The Future Gaze: Moving Towards Web 3.0

There is absolutely no doubt that social media is an integral component in our lives today. The rapid development and expansion of social media in these last few years has me wondering where it will go in the next few years and beyond, into the realms of web 3.0.

Firstly, it is apparent that the days of predominantly accessing and utilising the web from a computer are vanishing. Mobile technology and tablets are the way of the future. 

Considering mobile technology in the social media context, Quek (2012) discusses the need for social media providers to ensure their sites function well in the mobile domain to ensure their brand remains current. When I review my own social media usage I’d estimate that 95% of it is done via my smart phone. Confirming the view of Quek, my frustrations with the mobile apps provided by some social media sites have seen my use of those sites dwindle, whereby the ease with which sites like Twitter function on my phone has seen my tweeting increase a lot.  So the message going forward is fairly clear, make apps that function well and allow us to use your site effectively on our mobile devices, or risk dropping off the social media map.

Other advances I can see, is a complete metamorphosis in our social interactions, as virtual lives become what we deem as real. We are no longer restricted in our associations by location, as people create friendships with individuals from across the world via social media tools. The use of hashtags, hangouts and circles provides us the ability to socialise with people of common interests from anywhere on the planet. The specificity of our online interactions makes this a highly enticing proposition. If I want to hangout with a group of people to talk solely about my favourite music genres, movies or video games, I can do so with such ease and such specificity that it becomes a form of social interaction preferential to real world interactions. Ayelet Noff (2011) touches on this point in his excellent article about the future of social media. With this in mind, I believe that in the not too distant future our online avatar identities will be responsible for the bulk of our social interactions and could potentially become more real to us than our physical selves as we focus more and more on how to present ourselves and create an identity virtually. 

A concern with the way in which social media and web 3.0 technologies are evolving the way we live is whether the way we interact online is at the detriment of real world relationships. Are we creating a generation who can tweet, like, share and comment but who have no real ability to build meaningful intimate relationships as real world interactions play second fiddle to online interactions? I have genuine fears that whilst we are more connected than ever, in a sense we’re growing further and further apart. Manago, Taylor and Greefield (2012) share this concern, discussing how people strive for popularity online at the expense of skills for creating real intimate relationships. As we progress into the web 3.0 world and our avatars become central to our social activities, this is a concern that must be given serious consideration.

REFERENCES

Manago, A, Taylor, T, & Greenfield, P 2012, 'Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of college students' Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being', Developmental Psychology, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 369-380, PsycARTICLES, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 February 2013.

Noff, A 2011, ‘What's next in social media’, Social Media, viewed 9 February 2012, <http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2011/06/14/whats-next-in-social-media>.

Quek, C 2012, 'The future of social media: mobile, niche, meaning?’, Social Media Today, viewed 10 February 2012, <http://socialmediatoday.com/ladyxtel/507170/future-social-media-relevance-mobile-niche-meaning>.

Cyber Bullying: My Fatherly Freakout

For all the good that the Internet and social networking provides there is seedy underbelly that has emerged in recent years and continues to expand. Acts of cyber terrorism, e-extremism and cyber bullying are all prevalent factors and risks that we can potentially encounter in our daily Internet and social networking encounters. The main focus of this blog is cyber bullying; I’m a father of two girls and bullying is a genuine concern, in fact, to be 100% truthful bullying of my children is more than just merely a concern it's something that I genuinely fear.

When I went to school during the 1980’s and 90’s, the biggest threat was in the schoolyard or the playground. I was fortunate to never have been the victim of bullying, but I’ve seen friends and family encounter it. My sister was subject to it so I saw first hand the effects it can have on a young persons life and the major consequences it can have on their schooling. Back then however, bullying was face to face. It was real, and in your face. It could be monitored, and it could be witnessed. Teachers, parents and peers could provide support and defend victims a whole lot easier.

