@moonsmediocrity-blog - Tumblr Blog

M8.2 (Part 2) Video

M8.2 (Part 2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02I_uxOgBoM&feature=youtu.be

This video was created as part of a course requirement for COMM 2F00 at Brock University. I will be discussing the three things that I learned with regards to New Media throughout the class.

I am using a female automated voice for this video as a comment on one of the things that I learned through this course. People use the internet and New Media in order to communicate. This communication is often done with an absence of human contact and many people say things that they would never even fathom saying in face-to-face communication. This automated voice represents that anonymity and the protection that the online universe provides people – for better or for worse.

The first thing that I learned was just how dominant New Media is. I’m not naïve, I did realize before what a strong impact New Media has on society. However, after really being forced to think about its incredible power and influence, it took on a whole new light for me.

I’ve been familiar with a great deal of social media sites and their uses for many years now. However, one new social media site that I was introduced to during this course is “GetGlue” which essentially lets people comment on television shows in real time. Before I started to use this site, I was always the type of person who scoffed at others who used such sites to communicate such seemingly trivial ideas. However, after using the site, I started to “get” the appeal.

Using “GetGlue”, I was posting comments about television shows that I was watching. Most of my posts were a combination of humor and sarcasm. Almost immediately after posting them, other people commented on them and really seemed to be enjoying them. Before I knew it, the shows were over and I had posted a lot of comments. I realized that I had been sucked into this online world and was really feeding off of the positive and immediate feedback that I was getting from it.

The bottom line is that my experience with “GetGlue”, amongst other applications I used for the course, really made me aware of the extensive and intense power of New Media. This adds to Fabio Josgrilberg’s discussion in his article, “A Door to the Digital Locus: Walking in the City With a Mobile Phone and Michel de Certeau”. In the article, Josgrilberg states that everybody (including those who are not directly involved with the technology itself) has been affected by the social changes caused by communication technologies.

The second thing that this course made me reflect on with regards to New Media is the extent to which media is used to “track” us. Whether it is our online purchases, musical taste or viewing experiences, I learned that we are monitored far more than we might think.

An example of this comes from the article “How Social Media and Streaming Have Influenced the Music Industry”. The article states that, “Some bookers won’t even say “yes” to a performance unless a certain number of likes have been reached.” These “likes” are all tracked through social media in a way that older methods of surveying and opinion polls could never even fathom.

At one point, I was looking for a specific type of jewellery on a site like Etsy or Amazon. All of a sudden, I noticed that a great deal of the ads that were popping up on unrelated sites that I was using were specific to that type of jewellery. This struck me as both genius and extremely disturbing all at the same time. It also made me wonder how many people are unaware that this type of tracking exists and about the influence that it can exert over people.

The third thing that this course made me think a lot about would have to be the reasons why young people are so dependent on New Media. At any given time, either my laptop or my cell phone is in my hand and tabs for things like Skype, Tumblr, Facebook, and Reddit are open in my browser. One of the first things I do when I wake up is look at recent posts via my phone that I keep right beside my bed while I sleep.

I know that I am not alone. I know that what I do online is even minimal when compared to a lot of people in my peer group. So, should we be ashamed of our attachment to New Media? Well, if all we are doing is tracking the Kardashians, then maybe, but otherwise, no. New Media opens doors. It provides us with countless opportunities to learn, to grow, to connect. The problem is often the WAY in which we use New Media, not the fact that we use it.

When I hear stories that my parents or older relatives tell about what their lives were like before New Media, I honestly feel very fortunate. The things that I am able to do and the information that I have at my fingertips would not have even been an inkling in their minds when they were my age. Yes, today’s youth is constantly attached to computers and cell phones, but when used for the right reasons, I truly don’t think that this is a problem. New Media is the present and the future and we must keep up with it in order to stay relevant, to keep informed and to move forward.

