Synthesizing Life: Transforming Science, Technology and Innovation

There are a lot of things that are changing thanks to new media. In terms of science technology and innovation, and through things such as blogs and podcasts, new media is changing both the opportunities for and the challenges of communicating these to the public. Current media is definitely bringing about a change in these aspects and in turn, it is also transforming us.

Through these communication methods we are seeing new science become more accessible and as a result, we are more susceptible to be influenced by these. Through distribution methods such as blogs, freelance journalism and even to an extent podcasting we are being transformed as we are increasingly influenced. Similarly through means of data sharing, academia will be able to support each other in regards to new innovative methods, as Elizabeth Pisani believes we need to “support for data management, development of infrastructure, resources for curation of data”.

But how exactly does this transform us? To what extent can new media bring about a change in mankind? Let’s watch a delicious little video first.

So scientists have created a ‘synthetic cell’. Developed by Craig Venter and a group of 20 other scientists, and taking a little more than 10 years to perfect. This cell brings about a change in modern science, and from it’s creation, “new microorganisms could be made by bolting on additional genes to produce useful chemicals, break down pollutants, or produce proteins for use in vaccines”, according to Venter anyway. Man made, computer made, this innovation, transformation if you will, in science and technology one day will transform us, whether we like it or not.

So do we then have an over reliance on computers?

Computers, machines - are they controlling life?

Possibly, in fact some would argue that we are already very reliant on computers. But that’s an argument for another time and I could go on, and on, and on, and on…

What I’m more concerned with is when does this innovation stop? When do we draw the line in using innovation and technology in science? New media is definitely transforming science, innovation and technology but is it doing too much and going too far, and in turn will it negatively impact our lives? I am totally unopposed towards science using new media as a great way towards communicating within the new content formats that are arising, however does someone need to regulate where the line is drawn?

How is new media transforming science, technology and innovation? Will this affect us in a positive or negative way?

And now comes the sad part. This is my eighth and final post for ARTS3091. It’s been a wonderful eight entries and I will most definitely miss blogging to you all, however, other assessments have amassed and I must now turn my attention to more prominent things.

~Tori

References:

• Bland, E., (2011) Scientists Create First Cell Controlled by Synthetic Genome – ABC News. [ONLINE] Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/scientists-create-cell-controlled-synthetic-genome/story?id=10692639. [Accessed 04 May 2011].
• Sample, I., (2011) Craig Venter creates synthetic life form, The Guardian. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form. [Accessed 04 May 2011].
• Pisani, E., Medical science will benefit from the research of crowd, The Guardian. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-data-sharing. [Accessed 04 May 2011].

Realising the P2Potential

Peer-to-peer networking (or P2P) is a concept that isn’t as new as you may think and it’s application is one that is very diverse in nature. P2P networking is a distributed application architecture that distributes tasks or workloads between peers and users. Peers are equally privileged and with this are able to organise and form new communities and networks..

A Peer-to-Peer or P2P network. Sharing with other users.

Researchers have explored the benefits of enabling virtual communities like those created by P2P to self-organise and introduce incentives for resource sharing and cooperation, arguing that the social aspect missing from today’s peer-to-peer systems should be seen both as a goal and a means for self-organised virtual communities to be built and fostered (Antoniadis & Grand:2007). We can deduct from the recent social media movements in Egypt surrounding the revolution have achieved this goal, although have we realised the potential, or was it just a one off event? Here’s what Michel Bauwens thinks about peer-to-peer and it’s current usages.

I would argue that the revolution seen in Egypt shows the potential of P2P networking, but it seems as though the Internet, this vast and widely accessible thing we so often rely upon is not as open as we might think. If the Egyptian Government can so easily turn the Internet ‘off’ are we really just minions in a hierarchical system? This is the belief of Douglas Rushkoff over at Shareable as he suggests “we fork the Internet – that we accept the fact that the net is built on a fundamentally hierarchical architecture, surrender it to the corporations who run it, and consider building something else for ourselves”.

