#n8310742

[kcb206group12]

Big Data: Utopian or Orwellian?

New media has paved the way for the development of big data, allowing it to become more integrated, and invasive, than ever before. This post will look into what it is, as well as its numerous benefits and disadvantages.

  Before investigating the strengths and weaknesses of big data, the concept needs to be clearly understood. Big data is an umbrella term which refers to the information gathered by methods, in most cases digital, such as data gathering, processing, analytics and visualisation (Woodford, 2014). In terms of new media, this data is gathered from many social media sites. Woodford et al (forthcoming) even came up with the ‘Twitter Excitement Index’, which helps to determine how consistent the level of tweeting is in relation to an event. It is clear from this that new media has allowed big data to become more effective and inclusive, which leads to the question of whether this is a good thing.

  Eric Siegel (2013), talks about the ‘Clairvoyant Computer’, created by “computers automatically developing new knowledge and capabilities by furiously feeding on modern society's greatest and most potent unnatural resource: data.” In other words, computers are able to make predictions through the use of big data. The applications of this are extremely extensive. Siegel (2013) provides examples such as the fact that “Hollywood studios predict the success of a screenplay if produced” or that “the leading career-focused social network, Linkedin, predicts your job skills”. From the last example, it is clear that there are certain disadvantages, at least from the consumers’ perspective.

  Hipponen (2013) goes so far as to say that “Orwell was an optimist” in this TED talk:

He argues that the US government, in order to get access to big data, “take something that is secure and make it less secure on purpose.”  He also says that “whoever tells you that they have nothing to hide simply haven’t thought about it long enough” arguing that ”search engines know more about you than your family.” His main point is that “privacy is the building block of our democracies”, therefore companies, or in his argument, governments taking that away to use for big data take away from freedom and democracy.

  Big data in a new media landscape has allowed for a world where predictions can be made more accurately than ever before, allowing for a much higher quality of goods and services. It does seem, though, that this has come at a high cost to society – its privacy and freedom. The question is how far can it be pushed; at what point do we as a society refuse to pay such a price?

  References

Hypponen, Mikko. 2013. “How the NSA Betrayed the World’s Trust – Time to Act” [Lecture]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/mikko_hypponen_how_the_nsa_betrayed_the_world_s_trust_time_to_act#t-1001204

  Siegel, Eric. 2013. “Introduction – The Prediction Effect.” In Predictive Analytics, 1-16. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Retrieved from  https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB206

  Woodford, Darryl, Katie Prowd and Axel Bruns. (forthcoming). “Telemetrics: Towards Measuring Social Media Engagement with Television.” Retrieved from https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB206

  Woodford, Darryl. 2014. “New Media, Big Data & Telemetrics [Lecture Notes]. Retrieved from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232451_1

[kcb206group12]

Can New Media be Revolutionary?

New media is allowing more people to communicate more effectively than ever before. A question that this poses is one of whether it really has the ability to enact real, tangible change; whether it really has political power. To investigate this, this post will include the arguments surrounding this question and attempt to find a reasonable middle ground between them.

  One argument is that new media can have substantial political power; that it can democratize and allow people to communicate where they otherwise couldn’t. Shirky (2011) has this argument and writes “As the communications landscape gets denser, more complex, and more participatory, the networked population is gaining greater access to information, more opportunities to engage in public speech, and an enhanced ability to undertake collective action…these increased freedoms can help loosely coordinated publics demand change.” Shirky (2011) also refers to Luthers printing press and Benjamin Franklins postal service – new communication technologies that allowed for social change. This CNN segment shows how Twitter was used in the context of Irans post-election unrest:

So it is clear from this video that whilst Twitter is very useful for getting information spread, it is still far from being able to organise anything resembling ‘real’ change. Shirky (2011) concedes that “The use of social media tools -- text messaging, e-mail, photo sharing, social networking, and the like -- does not have a single preordained outcome…Social media tools are not a replacement for real-world action but a way to coordinate it.”

  Another, more negative argument, goes further than this and views these perspectives as close-minded. Gladwell (2010) argues that “some of this grandiosity is to be expected. Innovators tend to be solipsists. They often want to cram every stray fact and experience into their new model.” So people see these new technologies and try to apply them to everything that is happening.  This is also made clear in the CNN segment, where it is apparent that Twitter was not leading this social upheaval, but was merely present.