Today things have changed. Bullying is masked, its more often performed virtually. It can be totally anonymous and it is easily hidden from those who can assist in preventing it, As pointed out by Mishna, Saini and Solomon “bullying now can happen all day since technology has extended ‘schoolyard bullying’ to home computers and cell phones, making it possible for non-stop bullying” (2009). This is terrifying. Bullying used to be encountered in specific places, that is, a physical area where there was a bully and a victim present at the one time. Nowadays bullying can follow you and according to Mishna, Saini and Solomon can take shape in the form of posting, coercing, backstabbing, and masquerading

So how do we as parents control this? The obvious approach is monitoring our children’s usage of the Internet. Easier said than done. A 2005 study found that 61% of parents reported to have set limitations on their child’s internet use, however the same study found that only 38% of adolescents reported having such limitations (Wang cited in Liau, Khoo and Ang, 2008). A fairly big divide in those numbers. In all likelihood, parents probably are setting these limitations, but lets face it, its not uncommon for the individualism of adolescence to take over and ignore instruction. Lets take the parent responses in this study at face value, 61%. That still leaves 39% who aren’t setting any limitations, even more frightening!

There is little doubt that cyber bullying is a serious threat to our children, there is also little doubt that it’s a form of bullying that can in some circumstances be impossible to monitor. Our children are connecting with the Internet at younger ages, be it for communicating with friends, researching for school projects or to play games. It’s a way of life and the most common means of communication and participation these days. Johnson (2010) surveyed a sample of six to nine year old students and found that over 60% reported using the Internet at home, mainly for playing games and web browsing. The same sample reported that nearly 90% use the Internet at school. 

We as parents need to seriously consider how we can control the online activities of children. I am all for allowing my children to be independent, in fact I encourage it within reason, but the threat is too real online. As a Dad hell bent on protecting my children, I genuinely fear cyber bullying and whilst I won’t wholly restrict my children’s internet use, I will be looking over their shoulders often and most importantly I will educate them on the threats which exist and the need to speak up and inform my wife and I in the event that something sinister takes place.

REFERENCES

Mishna, F, Saini, M, & Solomon, S 2009, 'Ongoing and online: Children and youth's perceptions of cyber bullying', Children And Youth Services Review, 31, 12, pp. 1222-1228, E-Journals, EBSCOhost, viewed 5 February 2013.

Liau, A, Khoo, A, & Ang, P 2013, 'Parental Awareness and Monitoring of Adolescent Internet Use', Current Psychology, Preprints, pp. 1-17, E-Journals, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 February 2013.

Johnson, G 2010, 'Young children’s Internet use at home and school: Patterns and profiles', Journal Of Early Childhood Research, 8, 3, pp. 282-293, E-Journals, EBSCOhost, viewed 5 February 2013.

Produsage

In the 70’s Alvin Toffler flagged the notion of the ‘prosumer’. Informed consumers who challenged producers to allow greater customisability in the development of goods, and shifting the focus from mass production to more flexible, individualised products. In my personal life I have engaged in this type of behaviour, recently collaborating with the Carvin Guitar Company to customise a guitar wholly of my own design and allowing for an end product that is completely to my specifications.  Huge corporations like Nike now offer entirely customisable shoes and goods, which allow total individualism.

As evidenced above, Tofflers concept of ‘prosumers’ is still well and truly in existence, however it has evolved further with technology. Modern online networks utilising web 2.0 tools have paved the way for produsage, that is, an open environment where users can collaborate and drive the production of information. The ideas and values of produsage have infiltrated many areas of today’s society completely changing the landscape of information production. Users now contribute in creating information in environments such as online gaming (Second Life, The Sims) and citizen journalism (product rating on Amazon and review sites such as Product Review). Probably the most commonly known example of produsage in today’s society is in the area of knowledge management with web sites like Wikipedia allowing users to contribute and edit information to a massive online encyclopedia.

Bruns (2007) outlines four key components of produsage:

1. A wide community of contributors in the generation of content.

1. Fluid transition of users from leader, participant and user of content.

1. Content is constantly evolving and in a sense remains unfinished and under development.

1. Produsage allows for engagement based on merit more than ownership, to enable constant content development.

As such produsage is driven by a culture of users contributing in a shared, communal environment, which is largely void of hierarchal structure and leadership. This concept has great merit as it allows for a more complete product that can continually evolve allowing for constant development of goods and information. However it also presents ethical dangers in that the seemingly non-existent governance structure of information creation can result in easy contamination, inaccuracies and in some cases issues with copyright.