Can we build a new network, a new community that is free from the politics of government? This is where we can turn to micropolitics and Thomas Jellis who states that “micropolitics, or the creation of techniques for collaboration, involve experimentation and an openness to be experimental”. That said, here’s an interesting news piece on who owns the internet, should we use regulation to maintain an ‘open’ internet?

So with P2P in mind, why not use this recent revolution in Egypt and the social media uprising to realise this peer-to-peer potential? If we feel as though the Internet is too regulated by government having the ability to ‘kill’ the internet or filter content, why not use micropolitics to build a new network and realise our peer-to-peer commerce, culture, and government.

References:

• Antoniadis, P. & Le Grand, B. (2007). Incentives for resource sharing in self-organized communities: From economics to social psychology. Digital Information Management, 2007. ICDIM ’07
• Jellis, T. (2009), ‘Disorientation and micropolitics: a response’, spacesof[aesthetic]experimentation, available at: http://www.spacesofexperimentation.net/montreal/disorientation-and-micropolitics-a-response/ [Accessed on April 20th 2011]
• Rushkoff, D. (2011), ‘The Evolution Will Be Socialized’, Shareable: Science & Tech, available at: http://www.shareable.net/blog/the-evolution-will-be-socialized [Accessed on April 20th 2011]

Tweet your Protest. Like the Revolution.

What have the recent events in Egypt taught us about the role of social media in government? A common misconception is that the use of social media sparked the revolution, but this is far from true. I’m sure if you had to put up with decades of repression and despotic rule I’m sure you would want to revolt as well.

Search. Share. Tweet. Egypt united.

Social media played a role in the revolution movement in Egypt, but it didn’t come out of nowhere. Facebook and Twitter in particular were tools that were used to speed up process by helping to organize the revolutionaries, transmit their message to the world and galvanize international support. They played different roles too, complimenting one another. Facebook events organise protests inside the country, Twitter acted as an agent to get the message out to the world.

Who needs weapons when you have the internet?

What we can see from this is the ways in which we engage with governments is changing. Should we be able to challenge and questions governments through social media? Of course we should. Paul Manson explains outlines that in the wake of social media becoming so prominent, the truth is easier to access than government propaganda.

So does this lead worldwide governments into Government 3.0. Does this Government 3.0 lead us to believing there will be a heavier focus on measuring the social citizen experience and the return on investment associated with implementing social tools? Alan Webber suggests that we need time to implement Government 3.0 properly and get over the hype that is surrounding Government 2.0.

Gov 2.0 is simply a label with an association to technology that is actually an organizational and cultural shift. If we change it to Gov 3.0, or Citizen 3.0, or iGov, does the hype cycle start over and does it really matter? From my perspective, no probably not. Organizational and cultural shifts take time, effort, resources, and work to be successful – not hype. (Webber 2010).

Following on from Webber, Alan Silberberg has an interesting take on Gov 2.0 and the transition to Gov 3.0 and is an expert on the subject having experienced the transition from non-digital to digital technologies over time. Below are his opinions on the subject.

What we’ve seen recently is a major example of the effects of social media on governments, with a potential domino effect into governance. What’s most surprising is that it’s almost as if social media is changing government, and not the other way around. Who would have thought?

References:

• Gustin, S. (2011). Social Media Sparked, Accelerated Egypt’s Revolutionary Fire. Available at: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/egypts-revolutionary-fire/ [Accessed April 12th 2011]
• Hirschkind, C. (2011). From the Blogosphere to the Street: The Role of Social Media in the Egyptian Uprising. Available at: http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/599/from-the-blogosphere-to-the-street_the-role-of-soc [Accessed 13th April 2011]
• Manson, P. (2011). Twenty reasons why it’s kicking off everywhere. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2011/02/twenty_reasons_why_its_kicking.html [Accessed April 13th 2011]
• Paschuck, K. (2010). Government 3.0. Available at: http://www.rightnow.com/blog/social-media/government-3-0 [Accessed April 13th 2011]
• Webber, A. (2010). Is the End of Gov 2.0 Near? Available at: http://www.roninresearch.org/2010/02/is-the-end-of-gov-2-0-near/ [Accessed April 13th 2011]

Pirates in Sync with Music

Let’s talk a bit about the music industry, about it ‘dying’. Maybe it’s not dying. Maybe it’s thriving. Let’s also think about it transversally, in terms of new digital and networked media environments. Oh, and we’ll also speak about piracy, or file sharing, whatever you want to call it.

