It’s hard to know
what the future will hold, but it won’t stop people from speculating. In Back
To The Future they thought everyone would have hoverboards by the year 2015, at
one point in time it was believed everyone would have their own robot and drive
hover cars. Sadly this is not the truth, i guess you could argue that out phones
are the closest things to robots.
What we have today
is still amazing, we can send messages instantly using our phones and the
internet, you can talk face to face (screen to screen) with someone across the
world from you using skype, our medical advancements are a wonder, you can
fight the signs of aging you can track your phone and other phone users with Google
latitude, YOU CAN GOOGLE NOW, lost? There is google maps. How much more creative can we be with our
technology? Will it get any better? Or has the technology we have now dumbed us
down so we don’t expect much more? I don’t think that is the case, there will
always be innovators amongst us someone who dreams of something out of the
ordinary and makes it. I would love to see the technology developed 50 years
from now, but I will hate being that old person who doesn’t know how to use it
and frustrates the young.
Oh speaking of Back to the Future they also had shoes that tied themselves up for you, someone actually did invent them recently but haven't perfected them I can't remember where I saw that so don't hold me to it. But Nike did make replicas of Marty McFlys shoes: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392641,00.asp
I consider myself an avid gamer in fact I played WoW just because I
liked the elves in it. But I WOULD NOT EVER consider playing second life. If
you don’t know what second life is it is basically a virtual world were you
have, well, a second life. You create how you look, you can do pretty much
anything you can do in the real world in this virtual world, including buying
real estate, have sex, you can do anything.
Like real life you have to pay to do things, to customise your character
you actually have to pay real money to get things like, a different hairstyle,
appendages (penis, boobs etc). Really second life is a separate consumer society
you can buy the same products you use in the real world, and more, you can buy
wings for yourself in second life.
But what effect are virtual worlds having in our real world? There are
many stories about how people have had partners in real life and then had a
second one in a virtual world, you can even marry them. But a distinction has
to be made to make sure you don’t blur the line between reality and fantasy. I read an article about how people were living
double lives on second lives where they would be married to people online and
not tell their partners. I heard about one story where one girl broke up with
her real life boyfriend to pursue the boyfriend she had in the virtual world
despite him already being in a relationship in real life, she practically
stalked him to the point where he had to get a restraining order taken out
against her.
I don't have a problem with relationships formed online, if they work for you good for you, but I think unnecessary stalking is a bit of an issue. I recently met a couple who met on W.O.W on opposite sides of the world, he was from San Diego, she was from Mooroolbark in Melbourne, they have been married for 3 years and he moved to Australia for her. What I am attempting to say is if it works for you well done but draw the line somewhere don't become that creepy person everyone wants to get away from.
Like the use of mobile phones I think it takes out some of the important
social experiences you would have in real life, that everyone should go through
to become a functioning member of society. Spending 24/7 on a game ruins the
experiences you would be getting in the real world. Some might say you can just
experience them in this virtual world, but they aren’t the same thing. I mean
look at the graphics in the virtual world compared to the real world.
All in all I think it is okay to have an outlet in the virtual world
where you can do things you wouldn’t normally do, personally I wouldn’t even
consider second life, but I can see how others find it appealing. You have the
ability to do anything you wanted, you could make yourself the rainbow fairy of
happiness if you’re that way inclined. However, if you participate in second
life you should have a clear line in your head where the line between reality
and fantasy, and limit yourself to how much you play so you don’t miss out on
the experiences you could have been having if you weren’t playing.
Phones have become integrated into every day life, so much so I am
willing to bet that everyone would panic if they lost theirs. I didn’t have a
phone for a week and I panicked a bit, I had to organise things down to every
detail because if anything went wrong I couldn’t call and rearrange. Phones
hold our lives now, they hold our calenders, our contacts, banking details, and
if you’re like me you keep your notes on there too. All in all I would have to
say that smart phones are super handy.
However, being this addicted to our phones we could be considered as
cyborgs as put forward by Donna Haraway. Phones have become apart of us as much
as our own hands. We don’t leave home without them, we drag them around or
house so we don’t miss a call or a text. They have become an extension of our
own hands. In this instance we can consider ourselves as a cyborg. That is depending
on what your definition of what a cyborg is. But if you consider a cyborg half
human half robot, we can consider our phones as part of the robot half and we
human therefore we are becoming closer to cyborgs.
