Where there’s a method to what might seem like madness in the image above, there might not be, but nonetheless the comparisons are almost concrete. Take into account the Zodiac and also the desire for worldly wealths like gold and use it to align this dialogue somewhere between sanity and sanctity. This is because in the context of digital communication there are many examples of conflict between the consumers and creators specifically when it comes to obsolescence and obscurity. By acting innovatively there is a cultural exchange existing between us regardless of position.This comparison may seem colourful and also to be creatively collecting the data of Chinese social media companies however there are many nuances that negatively impact the idea of freedom of information internationally. For instance, Ai Weiwei as a search term is heavily censored on Sina Weibo, but because of his social media presence on Twitter there’s an implied practice that continues to discuss his work that’s often ignored, exampling how the state sponsored censorship from the Chinese government is flawed in the execution. This development is linked to the formation of the platform Sina Weibo and could be viewed as a strategic solution to the issue of insurgence or dissidence to the Chinese elite following the 2008 Beijing Olympics. That increase of following determined a digital response from the rule-makers eventuating to the censorship we come to avoid. From platforms that provide discussions like TedTalk with Michael Anti, to artists like Beyoncé at the Superbowl, there is quite a weird way to show sincerity to social justice issues. Is there any sensitivity to the struggles of the like poverty, empowerment, pollution and child slavery profiteering?
I’ll let it slide for now but clearly nobody’s perfect.
Rather than research there is often only a reaction occurring in practice coming to the random platforms that are proliferating from the technological revolution. The concept of communicative rational is reasonably conflicting for corporations and governments. Most are manoeuvring just the same landscapes we are but have managed to find their power or position meek and sought more as a way to manipulate their mired existence. Social media in China and the practices that affect the public are possibly more politically concentrated in the sense that there aren't the same international censorship occurring from content host controversies. This is mainly exampled with Tidal, Spotify and Apple music competing for the same marketshare which has lead to the multiplication of exclusivity. This shouldn’t be hard to handle. Exclusion tactics are terrible. Try and argue against that. We can examine the past to predict potential predicaments in the future to perceive the ways individuals can improve the public they can participate in. Rather than focusing on the physical and fiscal potential of people. Even the Beyhive are guilty here.
While there are obvious and simple solutions to censorship the worry is worsened when you consider population and outsourcing from international countries. Without access to a public sphere there’s a real risk of concentrating the exploited workers of multinational corporations into conditions that compel submission and continue even after intervention is sought due to a lack of resources. Prolonged publicity on this practice could reach plateaus that may already be beyond the creative competency to sustain change for corporations who abuse their power with governing bodies plagued by corruption. Just check out the Electronics Industry Trends most recent publication “The Truth Behind the Barcode.” It didn’t give a single company an A grade for worker rights. That was released in February 2016 but this issue of broken boundaries by the ‘billionaire class’ is well documented and worthwhile considering . When legislation is diluted the length of discrimination extends until the issue is concentrated on by the society as much as the policy makers. This spotlight lends attention to the lack of innovation along the ideal of implementing an informed international standard. That’s kind of strange considering the
Look at the 2008 Olympics, specifically at the Beijing ‘Birds Nest’ architecturally designed by Ai Weiwei, who now regrets his work due to the woeful welfare of the workers. They weren’t allowed to form unions and the conditions have been claimed to be beyond brutal. That same year the State Council for the People’s Republic of China promulgated the "Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Open Government Information" (中华人民共和国政府信息公开条例) Four years later the Associated Foreign Press published an article on the U.K Telegraph website giving the gospel like quote from Weiwei saying that "I can endure this situation because I experienced many hardships as a child and I have many supporters... However, I doubt the average person could maintain a normal state of mind." He was right to doubt this. No need to search, here’s something taken by Eric Galindo 4 years after and as you can see there are workers cleaning the canal due to the desolation since the Olympic Games.