Lastly, I could not conclude this video without sharing a few cat pictures. Anyone who knows me is aware of my affinity for sharing cute pictures. It’s one of the few quirky, non-academic activities that I partake in online that is just a fun way to spend a bit of time relaxing. Enjoy!

#comm2f00

M8.2 (Part 1)

Prior to taking this course, I considered myself to be a consumer of a variety of online mediums, but not so much a producer. Through this course, I have been able to become a “produser” and I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Having guided topics on which to blog about was something that was exciting to me. Rather than have to worry about whether anyone would enjoy or find value in topics of my choosing, I felt that my educated responses to course questions would be important and even meaningful to some people.

Using sites such as “GetGlue” was something that I didn’t have much of an interest in before taking this course. However, being required to set up and use such an account was a very enjoyable experience for me. Having people enjoy and respond to quirky and sarcastic comments that I was making about television shows was quite intoxicating. The immediate feedback of others who not only liked my comments, but shared my views, was really enjoyable.

There are countless benefits of New Media on our culture and society. People are more connected than they have ever been in history. Finding a long lost friend, connecting with friends all over the world and being a part of groups and societies are amongst the benefits. People who are shy can suddenly gain a powerful voice. People who are talented can suddenly be discovered. New Media helps people to think, to laugh, to become entertained, to be informed…the list goes on and on.

Of course, as with anything else in life, New Media does have some constraints on society and culture. People can remain anonymous and say horrible things while hiding behind a computer. Cyber-bullying, in my opinion, is a million times worse than regular bullying, as it is almost impossible to identify or stop the culprits. People feel compelled to say anything that comes into their mind, because they want to participate. While this could potentially be good, it is often not, and just leave mindless, tedious data for the world to have to sift through.

New Media is new reality. Most people are forced to keep up with it for work, school or just in terms of their social lives. As with anything else in life, there are pros and cons to it, but, from my perspective, if used intelligently and responsibly, the pros can absolutely outweigh the cons.

#comm2f00

M8.1

1) Given your experience with the various tools used in the course, do you feel more inclined to become a "produser"?

I like the way that the terms “producer” and “consumer” were combined to form the term “produser”. Given my experience with a variety of tools that I used in this course, I definitely feel that I am more inclined to become a “produser” in some areas, but also to remain the same in others.

One area that will not change is that I will not be starting to share my entire life via a medium such as Facebook. It’s a fun way to share pictures and stay in touch, but I will never be able to understand people who post every single facet of their life on such sites for the entire world to see. For this reason, I will continue to post and share, but in a limited, reasonable way.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I can definitely see myself using sites such as getglue.com. I have to admit, posting comments in real time and having people respond to them was somewhat addictive to me. That immediate feedback and back and forth really has the power to make a person feel like what they are saying matters and that they are connected to other people. The same goes for just having a blog itself. I enjoyed having the opportunity to sit down and discuss my perspective on certain issues.

I like the notion that I can be a “produser” and put my thoughts out there for others to comment on and discuss. At the same time, I also enjoy the fact that I can control exactly what information I put out there and, to some degree, who has access to it.

2) What intimations of deprival do you have (if any) regarding the "produsage" that potentially looms before us? Please think of something other than Sterne's worry (that's his intimation).

From my perspective, Sterne’s worry is basically that everyone feels as though they need to participate in online “produsage”. This is clear through his words, “The demand to participate can become coercive, exhausting the very collective faculties it officially celebrates”.

Virtually every type of site that a person can be on these days has the option to “leave feedback” or “comments”. As such, people feel compelled to become not only the consumer of the information, but also the producer of their own thoughts, ideas and opinions. The fact of the matter is, not everything that is put out there warrants or deserves comments and those that do deserve better than some that they receive.

I feel that the intimations of deprival that I have regarding the “produsage” we face involve the deprivation of quality content. I should not have to read fifty comments based on a semi-scholarly article just to find one meaningful comment that I can relate to. Wading through the ignorance, emoticons and “lol’s” can, at times, be exhausting.