I do however think that iphones are becoming lazy parent nannys. Its not
uncommon for you to see a child chuck a tantrum and parents can’t be bothered consoling
them properly so they just give them their phone to distract them. It seems to
me that by taking that route your child is missing a very important part of
imparting important socialising with your child. If you always just give them
an iPad or iPhone they are going to miss an important part of social functions. In addition if you give your child games to play on the phone it encourages them to have rage problems with games earlier in life. It isn't uncommon for teens when they play games and start to lose they become angry. But what effects will it have on a younger childs behaviour.They don't get their way in a game they will become angry, that behaviour will become transferable to real life.
I think people really need to consider how much they let their child interact with technology, and consider that human interaction will be better for them growing up. We are becoming incredibly connected with technology but is it for the better or will it end up being for the worse?
Social media has it all, it’s so easy to use, it connects
masses of people, and everyone can join in. It was only inevitable that
politicians would try to bug us there too. Having said that it is one of the
best ways to instantly reach audiences. For politicians it can considered to be
the best way of reaching audiences they wouldn’t normally connect with, for
example the younger generation. The youth of today practically spend their
lives on social media platforms, so by joining in politicians can potentially
target a younger demographic. However, my Facebook tends to get more from
Barrack Obama than any other politician, and with him lies the key. Obama is
suave and the average man can relate to him making him more interesting. It’s
tough to get noticed so you have do something out of the ordinary to get the
attention you want.
The key to Obamas election was social media, he was on twitter,
facebook, had a blog, importantly he emailed. When Obama first started he would
email citizens of the state he was touring say something along the lines of ‘there
is something terrible wrong with our country, and we need to change it’. People
who followed Obama felt included. Obama listened to what people wanted and in
his words he delivered. Obama still actively participates in social media
releasing photos on his Facebook page updates twitter. The two most remember
thing I can remember from Obama are these two; the image of the boy patting his
head and slow jamming the news.
The Aussie politicians attempt to jump on the social media
band wagon, but in my opinion with very little success if you could call it that.
I vaguely remember the “Kevin ‘07” people wandering around with white tshirts
on claiming their allegiance. He encouraged people to join him on Facebook and
Twitter, but I wasn’t inclined to do so, he was boring there was nothing to
join for. Julia Gillard has a Facebook while I haven’t liked her page so I
could be missing out, hers just seems to be a biography of her more than
anything. I don’t think Australian politicians have quite figured out they need
a hook, to draw us in, and so far they have nothing going for them.
Social media can destroy your reputation just as quickly as
it can build it. Sarah Pallin had her devout followers, and just like any other
politician she had her ‘haters’. Unlike Obama who had several celebrities
public announce their allegiance, she had celebrities make fun of her. Tina Fey
a very popular comedy writer (writes 30 rock, assisted on SNL), public
impersonated Sarah Pallin on Saturday Night Live, SNL, from then on Sarah
Pallin had lost supporters and could be considered the downfall in her run.
I think social media is beneficial for politicians, it
reaches a broader demographic but what about the older people who don’t use
social media? Politicians may end up overlooking people who don’t use social
media. While these people can still get the important news quoted to them in
newspapers, they end up getting it slower than those who use social media.
Key things politicians shouldn’t forget on social media:
·Listen to your target audience
·Connect with them
·Have a hook
·Think before you update
·Most importantly don’t forget about the people
who don’t have social media.
What the crap is
Produsage? If that was your first thought welcome to my world. If you also
thought like me you would’ve assumed that it was something to do with producing
things, congrats you’re practically correct!
During the
industrial revolution we relied on mass produced goods distributed from a
central company. In modern times we can create our own goods and content, with
the assistance of the internet.
The idea put forth
by Axel Bruns is that we aren’t just passive consumers anymore. When you
actively participate in a community by contributing back to it you are becoming
a producer. The best example of this would have to be YouTube. By uploading
content you’ve made or filmed so that others can watch or consume it, you are
becoming a producer. Still not getting it? Well, ever heard of Wikipedia (I am
guessing if you’re a student yes, yes you have heard of Wikipedia)? Wikipedia
is an online encyclopaedia which can be edited by those who know more information
about a particular topic.
However, can
produsage also be considered plagiarism?
Consider this
This video by Walk Off The Earth is fantastic, but it isn’t their song, it is a
cover of Gotyes song ‘Somebody That I Used To Know’. Usually if there is
something so blatantly in breach of copyright YouTube will take it down. They
are even making money off the song by directing people to purchase if off
iTunes. In the description they don’t mention it is a cover until they direct
you to buy their copy and after a massive list of tour dates (go check it out,
that list is HUGE). However, they do
thank Kimbra and Gotye for writing the song, but does that excuse the breach? I
mean if Men at Work can be sued because their song resembled a famous
Australian Children song (Kookaburra Laugh or whatever it’s called), surely
they can be in breach of copyright. Having said that I really hope they don’t
because I actually really like this cover.