From a wholly personal perspective, I enjoy engaging in produsage. Wikipedia is an often visited website in my browsing history, allowing me to intuitively and efficiently research topics of interest, and in some cases contribute to subjects of my own expertise. Produsage also plays an integral role in the generation of my personal creative endeavours. As a musician and songwriter, the ability to post song ideas on sites like Sound Cloud to receive feedback and to collaborate with other musicians in developing musical ideas has enriched my life. It is through the collaborative process of produsage that my most simple musical ideas can blossom into fully fledged pieces of art.

REFERENCES

Bruns, A 2007. ‘Produsage: towards a broader framework for user-led content creation', Creativity and Cognition: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on Creativity & Cognition <http://ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1254960.1254975>, viewed 31 January 2013.

Bruns, A 2007. Produsage.org: From production to produsage: research into user-led content creation, <http://produsage.org/>, viewed 31 January 2013.

Snurblog 2005. Some exploratory notes on produsers and produsage,  <http://snurb.info/index.php?q=node/329>, viewed 31 January 2013.

Avatars & The Sim-ulacra

    Baudrillard's theories on simulation and the sim-ulacra are fascinating. That notion that reality no longer emits signs to indicate its existence and that simulacrum is not just a copy, but the hyperreal, is genuine food for thought making me deeply consider the true value of signs and symbols in constructing our reality. Looking deeper into the concept, Baudrillard discusses a four stage breakdown of signs:

1.     A faithful image/copy

2.     Perversion of reality

3.     Profound reality

4.     Pure simulation

My research into the topic led me to consider avatars and their use today.  What I found is that there an array of ways in which avatars are used by people, in particular when playing social games such as Second Life. Derived from Sanskrit, the word avatar is translated to 'incarnation'. In its modern sense, avatars are an online representation of a user, and can take many forms such as a screen name or a three dimensional visual representation. Offering infinite possibilities, creation of an avatar gives a user an opportunity to express themselves outside of the physical world.

The thoughts of Sherry Turkle on this topic are interesting. Turkle believes that experiences with computer environments provide users with new forms of existence which can redefine the notion of identity. What this provides is a chance for individuals to express unexplored aspects of the self, and in some circumstances provide a transformation of their identity. 

Whilst I'm not much of a gamer these days, I used to be prone to some online sports gaming. Personally, my online avatars have always been fairly simple recreations of myself. I'm boring in my avatar creation and use my own nickname for my characters, visually making them as similar a recreation of myself as I could.

In my readings on avatars and social gaming, I discovered that I am a minority in this regard with many people going to elaborate measures in creating an avatar. Most fascinating to me was the lengths people go to, in joining communities within games like Second Life.

Rules, roles and rituals play a huge part in a world that offers endless opportunities to be as individual as one desires. Things like wedding customs, special greetings and choreographed dance routines are part and parcel of interaction in Second Life. I was puzzled that when offered genuine freedom in a virtual world like Second Life, users swarm to join groups like Goreans or vampire bloodlines which have strict requirements governing how users can act and interact within the game.

Whatever their reasons, it is clear that people love Second Life and the opportunities to interact with the virtual world it provides; in 2011 Second Life averaged approximately 14-18 thousand new registrations each day.   

REFERENCES:

Adee, S 2012, 'Me, Myself, I', New Scientist, 215, 2877, pp. 38-41, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 January 2013.

Koles, B, & Nagy, P 2012, 'Virtual Customers behind Avatars: The Relationship between Virtual Identity and Virtual Consumption in Second Life', Journal Of Theoretical & Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 7, 2, pp. 87-105, Computers & Applied Sciences Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 January 2013.

WikiLeaks

I am the first to admit; through all the controversy I have been totally oblivious to the inner workings of WikiLeaks. It was hard to ignore, given all the media attention but I just hadn’t taken the time until recently to weigh up all the information and form an opinion on the site and its spokesperson/co-founder Julian Assange. My initial view based on my limited understanding was that Assange was a nothing more than a hacker. A cowboy who was stirring up trouble, and who would fade from the spotlight fairly quickly. After some investigation though, my views have somewhat changed.

I say ‘somewhat changed’ as I still find myself questioning much of what Assange and WikiLeaks stand for. I believe in government transparency and accountability and the site clearly offers that. As a voter, taxpayer and citizen I want to know as much as I can about the government and those at the top end of town as I can. I believe that’s my right. If corruption is there to expose, I want it exposed. However I am also a big believer in ethics, and the manner in which WikiLeaks obtains and spreads information raises so many ethical questions that I simply cannot get onboard 100%.