If the pressure that Sterne discusses does exist, which I feel it does, such pressure should be to produce quality, meaningful thoughts. These thoughts should enlighten, make a difference, offer a different perspective, etc. If they do not, people really need to reconsider what they are doing. It is not enough to make a comment just for the sake of being able to say that you’ve made a comment. Regurgitating what someone else has said, writing unintelligent or ignorant statements, etc. is definitely a negative bi-product of “produsage” in my opinion.

#comm2f00

M6.2

I used to use last.fm frequently. It was one of my favorite websites for a very long time. According to my account, I used it from 2008 to 2010 and logged exactly 41,140 plays. The article “How Social Media and Streaming Have Influenced the Music Industry” discusses the idea of discovery. While I was a user of last.fm, one of my favorite features of it was that it would take your most-listened to songs/artists and find similar artists that you may like. I would spend entire weekends listening to my recommended bands, finding new music to listen to. As mentioned before, I definitely think that online listening leads to more exposure for bands, and that is a really good thing. The article also says, “Bands, band reps and labels can now head out into the world with proof of their popularity. Some bookers won’t even say “yes” to a performance unless a certain number of likes have been reached.” I have never heard of this policy before, but I definitely think it is a good technique. Although, it may not be relevant or useful for bands who have an older fanbase, or people who are generally not overly involved with technology.

Online listening allows users to connect with the artists if they would like to, it creates data for gig bookers, and it prompts the discovery of new music. Social music listening definitely has the potential to completely change the way in which people listen to and engage with the music they are fans of.

http://www.slideshare.net/leemurr/module-6-the-lumineers

#comm2f00

M6.1

For the most part, I do not purchase the music that I listen to. I prefer to stream it online, as I am a student, and it is more convenient to check out new artists for free online than to buy something I might not end up even liking. Sometimes, If I do like an artist a lot, I will pay for their album/particular songs for the sake of supporting the artist.

Websites that stream music online allow users to share music with each other without breaking copyright laws. I do imagine that these types of sites have made it so artists are making less money, however, I think they allow artists to gain even more exposure and, thus, more fans. In turn, they will have larger concert/meet and greet/signing turnouts, and make more money through those sorts of things.

In an article about music piracy, Glen Parry stated that, “...the fall in revenue is also partially due to a reduction in consumption. We identified a large percentage of people who enjoy music but have not been engaged by the digital music market. They represent an important segment of people who may come back to the market through innovative new approaches to music provision.” I believe that piracy could be dealt with by creating a service to entice users who have previously not been engaged by digital music. Perhaps an improvement that could be made is the accessibility of online music content that caters to people who are not tech savvy. This could drastically increase the amount of consumers for online music.

A year or two ago, there was a crackdown on illegal music downloading. This stopped many users from getting music for free, and increased the amount of digital sales. Then, things started to get more lenient again as similar sites popped up and began allowing users to illegally upload and download again. Perhaps if there was a constant strict law against illegal downloading websites, online revenue would rise.

I stream a lot of music online. On the rare occasion that I fall in love with a band, I will purchase their album in order to support that artist. Overall, I believe websites that stream music for free prompt larger fan bases and more exposure to less-popular artists, which in turn creates more revenue for the artist. In order to prevent online piracy, there could be a new music service created to cater to those who are not enticed by existing services, or there could be stricter laws against illegal downloading.