Think outside the frame, transversally, about music ‘dying’. Anyone who can think this way can see that digital and networked media are not killing the music industry. Record labels are dumb. Piracy figures are fake. Put simply, these ecologies are changing the way we make, distribute and enjoy music. I’m going to make a bold statement (it’s not actually that bold, it’s true) and say that digital is winning the battle of music distribution, but I’m going to make an even BOLDER statement and say that if we think transversally, hyper-transversally (hey, I just coined my own term), piracy, not so much piracy, but file sharing, is what the digital distribution model of music should try to mirror.

Piracy for dummies: a 'handy' guide to the differences between the terms used on the subject

Dwight Garner of the New York Times, citing the work of Steve Knopper, sums up the slow evolution of record labels within the industry and the rise of piracy beautifully.

The record industry bungled the coming of Napster. Instead of striking a deal with a service that had more than 26 million users, labels sued, forcing it to close. A result, Steve Knopper writes, was that users simply splintered, fleeing to many other file-sharing sites. “That was the last chance,” he declares, “for the record industry as we know it to stave off certain ruin”.

I don’t think I need to add anything to that, it makes a pretty clear point.

Asher Moses of the Sydney Morning Herald says the industry is warming of a ‘piracy apocalypse’. That’s pretty stupid. Look at how much fun pirates have when you feed them shit statements like that.

Parodying Piracy Poster

But the file sharing model – we won’t call it piracy because piracy makes people scream ‘illegal!’ – is the way forward for the music industry. Apple is leading the way with the iTunes store, an easily accessible and somewhat competitively priced method to legally purchase and enjoy music. Google is following suit, with their Google Music project soon to go live. There’s also SoundCloud, you can listen to music, and if the artist lets you, download it too. Nate Anderson hits the nail on the head, piracy is an ‘online pricing problem‘, people are not willing to spend excessive amounts of money on what they can get for free.

Digital and networked media are not killing the music industry, they are simply changing the way it is distributed. If we think transversally, internet file sharing is the network that is keeping the music industry alive and thriving like never before.

References:

• Anderson, N. (2011), Piracy a ‘global pricing problem’ with only one solution. Available at: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/report-piracy-a-global-pricing-problem-with-only-one-solution.ars. [Accessed 5th April 2011]
• Garner, D. (2009), When Labels fought the Digital, and the Digital Won. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/books/07garn.html?_r=2. [Accessed 6th April 2011]
• Moses, A. (2011[1]), Music Piracy War: Are the Big Labels Wasting their Time? Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/music-piracy-war-are-the-big-labels-wasting-their-time-20110328-1ccrl.html. [Accessed 6th April 2011]
• Moses, A. (2011[2]), Piracy: are we being conned? Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/piracy-are-we-being-conned-20110322-1c4cs.html. [Accessed 6th April 2011]
• Wilson, M. (2009), A Pirates Code of Conduct for Bittorrent. Available at: http://us.gizmodo.com/#!5202399/a-pirates-code-of-conduct-for-bittorrent. [Accessed 4th April 2011]

Tug-of-War: Data vs Media

What is it that makes media love data? Or is it that media and data don’t quite get along? It’s clear that data and media relate directly with each other but what is it that binds them together in a ‘tug-of-war’ conflict which neither party will give in to, while so many intricate networks flow all around them.

Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory brings up the notion of the “assemblage” of data, the way things come together. Data itself comes together through network models streaming down through various embodiments of society. These data networks come together to highlight relationships between themselves, media technologies and something directly meaningful to humans, such as relationships or family, or social events.