As put forth by
Axel Bruns there are four key principles of produsage:
I had always thought that governments were supposed to work for
the people they represent... how wrong was I?! People are supposed to be able
to trust their governments but it makes it so hard to trust them when they
constantly deceive the very people that elected them to power. It is expected
that there is a certain level of government transparency. While it is somewhat
expected that governments don’t tell their people everything they loose more
than trust by hiding information in shadows rather than by releasing the news
to the public. It will cause more public backlash simply because they try
hiding the information and expect no one will realise what they are doing. It is people like Julian Assange and the other
workers of Wikileaks that reveal just how deceptive our governments are. However,
there is a fine line between the government making information available to
citizens and maintaining national security. As stated by Bertot social media “offers
a contrasting view to balance the media coverage”. It does so by combining
collaboration, participation, empowerment and time. Social media gives user a
platform to voice their opinions (Bertot, Jaeger and Grimes 2010). Wikileaks is
a prime example of how technologies can reveal corruption.
Wikileaks exposes unethical behaviour in governments and
corporations, they do so by publishing and commenting on leaked documents on
their web page. Its the newest form of investigative reporting. What Julian Assange
and the rest of the Wikileaks team can be compared to the works of I.F Stone
(Izzy Stone)Throughout Izzys early career he was criticised and blacklisted,
Izzy filed, cross referenced and contextualised what governments say and
published his own Weekly news, called ‘IF Stone’s Weekly. Very similar to what Wikileaks does now,
except Wikileaks has the assistance of computers and the internet to assist
them (and a wider audience due to the ease of accessibility of the internet).
While war mongering countries like America have the most to lose
with Wikileaks around they will stop at nothing to put Julian Assange behind
bars. Julian Assange stands as an honest man, revealing classified information to
the people, who have the right to know what is happening with the tax payers
money. While not every country has freedom of speech Julian Assange and
Wikileaks go to extensive lengths to make sure their facts are checked and not
to defame anyone. Currently Julian
Assange is in the middle of a court case regarding extradition to Sweden.
Update: Assange lost the court case, but hope remains he can still
appeal the decision to the European Court of Human Rights.
Extremist can be define as “A person who holds extreme or fanatical political or
religious views, esp. one who resorts to or advocates extreme action”
(oxford dictionary). When viewed by the common man, their views can be
considered as immoral and misinformed, they don’t generally fit in with the
average people of society and prefer the surroundings of likeminded individuals.
eExtremists can easily find like minded people with the internet as it is so
much easier to connect with people. I can’t fathom why people would want to
hate people simply based on things such as ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation or skin colour. The internet has just made it easier for these
groups to connect, its acted as a gateway for them to share their ideas on a
global scale, as well as recruit new members. Any information posted on the
internet is accessible 24 hours a day from anywhere on the planet as long as
they have a connection, and everyone has the ability to broadcast their ideas
to the world.
Extremist groups were among
the very early users of electronic communication (Gerstenfeld, 2003). Tom
Metzger is the leader of the White Aryan Resistance. In 1985 he created a
computer bulletin board which quickly gathered a loyal following. However,
there are organisations that monitor extremist activities, one such
organisation is The Intelligence Project. While it is almost impossible to
monitor absolutely everything on the internet they do publish a magazine that
informs the public and law enforcement authorities on the current activities
they are investigating.
The Southern Poverty Law Center
counted 926 active hate groups in the United States in 2008. One of these sites
was Aryan Nations. (http://www.aryan-nations.org/).
Aryan nations declare they are “a worldwide Pan-Aryan crusade dedicated to the
preservation and advancement of our Race.” However, I can’t help but to compare
them with the same ideals that Hitler had. The majority of the info on the
website is just purely hateful and disturbing. As mentioned above the internet
can be accessed by anyone, which means anyone can visit that site, even
children.
One of the sites in the reading was the Australian First Part, which I thought
nothing of to begin, I had thought it was going to be yelling things at the
public to gain them onside. When I delved into some of their supported policies
I found that they wanted to reduce immigration and abolish multiculturalism. .
Graeme Campbell, their founder, claims that "Australia must remain
predominantly white.” For a political party they do hold a lot of extreme
views, I find it hard to believe they have a solid following with views like
these. While they aren’t as forward like Aryan Nations the message is clear
that they are intolerant and slightly racist.
Gerstenfeld, Phyllis B.;
Grant, Diana R.; Chau-Pu Chiang (2003) Hate Online: A Content
Analysis of Extremist Internet Sites. Analyses of Social Issues & Public
Policy. Vol. 3 Issue 1, p29-44
