Brodie's Blog

Studying Media and Communication. Major in Advertising. Way too proud of my initials.

[bj420-blog]

And this is why I'll never understand Second Life.

[bj420-blog]

Farmer Wants a Life

Many games nowadays use free to play models with incentives to spend small amounts of money for various benefits. What was highlighted in both the lecture and tutorial for this week however was the buying and selling of virtual goods for real money. World of Warcraft came up, along with an excerpt of their terms of service explaining their stance on the issue.

“Blizzard does not recognize any purported transfers of virtual property executed outside of the Game, or the purported sale, gift or trade in the “real world” of anything that appears or originates in the Game. Accordingly, you may not sell in-game items or currency for “real” money, or exchange those items or currency for value outside of the Game.” (Blizzard Entertainment 2010)

What’s interesting however is Blizzard’s upcoming game Diablo 3, which plans to use an in-game auctioning system that uses real money.

“We’re introducing a powerful auction house system that will provide a safe, fun, and easy-to-use way for players to buy and sell the loot they obtain in the game. Items can be sold and purchased using real-world money or in-game gold.” (Blizzard Entertainment 2012)

The emergence of ‘chinese gold farmers’ is the most likely reason for this sudden change of perspective on this virtual law. Spending hours in a game amassing virtual items to sell to others for real money has attributed to the ‘new new economy’ (Woodford 2012), and while it was illegal previously, it now seems to be growing more accepted due to the popularity of gold farming in countries such as China. Though is making it legal in one game while it’s frowned upon in others a step in the right direction? Or will it just further encourage the questionable process of selling mere pixels for real cash?

References

Blizzard Entertainment. “World of Warcraft Terms of Use.” Last modified December 9, 2010. http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/legal/wow_tou.html

Blizzard Entertainment. 2012. “Diablo III Beta Announcement.” Accessed May 4th, 2012. http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/events/diablo3-announcement/index.html#auction:auction-summary

Woodford, D. 2012. KCB206. Law, Policy & Regulation: Week 3. Accessed May 4th, 2012. Lecture notes. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/

[bj420-blog]

The redundancy of privacy.

Just how private is our private life? In my opinion the word ‘privacy’ loses a bit of its meaning with each Facebook update. From ‘checking in’ to having your whole ‘life’ visible via Timeline, nothing really is off limits to those on the internet. Sure, you have to be friends in order to see this information, but right now I’m not seeing a “share with only the friends I can trust” option.

With people willingly having their phone number, relationship status, occupation, Country, State, family and home address available on their social profiles, it’s no wonder the internet is a stalkers best friend. Thompson (2011, p. 55-6) explains this as a shift from the public realm being a space of appearance to a situation of mediated visibility. Where in the past the ‘visibility’ of individuals, events and actions was limited by a physical location, the current new media landscape has severed this limitation of having to be in the same spatial-temporal setting.

Fellow blogger Caitlin’s (2012) reference to Mark Evans (2010) provides a more literal example of this: “every tweet, update, video and blog post is micro-chapter of your public profile that anyone can access”. While I initially thought to myself “Well, I wouldn’t say anyone can access it”, I stopped and thought that yes, if they really wanted to, they could.

Scary.

References

Dodds, Caitlin. 2012. “Privacy? What Privacy?” Caitlin Says, April 28. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://caitlinhyd.tumblr.com/

Evans, Mark. 2010. “The Dark Side of Social Media and Privacy.“ Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.markevanstech.com/2010/02/21/the-dark-side-of-social-media-and-privacy/

Thompson, John B. 2011. “Shifting boundaries of public and private life.” Theory Culture Society 28 (4): 49-70.

[bj420-blog]

In the comfort of your own home.

Being able to work from home appears to be a very desirable position, and over the years this has become much more possible for people because of new media. Gill gives reasoning for this desire by stating that it’s “a hobby and work combined … you get payed for your hobby” (2007, 14). Zittrain, in his lecture entitled “Minds for Sale” (2009), explains the phenomena of ‘LiveOps’, a virtual call centre where employees operate within the comfort of their own home.

Yet while most of us are still far from the comfort of working from home, the technology is still available to us. Skype has shown us that we can contact anyone, anywhere at any time. Need to urgently get in contact with a colleague? Conduct an interview with a prospective employee? Reacquaint yourself with the faces of your friends and family while on a company trip?

The Simpsons comically explored the benefits of working from home in the episode ‘King-Size Homer’ (Greaney 1995).

New media has proved to be a great boon for employers, employees and companies that would not have existed without it. Though what does this mean for the future? Greater opportunities to work from home would be positively received to be sure, yet is it healthy for our social lives, and would it lead us down the path of being far too reliant on new media (refer to my entry “You got Leprosy”)? What if new media makes it too easy? Are our jobs at risk of being taken over by programs? Every rose has its thorn, and new media is one hell of a garden.

References

Gill, R. 2007. Technobohemians or the new Cybertariat? New media work in Amsterdam a decade after the Web. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.

Greaney, Dan. 1995. “The Simpsons: King-Size Homer.” Fox Broadcasting Company (broadcast November 5, 1995). Television program.

Zittrain, Jonathan. 2009. “Minds for Sale”. YouTube video, posted November 29. Accessed April 20, 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3h-rae3uo&feature=player_embedded#!