Paul Edwards 2010 Introduction to A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data and the Politics of Global Warming highlight this network model. The model here trickles data down through humanities relationship to the environment, the embodiment of our relationship to the environment is something directly meaningful to humans. As applies to many other networks, we see that data is convergent, however can we always trust data and is it always a stable, trustworthy and reliable reality for establishing the reality of an event? For more on Edwards and his work, please follow the URL here.

I think it speaks for itself...manipulated data or? Image © Henry Payne

Take a look at an instance of data and media not getting along. The example here is the forever raging war on internet piracy. Here data and media somewhat mirrors the battle between internet pirates and anti-piracy agencies. Piracy itself creates a network throughout the internet in which illegally gathered files are shared amongst users, however studies and inquiries have shown the impact of piracy and claims have been rubbished by an Australian study, which claim the data provided has been fabricated.

The Business Software Association, an international software body, claimed that in the year 2005 piracy in Australia cost them $361 million. The draft says these figures are “unverified and epistemologically unreliable.” It even goes so far as to call some of the stats used by copyright holders “absurd,” and adds that “of greatest concern is the potentially unqualified use of these statistics in courts of law.” (TorrentFreak.com)

I thought this little documentary about internet piracy would be interesting to watch, shows how we’ve become almost accustomed to downloading. Although take a look at the collected data!

And so it is that data and media cannot always agree with each other. Is it that the ‘assemblage’ of data is inadequate, or is data fabricated through media networks? Perhaps the conclusion one could come to is that data does indeed care for humanities best interest, using examples of climate change and piracy to highlight this, however the circulation of data could potentially attempt to benefit it’s own cause rather than the greater media issues at hand.

References:

• Edwards, Paul N. (2010) ‘Introduction’ in A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming, MA: MIT Press: xiii-xvii
• TorrentFreak. (2006). Australian govt draft says piracy stats are made up. Available: http://torrentfreak.com/australian-govt-draft-says-piracy-stats-made-up/. Last accessed 30th March 2011.

Living Reality How It’s Augment To Be?

Moving away from the monopoly that is social media which is dominating the media realm at the moment, the notion of augmented reality and virtuality is fast becoming the new thing in the media industry. In fact, if you look past all the doubters of this technology who argue that marketing and advertising can quickly turn amazing technology into a fad, it is quite impressive and potentially useful technology.

So how will it change media? It’s clear that through new media technologies we can now see the world through these augmented realities – via various mediums such as iPhones. It also changes the way we interact and seek out media, so in turn it is a two way street, augmented reality interacts with media and media interacts with augmented reality.

So, let’s augment! The iPhone app ‘WorkSnug’ uses the phones video camera and advanced image recognition to augment the real work and display the nearest WiFi hotspot for users to connect their portable media devices. Although the app is only available in London at the moment, the business potential for the app remains enormous.

WorkSnug dentifies Wi-Fi hotspots and potential workplaces – from coffee shops to professional rent-a-desk office spaces – with user reviews encompassing power provision, atmosphere, noise levels and even the quality of the coffee. Image © Mashable.com

Another iPhone app which augments how we interact with our surroundings is a rather trivial app called ‘iPew’, in which you can shoot people with a virtual laser visible on the phones interface. Whilst not serving a purpose other than entertainment, it still emphasises how this technology is allowing us to participate differently through our own virtual world, albeit ‘iPew’ restricting that world to our handheld devices. However our iPhones now have complete self-awareness of their surroundings*.

iPew offers you a choice of weapons and provides gratifying noises as you get someone in your virtual sights and blast them away. Image © Mashable.com

We also see the shifting potential of augmented reality as we move into the future of media technologies. We are now able to entirely interact with console games such as Microsoft’s ‘Kinectimals’ for the XBOX 360. The technology uses Microsoft’s Kinect system to allow users to completely interact with the augmented world from their own homes. Users can perform a number of actions from playing tug of war with a tiger, to guiding an animal through an obstacle course. This technology has frivolous implementations at the moment but as media technologies shift into the future, the potential is amazing.