#comm2f00

catleecious

M5.2

My GetGlue URL is www.getglue.com/leemarin. I checked in twice on the night of the Grammy awards. My impression of this service is that it is a little bit outdated and unnecessary. With the increasing amount of people using services such as Netflix or DVR recording, it is less useful and does not actually promote any activity during the times where the show is not playing on cable television. Personally, I don’t even own a television. Netflix is the only service that I use to watch shows, and this means that I am usually behind in watching the episodes. For example, I had just begun watching the first season of Breaking Bad when the final series was playing on television. In this case, a service like GetGlue would actually be a nuisance, as viewers typically like to avoid spoilers at all costs. As a student who moves around from place to place, I find that Netflix is the perfect solution for viewing tv shows on my laptop. Many of my friends do the same thing, and even my 60 year old father avoids watching cable television and records shows to watch them at his convenience instead. Of course, I realize that a program like GetGlue is not aimed at 60 year old men. I assume that it is aimed towards people my age, who are constantly on social networking sites. However, as I mentioned /before, many of my peers do not watch cable television anymore, rendering a program like GetGlue useless to us. Without the use of commenting and such during the time of a show playing on cable, it would merely be “checking in” without anyone else watching with you. In that case, Twitter or Facebook would be able to do the same thing with a tweet or a status update. The value of a service such as GetGlue would be to transform a passive action (watching television) into a more involved activity (engaging with the content of the show). An app like GetGlue could potentially reinvent the way people watch television, emphasizing a bond between viewers/fans as individuals, and between the viewers and the show itself. The following statements are regarding the quote: “GetGlue, of course, was one of the early social TV pioneers, promising to help drive mobile and tablet users to tune in to more TV shows and get them more engaged with the content through its app. The idea was that people were already on their phones while they watched TV, so why not try to hook them on a new, TV-based social network?” I do not agree with this statement. I don't think that GetGlue offers a positive opportunity to tune in more to television programs. Actually, I felt more pressure to come up with valid, witty comments to post on the Grammy Awards page while watching, rather than just sitting back and relaxing. At the end of a hard day, I strongly believe that many viewers (of course, definitely not all viewers) would prefer to sit back and passively enjoy their favourite television shows rather than putting forth effort into engaging with other viewers or the content. On the other hand, I definitely felt more connected to other viewers when I did exert that effort. After posting a comment on GetGlue, I got some notifications that several people had "liked" my posts. This gave me a sense of affirmation and inclusion. I definitely see the value of this program for bonding fans of a television show and offering a way of talking to people with the same interests as you. At the same time, the same sense of inclusion can be achieved through many, many other social networking sites. GetGlue also offers incentives to users in the form of "stickers", which are small images that can be accessed by viewing a certain tab on your profile. These stickers are awarded when the user reaches certain milestones in the program, such as "changed profile picture" and "liked x amount of shows". This reward system is nothing new in the world of social media, and things such as "stickers" can actually become a nuisance. For instance, within the first 5 minutes of using GetGlue, I received an email saying that I had earned a sticker. I suppose that for some consumers, this type of incentive could be used as a type of competitive driving force among their friends/other users, or simply make people feel good about their achievements. The competitive value of the reward system is the way in which GetGlue builds community among users. The first article about GetGlue that I read is entitled "GetGlue thinks it has a fighting chance against Twitter and Facebook in social TV" and can be found at http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/getglue-thinks-it-has-fighting-chance-against-twitter-facebook-in-social-tv-1200599891/. One line from this article reads, “The truth is both Twitter and Facebook are very big, but they are completely horizontal,” Iskold said. “We’re focused on content discovery, helping people find what to watch, and connecting them and delighting them.” I truly disagree with this statement (which is the basis of the overall article). I do not think that GetGlue stands a chance against Twitter or Facebook. I do believe that GetGlue offers good services for people who are very interested in television shows, but in this day in age, people are looking for the biggest and the best products or services. Facebook and Twitter are successful because they are so big. Offering a narrow service like GetGlue just is not enough to please users who are used to such vast and nonspecific programs. Another article that I looked at can be found at http://gigaom.com/2010/04/26/getglue-stares-down-the-facebook-behemoth/. I found this one to be particularly interesting, given the fact that it was published in 2010. This article supports my original ideas about how Facebook is too large and popular to compete with, as it has been between 3 and 4 years since GetGlue started to challenge Facebook, and Facebook is still so prominent whereas I had never heard of GetGlue prior to this assignment. Overall, I do think that GetGlue could potentially be a valuable tool for those who would like to engage with other fans of their favourite tv shows. However, it just excludes too many people (eg. Those without cable, those who aren't attached to their phones, those who are looking for vast social media platforms) to reach its full potential. With all of the other massive media-based social networking sites out there, GetGlue seems a bit too narrow and gimmicky in order to compare to its competitors.

