraction of society that believe that the world of political correctness and its over emphasised importance within New Zealand has claimed another victim, who was demonstrating the rights of free speech. Whichever side of the fence you inhabit, there is one thing that is ultimately evident. Within New Zealand (keeping it specific) Facebook has become the digital water cooler surrounding the event.
Firstly lets mention that Facebook groups such as “Bring back Paul Henry” (32,336 members) and “Paul Henry” (73,074 members) are climbing in numbers on Facebook. These pages are practically forums for racist banter from what can be seen, but the point is they provide a medium for those of similar opinion to converse and discuss and relate. It’s a way for people to find the latest news and gossip on a subject they deem interesting and project it to one another. It’s a place for social interaction on a similar level.
Shockingly Anand Satyanand’s page only has 122 likes, which doesn’t degenerate the social interaction that happens here, as most comments have streams of conversation that follow. Rather it is just another example of a forum that allows like minded people to seek opinions and news surrounding the event that is specific to their position.
The real evidence of Facebook being used in such a way is particularly evident in status updates. Friends and acquaintances are having full debates about the topic. I never actually saw the events take place but once I logged into Facebook I saw YouTube videos, comments and debates, pretty much the whole nine yards on the event and what it meant to people. The real development in people using Facebook as a means of sharing current events and social banter is that at the end of the day it is an internet based social medium and that allows people to share and develop arguments on a deeper level. There can be links uploaded to legitimate journalistic reports, you can upload you tube videos that take the subject seriously or are a humorous parodies. Facebook provides a richer text for debate where proof can be easily assimilated into the argument or sources that can provide greater understanding.
Basically Facebook provides the same realm for banter that the figurative water cooler provided but times that by a thousand and therein lies the result of the environment Facebook has created. It has amplified the traditional format to phenomenal proportions, where current events find you, where you are a part of the conversation or at least are aware of the conversation without being physically active or present. It is amazing how an alternative format used for social networking can be utilized in such a way where it becomes an alternative current affairs hub. It acts almost as a promotional tool amongst a large social network base, making it seem like a powerful grassroots journalistic centre. It is truly fascinating.

Can technology really change the world?

One laptop a day...
will that really make a huge difference in peoples lives?
would it be more important than food, shelter, clothes?
yes education is important..thats the only way to get yourself out of poverty..but how worthy is a laptop when your too weak from starvation to use it...
Negroponte has a point in trying to civilize and educate third world countires..but I would have to take Winstons side in this case.. yes technology is important but I would not classify it under a basic neccesity...
being a SST activist (this basically means that technology changes due to social needs, therefore it is not technology which changes us and technology is not a product of our society like technological determinist's assume)
I would have to agree with this concept...yes technology is important in our lives but we must also not forget that we are the reason why theres technology in the first place we play a MAJOR role in why technology is so advanced in the world we live in.
This makes the Marxist view a lot more appealing, it is true that people around the world benefit on behalf of those that suffer through exploitation and free labour the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
We are living in a society where we think that technology is so important in our everyday lives...we are made to believe that we can not function without it however in truth we are living in a superfical world and at the end of the day money can't buy all your hearts desires (also ideals from the Frankfurt School for social research).
This brings us to another point Google and Privacy?
there have been many moral arguments around Google's right to information online..who's property is it and who has the right to that property?
moral judgements would suggest that no one is allowed to use another persons property without permission of the provider while others would say that information online has become so normalised and once it is posted or put online it officially becomes public property.
I would have to agree with the second idea... at the end of the day google has made people more aware of other peoples websites, information, even books...yes that can be a bad thing sometimes but in reality it can also be a good thing..for e.g. google books which provide users online the oppurtunnity to flip through snippets of the book online, this can encourage users to go out and buy the book which is the case on my behalf on numerous occasions.
Lastly is the idea of downloads such as films and music..
Everyone has to admit that they have downloaded something for free over the internet, whether its an mp3 song, a film or even an entire album we all fall victim to the appealing notion of free downloads. So is downloading a song online the equivalent of going into a store and stealing a physical item??
In a way yes it is.. the creative individuals involved backstage do deserve to get rewarded for their hard work (as RIAA have stated, it is the creative people involved who are being stripped from their rights, the record company comes 2nd however this is because it is the artist who does most of the work at the end of the day)
so is downloading free media online bad? in reality yes it is but will that stop people from doing it? I highly doubt it..the internet allows individuals to do almost anything which can be detrimental to those putting great amounts of effort into their work.... However I do know a lot of people who will download the song free first and buy it from iTunes later if they like the track.

Piracy be gone!

The article in the reader about the rhetorics and myths of anti-piracy campaigns quite intrigued me. The article talks about how piracy is being tackled by appealing to the moral conscience. But does that really work?

During the lecture a lot of people agreed to buying their music or software legally, which made me think about how 'others' should be doing that too. Somehow, the trend towards legal downloading of content on the internet isn't quite there yet.

Just yesterday, someone I know owned up to having used torrents and being caught! And then there was another person who owned up to having downloaded an absolutely large amount of content from torrents, which any sort of guilt associated to it what-so-ever. Which brings me to a point made in the article regarding the "inverse relationship between age and the propensity to commit copyright offenses." Both of the persons that have been mentioned above are in their 20s. The one who was caught and seemed gulity for what he had done, is in his early 20s and the other one in his late 20s. However, unlike what the copyright industries might think, the older one wasn't exactly guilty concerning the offense.

This brings me to the second point made in the article, about the problematization of the youth. The article presents a view that the reason why the youth does not think it wrong to download content off the internet illegaly is because of the longwithstanding association of youth with 'crime' and 'delinquency.' This could sure be a reason, but looking at it from a simpler perspective, based on the survey results that the article shows, couldn't this be a result of the lack of disposable income? Just considering the 18 - 29 year olds, some of who might be university students or recent gradute, already have enough expenses to deal with than having to add another load on. It does seem much like a matter of common sense to say that not everyone in their youth has criminal and delinquint tendencies or even be dealing with emotional and psychological turmoil.

New Media and Advertising

As the internet beckons our attention more and more, with the power of piracy, file sharing and on-demand programming viewers continue to abandon their television sets finding fulfilment online instead. As the audience shifts, advertising too has made its move. So, where is all that television advertising going?

We're all aware of ads on just about every website we go to, and product placement isn't anything new either. The extent to which brands are placing themselves in films, TV-shows and just about every other media is however rapidly expanding, and in many cases getting ridiculous. It's a fine line between just enough and too much product placement.

The website Brand Channel tracks brands in films. Looking through the sites '2009 Brand Cameo Product Placement Awards' you'd be surprised at how many films were negatively affected by the extent of their product placement, such as Star Trek and Transformers, the latter even winning the 'Film Whore Award' for having sold its soul to advertising. Unsurprisingly, Apple took out the award for the brand most featured, with Ford taking a close second.

Advertising's black mark on film also continues to creep into new media online. As discussed in our lecture on Digital Capitalism, advertisers are even creating adverts that look like user-generated material and posting them on YouTube, and using viral marketing schemes through other social networking sties.

So, as our freedom grows to view whatever we like, whenever we like, advertisers are simultaneously on the move to sell us their products everywhere and anywhere!

Addition made 14/10/10: This is amusing-- apparently Apple won't take every opportunity for product placement. It seems Apple aren't fans of How I Met Your Mother, whose producers were refused permission to use Apple products, so shamelessly promoted Microsoft instead. Although I haven't seen the episode in question, it saddens me to think that product placement might have ruined an episode of one of my favourite shows.