WikiLeaks claims to be intermediary service for whistleblowers. That’s all well and good, however when it’s stolen or hacked information I cannot support its release. Quality investigative journalism is fine, interview, research and dig to see what you uncover. If it’s worthy, print it. However obtaining stolen or leaked information from sources who don’t own that information is a shoddy practice. Furthermore, when information can lead to major consequences for national security and in some cases put innocent individuals at risk, I staunchly believe it should not enter the public domain. Assange himself admitted in an interview with Raffi Khatchadourian (2010) in the New Yorker, that WikiLeaks may one day end up with “blood on its hands”. I ask, if that ever does eventuate, how does it separate Assange and WikiLeaks from many of the corrupt they attempt to expose? He claims in the same interview that this risk is worth taking, as the number of innocents protected by exposing the information WikiLeaks does outnumbers those at risk. Is collateral damage ever acceptable?

I will shy away from labelling Assange a terrorist or a criminal. This is a man contributing to the concept of participatory culture in unimaginable ways. He provides a voice, and an avenue for corruption to be exposed and for real government transparency and accountability to exist. However when ethics is pushed aside to cater to this, I simply cannot offer whole hearted support to the cause.

References:

Bertot, JC, Jaeger, PT & Grimes, J M 2010, ‘Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies Government’ Information Quarterly, vol. 27, pp.264-271.

Guardian News & Media Ltd 2012, The Guardian: Wikileaks, viewed 18 January 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks

Khatchadourian, R 2010, ‘No Secrets: Julian Assange’s Mission for total Transparency”, The New Yorker, 7 June 2010, viewed 20 January 2013, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian

Kinsman, J 2011 Truth and consequence: The Wikileaks saga, Policy Options Institute for Research on Public Policy, Canada, viewed 18 January 2013, http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/feb11/kinsman.pdf

Social Media & Politics: Engaging the disinterested

It's clear that social media is now integral in modern politics and must be a key focus point for any political strategy to win public support. Be it the way politics is reported, campaigns are run or public political debate and discussion is held, social media plays a key role in defining the aspirations of politicians. There is no better example of this than the 2008 and 2012 Obama election campaigns, which utilised a range of online tools to connect, engage and encourage conversation with voters. Furthermore, the multitude of news sites and blogs, both serious and satirical, reporting politics means that voters have never had a greater range of political viewpoints to consider, nor more of an avenue to express their own political voice. 

This presents clear advantages and disadvantages for politicians. Social media allows for political agendas to be spread more easily. Politicians can connect with their public using YouTube videos, tweets and Facebook pages. They can engage online communities and encourage supporters to promote political causes more easily and more economically. The obvious disadvantage, is that the same tools which allow them to connect with the public, can also destroy them. One slip up from a politician and  the ability to go 'viral' via social media can cause huge downfalls. Online tools are also striving to make politicians more accountable, with sites like GetUp! keeping track of political promises and catching out any that are not fulfilled.

One interesting facet of politics entering the social media realm, is the ability for campaigns to engage the disinterested. A politician who tweets, uploads YouTube videos or posts on Facebook can feel more human, more current and more in touch with society. Older style campaign tactics require voters to spend time carefully considering viewpoints. We know that the portion of the public with a strong interest in politics will be willing to carefully review all elements of campaigns before making voting decisions. However for the portion of the population who are generally disinterested in politics and don't desire spending long periods of time weighing up voting options, familiarity with a politician who has connected with them via a quick social media grab may be enough to sway a vote regardless of the core political views that politician holds. From the politicians perspective, it doesn't matter who votes for them nor the level of interest they hold in politics, but that the end result of obtaining votes is achieved. 