Augmented reality and virtuality are changing the way of thinking of mediation, and now we can shift the focus from effective message transfer to changing the future and the potential relations that are embedded in that future.

References:

• Grayson, C. (2009). Augmented Reality Overview. Available at: http://gigantico.squarespace.com/336554365346/2009/6/23/augmented-reality-overview.html. [Accessed 23rd March 2011].

*Making the assumption an iPhone is completely self aware is not only based on the use of apps that can augment reality, however also other features built into the iPhone hardware, including the digital compass (magnetometer) and the accelerometer. The digital compass gives the phone a place on the earth no matter where it is and the accelerometer determines the phones degree from perpendicular to the ground. These give the phone a precise sense of place and make the phone self aware of it’s surroundings.

Keep in Mind the Title

The brain is necessary for our life, but it is hardly sufficient. (Noë, 2010)

It’s an interesting idea, because everyone simply assumes that the brain is all we need to live, breathe, feel. But what about thinking, thought? Do we actually live, breathe, feel and think simply through our brain?

After reading Alva Noë’s eye opening article, I would have to disagree with my own prior and presumably assumed knowledge of consciousness and the thought process (assumed because this isn’t something I would usually think about – or have thought about). In fact, I’m beginning to get pretty philosophical about the whole thing and think about the ways that everything indeed does work.

Take for example, Noë’s metaphoric comparison of a human brain to that of a car engine.

Brain stands to mind the way engine stands to driving. (Noë, 2010)

Here’s where it took a little more debunking before I finally realized the distinction that Noë was trying to make. There is no doubt that we would not be able to operate without a brain, the same way a car cannot go without an engine. But, there is more to it.

So I decided, instead of all these big words and whatnot, I’ll simplify it so I can draw upon it later. I’m now of the way of thinking that everything needs another ‘participant’, if you will. Now, to me that makes sense, but for those of you who aren’t actually in my mind (hey, look! I’m talking about thinking and the brain while writing about it! Coincidence?) I’m going to give you an example. A car – let’s call it participant one – needs wheels – participant two – to operate.  Make sense now? Good.

Damn, I’m running out of time (or space?).

Anyway, basically it’s still difficult for me to wrap my head around it right now, my preconceived thoughts were that my brain worked like a magic tool to make everything ‘go’ – how naive of me. After this rant and rave about how much more knowledgeable I’ve become on this topic, if you’ve scrolled down far enough I can sum this up with one quote.

Brain stands to mind the way engine stands to driving. (Noë, 2010)

References:

• Noë, Alva (2010) ‘Does thinking happen in the brain?’, 13:7 Cosmos and Culture [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/12/10/131945848/does-thinking-happen-in-the-brain. [Accessed 16/3/11].

 

 

 

Now I know I’ve neglected mentioning anything else apart from Alva Noë this week, and for those of you who are disappointed I apologise, but damn, it’s mind blowing stuff.

Ha~

Media, an Environment?

An environment imposes upon oneself, a peoples. It imposes several ideas unto human beings such as certain ways of thinking, behaving, feeling. But what exactly does an environment do, and how does it relate remotely to media?

According to Neil Postman, an environment:

• Structures what we can see and say and, therefore, do;
• Assigns roles to us and insists on our playing them and;
• Specifies what we are permitted to do and what we are not. Sometimes, as in the case of a courtroom, or classroom, or business office, the specifications are explicit and formal.

But still, how is media an environment? Media has grown and it is now something much more than simply a machine, or a group of machines. Indeed, what Postman defines as an environment can be applied to the study of media as an environment, and this brings about the term ‘media ecology’ (ecology being the study of an environment, and the structure, content and impact of that particular environment upon people).

Therefore, ‘media ecology’ is the study of the current media environment.