#comm2f00

M5.1

One of the major things I do online is look for deals and reviews of products I probably spend about 2 hours weekly trying to find deals or comparing products. The majority of this searching is done on websites where actual customers post their original input about the product. I particularly enjoy sites where there are reviews from multiple people, as it is more informative, but also makes me feel more connected to others. In addition to finding reviews and deals, I also find enjoyment in browsing, but not posting on reddit.com. Reddit is a very good site to browse if the consumer keeps in mind that very little of the information posted is original content. The most contributing I do online is posting photos of myself and my pets to show relatives and friends. As well, I engage with content online by passing it on to my friends that I know will appreciate it. There are various things that prevent me from producing my own online content. The first factor is time. I simply don’t have the time to begin creating original content for the internet. The second issue is privacy. No matter what you post, there is someone out there willing to steal your concepts, ideas, and creations and claim them as their own. Similarly, it would be difficult to create truly original content without stepping on someone else’s toes. Copyrighting the words of others would be difficult to avoid, even if it is unintentional. Relating to copyrighted content… I do believe that online communities of producer-consumers can work toward building a copyright-respective accessible cultural commons. The way that this goal could be achieved is by implementing greater protection on original content. For example, for photos that belong to artists, perhaps there could be some sort of protection beyond watermarks. It would be difficult to achieve, but maybe some sort of code permanently embedded in the file that states the original creator’s name. As well, flickr attempted to create a copyright-free environment by stopping people from saving the images, only allowing downloads. However, this is easily bypassed. A more secure version of this protection, plus a permanently embedded artist name would do wonders for protecting original artists and creating an accessible cultural commons. While I spend a decent amount of time on the internet consuming information about products, and browsing reddit, I do not produce original content. This is because I find it to be nearly impossible to produce meaningful, truly original content, and I am apprehensive about posting personal things due to privacy concerns. In order to create a robust and freely accessible cultural commons, some forms of more secure copyright protection could be investigated.

#comm2f00

wasbella102

M4.2

As I work on my homework, I have a tab for Skype, Tumblr, Facebook, and Reddit open in my browser. This is pretty well the normal amount of social networking websites/programs that I use on a daily basis. One of the first things I do when I wake up is look at recent posts via my phone that I keep right beside my bed while I sleep. I can say with 100% certainty that almost everybody in my peer group does the same. Should we be “ashamed” of our attachment to communication technologies? Absolutely not. Is it normal to have a distaste for the need to have constant communication? Absolutely. It is up to the user to decide whether or not they enjoy the attachment to this type of communication. For me, I definitely feel the need to communicate almost constantly, but I don’t always like doing so. However, with the evolution of technology and the use of technology for communication, sometimes it can be hard to avoid.

Fabio Josgrilberg discusses this idea in his article “A Door to the Digital Locus: Walking in the City With a Mobile Phone and Michel de Certeau”. He states that everybody (including those who are not directly involved with the technology itself) has been affected by the social changes caused by communication technologies.

Campbell and Park help explain these social changes in their article “Social Implications of Mobile Telephony: The Rise of Personal Communication Society”. They outline three areas of social life that have been affected by the increasing amount of communication technology: representation of self, methods of social connection, and the boundaries between private and public spheres. Campbell and Park state that the personal nature of mobile technology can be held accountable for the social changes that are occurring.

The article “Ubiquitous apps: politics of openness in global mobile cultures” by Goggins (2011) sheds light on what makes communication technology so personal to us. He states that the fact that users carry their technology everywhere, keep them close to the body, and place them nearby (even while sleeping) reiterates the idea of how personal technology is.