So what is the best case study I know that relates to the study of Chinese public? The increased death toll at Apple iPhone manufacturing has become so horrid that they have installed safety nets to reduce rooftop suicide attempts. Meanwhile operating out of international locations there are many conglomerates who have their product or content created by below minimum wage in comparable economies. There is a practice of squashing the leak of information to the public but there are still platforms that allow the publicity of conflict uncompromisingly. Android is probably the best extension of that considering the open development submissions for applications aren’t controlled by the corporations who are the major beneficiaries of the creation the device instead of compiling content. The product is being placed alongside prime digital real estate in the current digital economy but it’s most interesting when there’s the disillusionment between the developers and the distributors.
I remember the first time I saw the Phone Game. I was at home after recently upgrading to an iPhone 4S 64Gb and I was deeply disturbed. I was steeped in social media use at the time and still could see the severity of WHAT I was coming to realise. It’s all constructed and contrived to make the consumer see the product the way the sellers do. That’s why when an moment like the Phone Game ban happens it almost needs to be honoured by choosing to discuss the implications it has on all individuals involved. Including both you and I.
I felt like I had run afoul the company that was developing my favourite products until I became aware of the constant struggle of child slavery across continents such as Asia and Africa. I sought out more, leading to the AND festival or ABANDON NORMAL DEVICES. I had never thought like this before. Whether it’s mining the coltan for the device or manufacturing in production facilities there is a clear conflict for some consumers. The company Molleindustria behind Phone Story made a public donation to a Foxconn former employee followed by a statement to their website commenting that, “The unusual attention to the Foxconn case is partly due to a broader debate around de-industrialization and the related unemployment crisis in the West, and in part due to the moral high-ground that Apple has achieved in the eyes of its loyal customer base.” Reminding us all how far the problem has been pressured into our psychology.
Here is where the issue becomes contentious; the Chinese domestic market is being flooded with smart devices, while African countries often suffer from inaccessible circumstances to create policy due to corruption resulting from underdeveloped infrastructure, and the rest of the world profits off of a dichotomy between arguably the most and least developed nations of the world. If Apple removing the original application “The Phone Game,” from its servers isn't enough to elaborate the extent to which the censorship comes from a corporate context just as much as head of states like in China e.g. Ai Weiwei removed from Sina Weibo then there is no explanation sufficient. We will never know everything that goes on behind the scene but transparency is a key factor in deciding the financial success of certain social media platforms. This relates back to the issues of form in regards to the communication of an authoritarian censorship, because it gives boundary to the ideal of a public sphere, which can often lead to lacking performance without freedom of information. Habermas has a criteria for a public sphere that can be applied to the practices from social media platforms in China, when there’s a removal of the title to recognise the importance of freedom. Yet the similarities with Australia’s current border security regime has the concern for safety as its disguise but the constriction on censorship are mainly conflated because of the Fascist elements that can be derived from such a comparison. Trying to educate consumers while competing with content that is explicitly created simply to entertain is an issue that’s not often openly discussed. We have to be held responsible for our content consumption and this could be argued as how we’re being made accountable. Forgoing any depth or conflict in place of favour and depiction relates to the issue of insensitivity. That’s a pretty common theme and I recognise that reality but that’s why I attempted some balance between sense and reason. I hope that was achieved. If not, I apologise in advance.
Australia could be said to have the United Kingdom as it’s Mother, then the United States of America as it’s helicopter Father, and we need to hold them accountable for their actions too. Something more like the Chinese public with their unique practices. This is possibly the result of focusing on the legislative corruption that occurred pre-internet following British Commonwealth colonisation. Now moving into the millennium there is a momentary window of opportunity to openly express egalitarian values without victimisation from conglomerates or corrupt authorities. Can it last? We’ll either find out or be stuck in the past.
2087
dededos
dailybridgerton
janainaart
kaledo-art
snowghoul
kianamaiart
vaporwave