But what does this environment do, how does one study it and, how does media function in an environment setting? Well, this is where it can get a little tricky. For media to function in an environment setting, media must act to compliment each other, rather than impose on and be overrun by one another. Not all forms of media are built for a similar purpose, and each media has a particular function, a presence if you will, that another form of media does not. In viewing media as an entity, a whole, rather than several singular entities each competing to be at the top of the ‘food chain’, I am able to deduce that – loosely based on what has been discussed by Marshall McLuhan – each form of media in some shape or form, will compliment another.

So…in media ecology, we’re studying the environment in which media operates. There is no concrete method of functioning in this environment, or any for that matter, however as media takes all shapes and forms, should they work together, it will make for a blissful harmony.

References:

• What is Media Ecology?. 2011. What is Media Ecology?. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.media-ecology.org/media_ecology/. [Accessed 11 March 2011].

• Media ecology – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 2011. Media ecology – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [ONLINE] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_ecology. [Accessed 11 March 2011].

Publishing vs Society

How does publishing affect us in everyday life? If it’s easier to publish, and if publishing is easier to access, and if anyone can become a ‘publisher’, how does that affect us, and more importantly, society?

I am of the belief that the following statement is extremely important when it comes to understanding social relations both throughout history and in modern times.

When publishing changes, so does society.

How so you might say? How does a change in publishing even affect society, what do the two have to do with one another? I am of the belief that both are incredibly intertwined in the way society, and social relations function. In order to develop this idea I will be looking at the impacts of two technologies on society and social relations, one pre-1900 and one post-1962.

Pre-1900 – The electric telegraph, developed by Samuel F. B. Morse in 1837.

Post-1962 – Social networking website Facebook, founded by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004.

Both of these, let’s call them inventions for now, undoubtedly had a massive impact on society, and indeed changed the way in which society functions in terms of social relations. Both provided new means of publishing in their respective era’s, with the telegraph making it possible to communicate farther distances with ease in the 1830’s, and Facebook allowing for mass communication between individuals, groups and societies from its inception in 2004. Both essentially created a new mode of publishing, and while both were different, both had a significant impact.

Now, take a deep breath, get a cup of coffee ready, and maybe some food if you’re hungry, cause here we go.

Before going too much into depth however, on how these inventions changed society and social relations, we need to establish understandings of what social relations are, what social relations mean, and how social relations are impacted by publishing.

Social relations refer to a relationship developed between two or more peoples. It involves the way we interact with each and every person and the ways in which they interact with us. Social relations are a fundamental part of everyday life, in which everyone is involved in some way or another, in a form of interaction with another person or group of persons.

So with a basic definition of social relations, how can we bring this back to changes in publishing and how changes in publishing ultimately change society?

Well, the telegraph was introduced by Samuel F. B. Morse in 1937. Prior to his invention, Morse was a painter, and became dumbfounded when he realised how difficult it was to send messages via long distances, and hence he set about making a means to send messages long distances via electronic pulses by a wire. He subsequently came to develop Morse Code, a system of dots and dashes, which allowed the electrical signals to be deciphered into letters of the alphabet and hence become publishable and translated into messages.

But what impact did Morse and this change in publishing have on society?

Since Morse introduced his method of sending long distance messages (SMS-esque in modern times), the world subsequently changed. People were beginning to connect in ways like never before, and it can be said that Morse’s invention could be seen as a primitive social networking website such as Facebook!

Yeah alright, now you think I’ve stayed up too late or am obviously not thinking straight (hey, that rhymes!), but I’m not the only one who thinks this. In his book, entitled The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century’s On-line Pioneers (that’s one damn long book name…), Tom Standage argues that “besides news reporting, telegraphy, as the first true global network, permitted applications such as message routing, social networking (between Morse operators — with gossiping and even marriages among operators were celebrated via telegraph), instant messaging, cryptography and text coding, abbreviated language slang, network security experts, hackers, wire fraud, mailing lists, spamming, e-commerce, stock exchange minute-by-minute reports (via the ticker tape machine invented by Thomas Alva Edison, and many others”.