  Another point Gladwell (2010) makes is that “because networks don’t have a centralized leadership structure and clear lines of authority, they have real difficulty reaching consensus and setting goals. They can’t think strategically; they are chronically prone to conflict and error.” If everyone has an equal say, regardless of their qualifications, experience or overall relevance to the situation, then whatever is said or done is bound to be far less effective than real world activism.

  But it is not that simple. If it is only in the hands of a disconnected population, it could have little to no effect, so still potentially more than older forms of media allowed. If it is in the hands of the activists themselves, who are actively involved in the situation, then it can be a great tool to facilitate their actions.

  REFERENCES

Gladwell, Malcom. 2010. “Small Change: Why the Revolution will not be Tweeted.” The New Yorker, October 4. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all

  PoliticsNewsPolitics. 2009. Twitter Revolution in Iran [Youtube Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpQC-DJL_Ho&t=1m20s

  Shirky, Clay. 2011 “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change.” In Foreign Affairs 90:1. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67038/clay-shirky/the-political-power-of-social-media

[kcb206group12]

How we Talk and What we Say is Up for Grabs: New Media Communication

As briefly discussed in the previous posts, society is moving towards one where communication is far different and more mediated than ever before. This post will look into mediated communication and the discussion over whether it impoverishes or enhances. Furthermore it will look into new media communication tools and how they are changing language itself. Finally, this post will investigate technologies, social practices and their users.

  It is inarguable that mediated communication, which Sauter (2014) describes as the “use of tools/technologies to communicate and record information across time and space”, is on the rise, the question is whether this rise has the power to empower or impoverish society. Baym (2010) points out that “mediated communication is seen as a diminished form of face to face conversation” but argues that such a view “ignores many other factors that affect mediated communication… it sells people short, failing to recognize the extent to which we are driven to maximize our communication satisfaction and interaction. This "communication imperative" pushes us to use new media for interpersonal purposes and to come up with creative ways to work around barriers, rather than submitting ourselves to a context- and emotion-free communication experience”. It is clear, from this argument at least, that people are capable of having meaningful communication through new media and not only through face to face communication.

  The advent of new communicative tools has caused language to evolve. Sauter (2014) shows evidence of this new abbreviations, fragments, symbols and uses of punctuation and spelling. Emoticons, which are graphics that indicate an emotional state (Sauter, 2014), could also be argued to be a change in language. Baron (2014) indicates that “for years, the popular press has been asking whether email, IM, or texting on mobile phones is degrading the way we write. Conversely, some linguists and composition teachers argue that all this writing is bringing about an epistolary renaissance that is strengthening our language abilities-and the language itself.” This shows that a change in the way society communicates is not necessarily a bad thing.

  To lead on from that point, Sauter (2014) argues that “language, culture, social practices, technologies and their users are intimately interconnected in the development of communication practices”. As has been brought up repeatedly in past posts, there is a blurring between creators and audiences, producers and consumers. Everyone in society has a role to play in the changing new media landscape. A good example of this would be on the website Reddit (2014), where users can ‘upvote’ or ‘downvote’ content that is put on the site, leading content to evolve into something that the users want.

It is evident that accurate conclusions on the implications of new media communication cannot be drawn quickly. This is shown by arguments such as that people can still have meaningful conversations through new media. Furthermore, it is very clear that language is changing, but it looks to be for the betterment of society rather the death of language itself. New media is allowing a variety of societal elements and technologies to be connected to its progression. It is no longer a priest, Shakespeare or those with the printing press or power deciding what communication and language are. In this unprecedented age of new media, it is everyone.

  REFERENCES

Baym, Nancy. 2010. “Ch 3: Communication in Digital Spaces.” In Personal Connections in the Digital Age, 50-70. Cambridge MA: Polity Press.

  Baron, Naomi. 2008. “Ch 1: Email to Your Brain: Language in an Online and Mobile World.” In Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, 3-10. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Reddit. 2014. Reddit. Retrieved from http://www.reddit.com/

  Sauter, T. 2014. “WEEK 6 NEW MEDIA COMMUNICATION. Retrieved April 12 from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_108110_1&content_id=_5232448_1

[kcb206group12]

The New Entertainment Industry

The entertainment industry is something that new media, by its definition, was bound to change. This post will look into how new media have changed how entertainment and news are produced, how it can be seen to be a threat to ‘old media’ and new methods of incorporating new media are emerging in entertainment.