For myself and many others, communication technology is incredibly important and depended upon. In their article, Campbell and Park discuss possibilities as to why technology is so vital in the lives of young people. The conclusion that they reach is that it serves as a way to find and express personal identity, a way to communicate, and a source of social freedom. The brand and type of phone or technology that a young person uses is thought by Campbell and Park to be a large part of their social identity. In addition, these types of technology can be a way to break free from the family life, and start engaging with peers outside of the household.

While Campbell and Park discuss the connection between young people and technology, Goggins (2011) tries to explain the dependence on technology by older generations. He states that in the past, apps were ‘invisible’ and played a ‘calm’ role in the life of the user. Now, however, he observes that recent apps have become much more visible and active in the user’s life. He uses the example of a bicycling app, which can track your distance, speed, and location. This is an incredibly personal and active way for an app to operate.

With regards to the social consequences discussed earlier on, Josgrilberg observes how mobile technology has changed the structure of social organizations. He states that due to the fact that people use their mobile technology everywhere (eg. at home, at school, at work, with friends in public spaces, etc.), it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the boundaries between the social organizations.

I am not sure that I agree with Josgrilberg’s observation. I think that the way we use our mobile technology depends on the situation. For example, I may use Facebook on my phone when at home, but would use a calculator app while in class at school. For me, there are still definite boundaries between social situations, regardless of the fact that I use the same technology in each situation.

For myself and many others, mobile technology is necessary for everyday life. Josgrilberg, Campbell and Park, and Goggins all offer unique perspectives of how mobile technology affects social life, and why it is becoming so depended upon by users.

Screenshot of my computer showing various social media platforms. This picture portrays the dependency on communication technology in people's (especially younger people's) lives.

#comm2f00

M.4.1

If you go to any well-populated area in Canada, you will likely be able to find somebody using a cell phone or another type of mobile communication technology. Mobile technology surrounds us - it is impossible to go a few days without standing behind someone chatting away on their Blackberry in a grocery store lineup, or having to side-step away from a cell phone provider salesman in a mall. This constant exposure to mobile communication is both beneficial and detrimental for our relationships to services, other people, and the spaces in which we live.

The benefits of ubiquitous mobile communication are speed and convenience. Our whole lives revolve around doing as much as we can in the shortest possible amount of time. With mobile communication, we have easier/faster access to services (I can order a pizza online!!!), more efficient communication with services (emailing companies rather than spending hours upon hours waiting for a customer service representative), and easier contact with the people in our lives.

The disadvantages are cost, misinterpretations, and changes to social environments. First, mobile communication is expensive. That means it costs money to talk to your friend, rather than just meeting up in real life. Second, with text messaging (or even phone calls!), it is hard to judge the other person’s responses to us. This can lead to bad misinterpretations and strain to relationships. Thirdly, let’s face it - mobile communication is hard to avoid. Defamilialization is an example that spawns directly from the increase of mobile communication in our lives. More proof that mobile communication changes our social environment lies in the “Phone Stack” dinner game. The idea of this game is that everybody during a social outing/meal puts their phone in a pile, and the first one to give in to the temptation loses, and has to pay for the food/activity.

With regards to the government intervening with communicative practices, I don’t think there is a large amount of stifling that occurs. Today’s younger generation is aware of the surveillance that can occur based on communication technology, but we’re not overly affected by it, for the most part. For me personally, If I was involved in sketchy situations, I would refrain from saying - or typing, rather - things of an illegal nature via this type of technology. I would also avoid communicating with someone who has been involved in criminal/illegal acts. It is common sense to avoid/censor that sort of thing when you are behaving in a public environment, such as the internet.

Although ubiquitous mobile communication is costly and changes the way we interact with each other, I do believe that the benefits of accessibility and convenience outweighs the disadvantages. In addition, while government interference may occur in some situations, for the most part, I don't believe that everyday users feel the need to censor themselves because of it.

#comm2f00