That’s right, the telegram basically created the first ever global social network! So, that’s got to have some kind of impact on society right, I mean, it made a whole new means of publishing!

Not so crazy now am I?

So what did this mean for society? What impacts are there on social relations when we invent a means to communicate people without having to physically be in their presence? It’s clear that when communicating becomes easier via means of less face-to-face interaction, social relations are heavily impacted. The telegraph for instance, had a positive impact on society. With this new mode of publishing, society was able to benefit from significantly faster distribution of information, people were able to communicate where they may not have been able to communicate before and there was a sudden realisation that instant global communication was possible. While maintaining a strong social physical social relationship within society and between individuals, the telegraph allowed for the strengthening of social relationships never before possible, and hence the social relations of the 19^th century were heavily benefited by the introduction of the telegraph.

And what about the post-1962 ‘invention’ of Facebook?

I’m sure Facebook doesn’t even need an introduction. I checked my Facebook just before I began typing this, just like you have a tab in your browser that has Facebook open. I have Facebook (duh!), you have Facebook (already knew that), in fact, every man and his dog has a bloody Facebook nowadays. You know what, I think it’s even a little bit awkward when you have a good friend who doesn’t have a Facebook, just because the social networking site has become so imbedded into our everyday lives since its inception all the way back in 2004. It’s a way to express ourselves, make fools of ourselves, and is an all around new mode of publishing. It has drastically changed how we publish, well…everything (we all have that one person who publishes everything – “just got home from the gym!” – “…has finished all his homework” – “just went to the toilet”, you know who I’m talking about).

Take a look at the definition of Facebook found on NCCommunities.org:

Facebook: Facebook is a social networking website — a gathering spot, to connect with your friends and with your friends friends. Facebook allows you to make new connections who share a common interest, expanding your personal network.

How has the introduction of Facebook changed our everyday lives? How has it impacted on our social relations?

Well, I’m going let this picture from the The Daily Record.com (since writing this, the image has been removed from the original post) speak for me.

Yeah, that’s right.

While in theory, the publication and social relationship ability of Facebook is immense. Yes, the possibilities are endless, it opens up all kinds of networks previously difficult to access, and it gives everyone a chance to be social, but it makes us pretend we’re being social.

That brings me to this little picture.

Gotta Run, Have to get Social! Copyright RoystonRobertson.co.uk

Right there, that is my point. We’re being social without being social.

I am not of course, going to sit here as I write this and do nothing but badmouth Facebook, and claim that it is destroying social relationships between individuals and groups, because let’s face it, Facebook is pretty awesome. I myself have managed to get into contact with people from primary school, people who I had no way in getting in contact with prior to Facebook – us cool kids didn’t have mobile phones to text each other with back in 1998.

But while Facebook does have many positives, there are also a few negatives that have come about by this new mode of publishing, impacts that affect society and social relationships.

This image is kind of extreme, but it gets my point across.

Facebook in Real Life. Copyright Hubspot.com

Some people may class being on Facebook as being social, and will reject being actively social for the social networking website. It needs to be clear that networking via the Internet is no replacement for real social interaction and there can be no comparison between a social relationship between people over the Internet and that of one in real life.

Facebook also makes your social life public. Yes, there are privacy settings, but take this example. You’re out on a Saturday night, someone has a camera and takes photos, and then Sunday morning there are promiscuous photos of you on Facebook – photos of you that you don’t want people to see. Photos of you have been published without your consent, and all of a sudden, everyone knows how piss drunk you were on Saturday night.

Facebook has changed society, forever, that is the inevitable. There is no going back now. I’ll go back to my first statement, ‘when publishing changes, so does society’. Well, here you have it; society has changed greatly due to Facebook.

So, to conclude. What happens when publishing changes? Society changes.