  A good example of the contrast between new media and old media in the entertainment industry that Shefrin (2004) brings up is that between Peter Jackson and George Lucas in the development of their films; the ‘Lord of the Rings’ and ‘Star Wars’ series respectively. Shefrin (2004) points out, in relation to online fans, “…Lord of the Rings fans have been actively courted by Jackson… Star Wars fans, however… have been generally ignored… Consequently, Jackson’s and New Line Cinema’s innovative strategies with online fans have been advantageous to Jackson’s career, while causing raised expectations that have been detrimental to Lucas’s career”. Clearly, even from a ten year old example, new media benefitted those in the entertainment industry able to integrate it effectively. New media allows content producers to involve their audience more and more as it develops. As discussed in earlier posts, it has even gotten to the point where the ‘audience’ is no longer a relevant term. So how could this transformation be a threat to ‘old media’?

  The concerns are the same as they were when the printing press was invented. As Dunlop (2010) put it “in a world where journalistic judgement and knowledge of the underlying facts of a story are so easily challenged and surpassed, journalists can no longer pretend to be offering an impartial, authoritative, god’s-eye-view of the news”. It is of concern because it takes power away from individuals or small groups such as journalists. However, in this case, it is not as simple as a media technology revolution giving power to the people. An example is given by Burgess and Green (2009), who write about YouTube; “YouTube is not just another media company, and it is not just a platform for user-created content. It is more helpful to understand YouTube… as occupying an institutional function - operating as a coordinating mechanism between individual and collective creativity and meaning production; and as a mediator between various competing industry-oriented discourses and ideologies and various audience- or user-oriented ones”.

  New media allows modern audiences to play a much larger role in entertainment and news than in the past. It is not a complete reflection of democracy in the production of media content due to concerns of power and expertise, however, it is a step further in that direction.

              REFERENCES

Burgess, Jean and Joshua Green. 2009. “You Tube and the Mainstream Media.” In YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture edited by Jean Burgess, Joshua Green and Henry Jenkins, 15-37. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press

  Dunlop, T. 2010. A brief history of how new media is transforming old media. Retrieved March 31, 2014 from http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42018.html

    Shefrin, Elana. 2004. “Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Participatory Fandom: Mapping New Congruencies Between the Internet and Media Entertainment Culture.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (3): 261-281.

[kcb206group12]

New Media’s Transformational Impact on Economics and Power

New Media has clearly redefined the notions of individuality and society, producer and consumer, so it is not difficult to see from there that it is beginning to have an impact on capitalism and power relations. This post will investigate new media’s ability to blur the lines between work and play and the emergence of new media labour.

Jonathan Zittrain (2009) spoke about how with new media, there are ways in which even high-skill tasks can be completed at a relatively low cost. For example, X Prize offered a $1 million prize for a research goal and as a result over $10 million was invested towards that goal (Zittrain, 2009). Another example would be Innocentive, which offered a $20,000 reward for solving the problem of browning in juice (Zittrain, 2009). It is even more impressive for low skill tasks, a good example being the ESP game which gives users points for playing a game that identifies photos on the internet (Zittrain, 2009). This is an example which presents the ‘gamification’ of labour (Sauter, 2014).

  A problem with ‘gamification’ is that it blurs the lines between work and fun. While this is something most would aspire to do, it does it in such a way that it allows for problems which are protected by labour law in any other workplace. Issues such as child labour can just be ignored by new media due to this, because the fact that a form of labour is fun seems to detract from the value of the labour (Zittrain, 2009).  