[bj420-blog]

You got: Leprosy

I’ve never had to go to hospital, yet that doesn’t mean I haven’t seen my fair share of illnesses. But no matter what has ailed me, I’ve always relied on my doctor to tell me what exactly is wrong with my body. Therefore the use of new media in solving our health problems is something I am not that familiar with, yet I now understand some of the motives for people to do so.

A discussion in class led to this understanding. Among the reasons for searching symptoms online rather than consulting a physical doctor, the most prevalent were cost, privacy and time. But is putting all our trust in the internet a safe idea?

(Omine 2000)

This jape at virtual diagnosis can be seen as a bit of an over exaggeration however, as Tania Lewis (2006, 525) proclaims that when accessing health websites, 63% of people look for information about a specific disease or medical problem.

Knowledge is power, and the new media definitely pioneers this, as I discovered by exploring the ‘Reach Out Australia’ website, which provides young people with the information, help, support, advice and connections they need to manage mental health difficulties (Inspire Foundation, 2012). Safe to say I now appreciate and recognise the value new media provides towards health and well-being.

References

Lewis, Tania. 2006. “Seeking health information on the internet: life style choice or bad attack of cyberchondria?” Media, Culture & Society. 28 (521): 521-539. Accessed March 31, 2012. Doi: 10.1177/0163443706065027.

Omine, Carolyn. 2000. “The Simpsons: Little Big Mom.” Fox Broadcasting Company (broadcast January 9, 2000). Television program.

Inspire Foundation. 2012. “Reach Out Australia.” Accessed March 31, 2012. http://au.reachout.com/

[bj420-blog]

Advocating Advocacy

This week’s readings alerted me to the Estrada incident in 2001, where text messaging was used to form a protest in regards to rallying against the impeachment trial of the Philippine’s corrupt president (Shirky 2011). It amazes me back then how people found ways to bend the pre-Web 2.0 media into an advocate of change, as it contrasts with the way we use new media now.

The internet is no doubt a powerful tool. Put a keyboard in the right hands and it becomes a megaphone shouting for change, a mirror reflecting different perspectives, or a bugle calling others to action. It’s more apparent than ever; the internet is an instrument of advocacy.

Internet advocacy encompasses many forms, my favourite being parody and satire. Susan stressed in this week’s lecture that satire “speaks to the concerns of the moment in the prevalent idioms of the day”, with satirical content being contemporary, subversive and most importantly, humorous (Leong 2012). Evident within the recent Queensland election, satire and parody runs rampart in political media, as was demonstrated by the ‘Abbot’s Family’ video. 

(Australian Workers Union 2010)

Yet online advocacy urged by the informed citizen is subject to ethical debate. While Shirky dictates that social media is a powerful tool to bring about political change (Shirky 2011), Hamelink cites that the internet lends itself to deceptive communication (Hamelink 2006, 117).

Two valid points, one conflict of interest.

References

Australian Workers Union. 2010. “Australian Workers Union “The Abbots Family” video.” YouTube video, posted July 19. Accessed March 23, 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9fs_6v20Cw

Hamelink, C. J. 2006. “The Ethics of the Internet: Can we cope with lies and deceit on the net?” In Ideologies of the Internet, Katherine Sarikakis and Daya K. Thussu, 115-130. New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc.

Leong, S. 2012. KCB206. New Media, Beliefs, Politics & Ethics: Week 4. Accessed 23rd March 2012. Lecture notes. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/

Shirky, Clay. 2011. “The Political Power of Social Media.” Foreign Affairs 90 (1). Accessed March 26, 2012. Retrieved from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/

[bj420-blog]

Participation is Key

“We don’t just enjoy, we participate” (Leong 2012) is the primary message I took away from Friday’s lecture on New Media. Looking back at how different types of media were consumed in the early 2000’s I now realize how stagnant and top-ended the producer consumer model was in relation to the media environment we have today. Reflecting on my own media consumption habits as well as the ones of those around me, it’s clear that we all now participate in order to enjoy, and this has been a great boon across all media industries.

One of our readings this week was a video called “Star Wars Uncut: Director’s Cut”, and another video we viewed in the lecture was “Eric Whitacre's Virtual Choir - 'Lux Aurumque'”. Despite the videos essentially being the same story of Star Wars: A New Hope and a rendition of ‘Lux Aurumque’ respectively, the content is effectively 'new' due to the creative efforts of thousands of people who crowd sourced its creation. People power is amazingly prevalent in our media society, and the Kickstarter website has shown me just how much power we have. Having over $3 million pledged towards the Double Fine Adventure (Kickstarter, Inc 2012) illustrates the impact we as consumers can have in regards to media.

  References:

Kickstarter, Inc. “Double Fine Adventure by Double Fine and 2 Player Productions.” Last modified March 15, 2012. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adventure

Leong, S. 2012. KCB206. New Amusement Arcade: Music, Games and Films: Week 3. Accessed 16th March 2012. Lecture notes. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/

Pugh, Casey. 2012. “Star Wars Uncut: Director’s Cut.” Youtube video, posted January 18. Accessed March 16, 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ezeYJUz-84

Whitacre, Eric 2010. “Eric Whitacre’s Virtual Choir ‘Lux Aurumque’.” Youtube video, posted March 21. Accessed March 18, 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7o7BrlbaDs

[bj420-blog]

Test post.

I can't believe there is no Comic Sans option.

:(