The introduction of the telegraph and the introduction of Facebook in their respective era’s both introduced a new mode of publishing, and both changed society. Both had a significant impact on social relationships, somewhat similarly making communication across long distances possible, easier, and offering a far more convenient means of communication. Morse’s invention undoubtedly changed the world forever, and likewise, Zuckerberg’s social networking site has done likewise. Both have allowed society to create greater means of social relationships, when used correctly (even the telegraph was misused – scroll up if you’ve forgotten that quote from Standage). Social relationships also are susceptible to negative impacts through these two inventions.

I would like to end with a rather lengthy quote from Olha Romaniuk, author of the article ‘The Negative Effects of Facebook’ on Helium.com, as she warns:

“You must remember to never confuse online interactions, and that includes Facebook wall posts and private messages, to be an adequate substitute for face-to-face, person-to-person conversations, outings and get-togethers. In other words, do not get wrapped up with how many friends are on your friends list or how many people have commented on your status today. You must realize, and too many of us fail to do so, that online networking should come second to trying to make connections in the real world. Hidden behind a computer screen, you can be a social butterfly, but if that attitude does not translate into your everyday life, then you are not doing yourself any justice by divulging in an online illusion of popularity.”

Thanks for reading, feel free to drop a comment with your thoughts or if you just want to argue 🙂

Arts1091 Tutorial Notes Week 3

Week 3 Tutorial for Arts1091!

Wednesday Tutorial 9:00am – 10:30am, Elec Eng 225, W09B – Mariana Rodriguez

This is what was talked about!

Overview of Lecture

Metaphors:

Metaphoric displacement – when a metaphor can mean multiple things. The power of a metaphor, e.g. the computer is the metaphor for the mind – associate minds with computers.

Media effects – television:

Methods and scientific approaches used for theories that shape media. Television, e.g. travel show transporting you to another place, transporting the idea into action.

How does it affect our lives?

How does media effect power? Change power structures, e.g. Matthew John’s, changed the power structure against him but ripping him down, e.g. Kyle Sandilands: It is the mother’s fault? Main issue: the 12yr old girl being raped. Shouldn’t have spoken about it on national radio. It’s immoral.

Discussion on Readings: Ch 4, 5 – thinking about media in a critical way

– Think about the division of empirical and critical schools:

Empirical: Research, Scientific. Pg92-93 txt book – Quality rather than Quantity.

Critical School: Theories and approach. Philosophical approach. Analytical research

– Focus on the shift from ideology to cultural studies the post structuralist concentrations of discourse.

Ideology: A higher economic class uses their class, the way that they live and act to influence the lower class on how to live. A set of rules, which are artificial and that we live by. A set of idea’s made by the upper class.

– Problems with the effects based approach:

Cause & Effect: Violence on television – in effect kids would want to do that, copying what they see on television. Ideology: can’t show sex or violence on television. Why? The idea is that if we show violence on TV we will copy. Inactive audience:

Active audience: questions what they see

Frankfurt: distinguish between reality and perception, giving the audience credit.

Problem: No violence on TV: people are going to believe it, although there are people out there who do these things already. Shift between a passive and an active audience.

Kyle: Critical approach: everyone critical him straight away, we reacted to it and took action against it straight away.

Post-Structuralism Marxism: ‘hegemony and discourse and how people come to believe that capitalism is a natural way of life.’

Miller and Rose article:

– ‘Power is not so much a matter of imposing constraints upon citizens as of ‘making-up’ citizens capable of bearing a kind of regulated freedom’

Power is not a single entity anymore, its letting society make their decisions on their own.

– Is the state really a ‘mythical abstraction’ – certainly I did my taxes and it didn’t feel like myth…am I right?

Action at a distance: Organisation in groups, generating ideas in these groups that the public latches onto and develops the ideas. False sense of freedom, we are in control of things that we aren’t really in control of, government are controlling us in ways we aren’t aware of.

Theory of Government: we need to have a set of rules that we feel we can live to.

– What does the governmentalization of the state mean actually?

Governmentalisation: Under government control

Being governed: not actively controlling the people, but giving them tool to control the people.

-Julia Hughes-Smallwood and Tori Foschini