  Another use of crowds achieved through new media is crowdfunding, and just like other forms of crowdsourcing, it can be exploited. The general principle of crowd funding is the idea that in order to get a product started, entrepreneurs make enough money to start up their business through micro-transactions from people online, usually with products given for certain donation amounts. In theory, this also allows for the democratisation of products; for entrepreneurs to produce something that is designed to suit the interests of the people, rather than the interests of a few key stakeholders, like in a corporation. Knowing this, an interesting recent example would be Occulus Rift, a virtual reality gaming headset that made almost $2.5 million (Kickstarter, n.d) through crowdfunding, was bought for $2 billion by Facebook, the CEO of which, Luckerson (2014) writes, “said could envision people visiting virtual worlds where they can buy goods and are served advertisements”. This is a clear example of the newfound use of crowds in new media being exploited.

  Christian Fuchs (2013) argues this point, writing “On corporate social media, the liberal freedom of association and assembly are suspended… Liberal freedoms turn on capitalist social media into their opposite. The concept of social media participation is an ideology”. It is apparent from the example and from Fuchs that in some cases at least, corporate agendas can directly oppose the democratisation of new media.

  New Media has a great deal of potential to serve a wide variety of purposes. It seems that the same technologies which allow for people from all across the world to contribute towards the betterment of society can be used to exploit society.

  Fuchs, Christian. 2014. “The Power and Political Economy of Social Media.” In Social Media: An Introduction, 97 – 125. London: Sage Publications

  Kickstarter.  n.d. “Occulus Rift: Step Into the Game”. Retrieved March 29, 2014 from https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-step-into-the-game/posts

  Luckerson, V. 2014. Facebook Buying Occulus Virtual-Reality Company for $2 Billion”. Retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://time.com/37842/facebook-oculus-rift/

  Sauter, T. 2014. “Week 4: New Media Enterprises” [Lecture Notes]. Retrieved March 28, 2014 from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232446_1

  Zittrain, Jonathan. 2009. “Minds for Sale” [Lecture]. Retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2009/11/berkwest.

[kcb206group12]

What is The Modern Audience?

As was discussed in the last post, new media is changing individuals and societies, but it also appears that it is even changing the definition of audience in the modern age. When user-generated content has become a key factor of new media, is the term ‘audience’ still relevant? It is critical in an understanding of new media that one knows the implications of this transformation: its ability to empower, and its ability to exploit and disadvantage.

  Media audiences have changed a great deal in the digital age. From what used to be a ‘hypodermic needle’ model, where it was believed the message was injected into the consumers, to a two-step flow model where media producers gave a message which was able to be interpreted by the audience, to ‘uses and gratifications’ theory where audiences are seen to have agency. Now it has transformed into a state covered by reception theory, which argues that media messages are not inherent; their meaning is created by the audience (Sauter, 2014). Green et al (2011) refers to Clay Shirky (2006), who put it “Every time a new consumer joins this media landscape, a new producer joins as well because the same equipment - phones, computers - lets you consume and produce. It is as if when you bought a book they threw in the printing press for free”. A great example of this would be how segments of the movie ‘Downfall’ and the VMAs became media such as this:

  In order to have any appeal, there is an assumption in this video that, firstly, its viewers are aware of the various ‘Downfall’ parodies, where Hitler is incorrectly subtitled complaining about a wide variety of different topics, ranging from the Xbox One release to skiing at Whistler. Furthermore the audience would know the controversy of Kanye West Interrupting Taylor Swift at the VMAs. Clearly, this is not the message that was ‘injected’ by either the VMAs or ‘Downfall’. The creators of these media would not even be able to imagine such an outcome. Society has not only simply reinterpreted it, but reinvented it. Lessig (2008) argues “the more people contribute, and see others contribute, the richer everyone feels” so it could even be said that the original content has been augmented by the contributions of others. Whether this ability has empowered society is a question worth exploring.

  Green et al (2011) write “Powerful new production tools and distribution channels are enabling the mute to speak and the invisible to be seen… embodying the "technologies of freedom"… fulfilling John Fiske's (1994) claims about ongoing "technostruggles" between "the people" and "the power bloc."”. But it is not that simple. Green et al (2011) continues, citing Van Dijck and Nieborg “The active participation and creation of digital content seems to be much less relevant than the crowds they attract .... Mass creativity, by and large, is consumptive behaviour by a different name”

  It is inarguable that new media has transformed the concept of an audience. What is still up for grabs is whether this has given people power or taken it away. Whether it has given the freedoms that it appears to on the face of it, or whether it has put people in a position to willingly give them away to be quantified and calculated by those who certainly do not have their best interests in mind. The answer most probably lies at neither extreme, but at an equilibrium determined by commercial interests and the degree to which society is willing to give in to them.