REFERENCES:


Germany, JB. 2009, ‘The online revolution’ in D. W. Johnson (Ed.) Campaigning for president: strategies and tactics, new voices and new techniques, Taylor and Francis, UK, EBL EBook Library, pp 147-159, viewed 8 January 2013, <http://www.swin.eblib.com.au/EBLWeb/patron?target=patron&extendedid=P_425530_0&>

Winograd, M & Hais, MD 2008, Millenial makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the future of American politics, Rutgers University Press, pp. 156-173, EBrary, viewed 8 January 2013, <http://ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/swin/Doc?id=10231500>

Young, S 2010, 'New, political reporting and the internet' in How Australia decides: election reporting and the media, Cambridge University Press Australia, EBL EBook Library viewed 8 January, 2013, pp. 203-228, <http://www.swin.eblib.com.au.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/patron/Read.aspx?p=647454&pg=225>

Digital Activism: What a difference a day can make

I’ve never partaken in activism in an official sense. It’s not that I don’t care for causes, as I certainly form strong opinions on the state of the world, it’s just that I choose to voice those opinions in a more private sense. I prefer to engage in conversation with friends and family and it’s fair to say that I don’t make my opinions or support for causes known on a wider public scale, so the concept of involving myself in public campaigning or protesting has never been an option.

The shift towards digital activism provides a more passive opportunity to become involved in causes. Facebook groups and sites like getup.org.au make it easier to be involved. For somebody like me who holds strong opinions, but has never had interest in voicing those opinions in a public forum, this form of activism fits well. So why is it, that I’m not drawn to join in?

I definitely believe that the digital realm allows causes to gain greater support. Social networking and the ease with which causes can be supported will ensure that the right cause can go ‘viral’ and touch many more people than traditional means of activism could. More people considering the stance of a worthy cause can only be a good thing, can’t it? Or is it a further disconnection from real human contact, as society plunges further into a world where digital expression is chosen over genuine personal interaction? Sitting on the fence a little bit there aren’t I?

I suppose that sums up my thoughts on digital activism. I’m a fence sitter. My view is that digital activism is useful for involving more people and raising awareness of issues, but I question the effectiveness of the manner in which the activism takes place, and the potential for it to achieve an end goal. Will Facebook groups and websites purporting culture jamming, really make the people who make decisions on issues stand up and take notice? Will a campaign driven by a website or blog really stop large corporations producing products in parts of the world where working conditions are poor? No, but the website campaign certainly has the ability to make more people aware that this practice happens. From a political standpoint, is activism against governments using technology that those same governments can tap into and control, really going to achieve much? Internet censorship placed on people by repressive governments across the world provides a fairly good answer to this question.

An article by Sivitanides & Shah (2011) presents three perspectives on the value of digital activism. The perspectives are optimists, pessimists and persistents. The more I think about digital activism as I write this, the more I find myself fitting into the persistents group. Digital tools make the ability to spread a message more effective and aide the organization of activism. But in order for digital activism to be successful in achieving the desired result, it must, at some point, shift offline.

EPILOGUE

What a difference a day makes. I wrote the above blog post yesterday questioning some of the merit of digital activism. This morning I have risen to the news that an American man has opened fire on an elementary school killing over 20 people, many of them young children. I’m absolutely horrified and feel compelled to add to my original post.

The first thing I did this morning on hearing the tragic news was post a tweet expressing my sadness. The site was flooded with similar messages of sympathy and calls for American President Barack Obama to severely tighten U.S gun laws. After logging out of Twitter I opened Facebook to find my news feed flooded with messages questioning the madness of this horrific crime and the madness of American gun laws. I am witnessing in real time the power that social networking and digital activism has in pulling together groups of people to fight for a cause. This is a cause I will be joining. 

Here I am, an Australian man jumping aboard a cause to have guns outlawed in a country I do not reside in. I am challenging the constitutional right of American citizens to bear arms. Tens of millions across the globe will do the same thing. My perspective on digital activism has gone from ‘persistent’ to ‘optimist’ in a day. 

REFERENCES

Adbusters 2012, Adbusters Media Foundation, Vancouver, Canada, viewed December 12 2012, <www.adbusters.org>.

Dery, M 2012, Shovelware, viewed December 12 2012, <http://markdery.com/>.

GetUp! 2012, GetUp!, Sydney, Australia, viewed December 12 2012, <www.getup.org.au>.

Gross, D 2012, Sniggle.net, viewed December 12 2012, <www.sniggle.net>

MacKinnon, J 2001, The Shoe They Wouldn’t Sell, Adbusters Magazine, Vancouver, Canada, viewed December 13 2012, <http://www.contagiousmedia.org/press/nike/nike-adbusters.htm>.

Sivitanides, M & Shah V 2011, ‘The Era of Digital Activism’, Education Special Interest Group of the AITP, CONISAR Proceedings, vol. 4, pp. 1-8.