    REFERENCES

Green, Joshua and Henry Jenkins. 2011. “Spreadable Media. How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy.” In The Handbook of Media Audiences edited by Virginia Nightingale, 109-127. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

  Lessig, Lawrence. 2008. “Chapter 7: Hybrid Economies” In Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, 177-224. New York, NY: Penguin

  NeutralityChecker. 2009. “Kanye Interrupts Hitler’s Conversation with Taylor Swift” [Video]. Retrieved on March 20, 2014 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwipMLu9awA

  Sauter, T. 2014. “Week 3: Creating and Consuming New Media Content” [Lecture Notes]. Retrieved on March 22, 2014 from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232445_1

[kcb206group12]

New Media and its Role in Reshaping Identity and Society (Week 3 Blog)

Media is playing an ever-increasing role in modern life. From tablets to social media to a whole range of emerging technologies and websites, we are constantly finding new ways to immerse ourselves in it and redefine it. In doing this, it appears new media is changing the very concepts of identity and society, creating new opportunities and challenges.

  New Media has changed the concept of identity through augmenting it with a variety of new aspects. Mark Deuze (2011) writes “The potential power of people to shape their lives and identities can be found in the assumption that people produce themselves (and therefore each other) in media”. As is clear, people now have new ways to shape their identity. This can be seen particularly on social media websites such as Facebook, where users can ‘check in’ to locations, upload photos, write posts and share other forms of media such as news articles and videos. Through these features, users are able to adjust their very identity more towards something that suits them.  An issue that has arisen is one of whether, through reshaping of their identity online, people have given up their privacy.

  Media is evolving in such a way that it is more and more often forcing users to choose between their privacy and the use of the media. In a world where employers not only can see, but actively search for individuals’ presence in new media (Ryan, 2013), this is becoming a growing concern. Papacharissi (2011) argues “We rarely fight for privacy simply for its own sake; we fight for its underlying Values. Autonomy is central to most understandings of privacy”. The point here is that the concern is not about being able to hide anything in particular, but not being able to live a life where everything you do you do of your own free will, not because it appears ‘good’ or ‘correct’. This disappearance of privacy is a key element of how society is being changed by new media.

  This is an age that many (Deuze, 2011) refer to as a ‘mediapolis’, which is as Deuze (2011) puts it “a comprehensively mediated public space where media underpin and overarch the experiences and expressions of everyday life”. Media is continually becoming more integrated into society that it is reasonably foreseeable that future generations won’t understand why we distinguished it from reality. Deuze (2011) also argued that new media is making society both more connected and isolated, which raises the question about the degree to which this mediated society has truly benefitted from new media.

  New Media has provided multiple ways in which society can become more connected, informed and participatory among other aspects. The cost of this has been privacy and the blurring of the lines between the media and reality itself, creating a situation where people can create identities that do not represent them, where they can share unprecedented amounts of media, but lose grasp of their freedoms to decide what is shared and where people can be constantly in the spotlight and yet isolated at the same time. It is therefore crucial that new media be understood and managed in such a way that these aspects can be reshaped for the benefit of human experience rather than a series of trade-offs.

  REFERENCES

Deuze, Mark. 2011 “Media Life.” Media, Culture & Society 33 (1): 137-148.

  Papacharissi, Zizi and Paige L. Gibson. 2011. “15 minutes of Privacy: Privacy, Sociality, and Publicity on Social Network Sites.” In Privacy Online: Perspectives on Privacy and Self-Disclosure in the Social Web, edited bySabine Trepte and Leonard Reinecke, 75-89. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.

  Ryan, R. 2013. “Yes, Employers will check your Facebook before offering you a Job”. Retrieved on March 15, 2014 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-ryan/hiring-facebook_b_2795047.html

  Sauter, T. 2014. “Week 2 New Media and Society New Media and Identity” [Lecture Notes]. Retrieved on March 14, 2014 from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232444_1

[kcb206group12]

TEST POST PLEASE IGNORE

TEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORETEST POST PLEASE IGNORE

...

....

test post please ignore test post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignoretest post please ignore