#n8553025

[kcb206group7]

"Network of Intelligence and Collaboration"

This final blog post will be on the Week 9 topic New Media, Big Data and Telemetrics by Darryl Woodford (2014). In this blog post I’ll review what big data is and provide an example on how big data is used currently and how important and powerful a tool it is in our modern times. Every time we click on a website or make a purchase we are generating a piece of data. As Siegel (2013) suggests, that data is a priceless collection of experience from which to learn from. Big data is collating that information and understanding customers more confidently and accurately on a much larger scale. According to SAS (2014), the mainstream definition of big data includes the three V’s: volume (the amount of data being collected), velocity (the speed at which data travels) and variety (which includes data in all types of formats). But one particular online visual that stood out to me was this notion, and almost likening Big Data to the planet developing a nervous system – meaning that Big Data has the ability to measure, analyse, visualise and then respond to what’s happening all around the world in real time. I’ve learnt that big data has many universal meanings, and the YouTube video on blackboard ”What is big data?” really outlines what big data means to a business professional in today’s society. Some definitions included: a means to running a better business for customers, providing global access to all the possible information about human response and human innovation, and providing a more accurate analysis that can lead to confident decision making and reduced risks. While I was browsing the web I came across a YouTube video “What Big Data Says About You,” where photographer and journalist Rick Smolan talks about Big Data and mentions an interesting example. In his interview, Rick talks about the Gates Foundation who has being trying to eradicate polio in Nigeria. Looking at satellite maps they found that there were villages in Nigeria that nobody knew existed (they didn’t exist on any known map). So, the Gates Foundation gave out ten thousand GPS enabled cell phones to polio inoculation workers to make sure they go to every single hut (and visit every single family and child). Unless you inoculate everybody you can’t eradicate it, so this idea of using satellites combined with cell phones to eradicate polio is an example of how big data can be used to help people (especially in developing countries). I guess it’s not something that leaps to mind when you talk about big data, but this human story really helped me understand big data in a different way (a way that most of the definitions provided didn’t). In closing, Darryl (2014) covered New Media, Big Data and Telemetrics in the week 9 lecture in depth. Most importantly, it was reiterated that big data is perhaps one of the most important frameworks of our generation. No longer are we an information age but a network of intelligence and collaboration. References Seigel, Eric. 2013 “Introduction- The Prediction Effect.” In Predictive Analytics, 1-16. Hobroken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Accessed May 10, 2014. Statistical analysis system (SAS). 2014. “Big Data – What it is and why it matters.” Accessed May 10, 2014. http://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/big-data/what-is-big-data.html Woodford, Darryl. 2014 “New Media: Big Data and Telemetrics: Week 9 lecture notes.” Accessed May 10, 2014. Youtube. “Polio’s Last Percent – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” Accessed May 7, 2014. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU3Lw7Nn3qg Youtube. “What is Big Data.” 2012. Accessed May 7, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahZGEusG13A Youtube. “What Big Data Says About You.” 2013. Accessed May 7, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc1zBNC9wNY

[kcb206group7]

The Rise of Political Activism

New Media Politics and Engagement is particularly important overseas in autocratic countries where the “voice of the voiceless” is very rarely heard (Faris, 2010). In the week 8 Lecture, Theresa (2014) talked about the use of new media for political engagement and explored the conflicts and inconsistencies of top-down control. She also addressed the importance of empowered citizens who participate in political issues and shared light on some of the current political citizen activism around the world. One of the videos from the lecture that resonated with me was that of a 26-year-old Egyptian woman named Asmaa Mahfouz, who spoke out against her government, and as a result was a catalyst for the Egyptian uprising in 2011. Asmaa demonstrated in the streets alongside thousands of fellow Egyptian’s and demanded an end to the regime and corrupt government in Egypt, so that the peoples’ voices can finally be heard. Asmaa wouldn’t have been able to reach a mass audience and achieve the same outcome if it weren’t for the video message she shared via social media (Facebook). In this blog, I will talk about the political engagement of citizens around the world that has everyone talking, and discuss the importance of new media in today’s society and the impact it has in the political sphere. It’s important to acknowledge that, although we live in a society where we have the freedom to express our own opinions, people in other countries are being beaten, arrested, tortured and in the worst case killed, purely because they’re fighting for their rights to have a voice in the political arena. If it weren’t for the brave few who– through the use of new media tools such as Facebook and Twitter– inform citizens of the injustice taking place, protests like the one Asmaa Mahfouz organised would not be as impacting. With that said, social media is an easy and cost-effective way to share information and form groups with the sole purpose of reaching a large number of people around the world (Shirky 2011). Asmaa used social media to her advantage and actioned her people to attend the rally to fight for the cause. Another fiery topic was the banning of YouTube and Twitter in Turkey in March this year. This was challenged by citizens and service providers and as a result had a reverse effect, increasing twitter usage, attracting wide media coverage and fuelling more corruption claims (Sauter, 2014). Check out the YouTube video that talks more about Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his banning of Twitter in Turkey.

As authoritarian governments such as Turkey, try to limit access to social media, people are more determined to undertake collective action and demand change (Shirky 2011). Malcolm Gladwell (2010) questions this kind of activism and argues that platforms such as Twitter and Facebook are built around weak ties. If Twitter is a just way of following, and Facebook is only a tool for managing acquaintances, why is it then that through the use of Facebook, thousands of people gathered to protests in the streets of Egypt? If the Facebook message wasn’t created, would it have the same outcome? The answer is no. In further readings, sociologist Mark Granovetter observed that “there is strength in weak ties” and that “our acquaintances–not our friends– are the greatest source of new ideas and information” (Gladwell 2010). This supports the notion that slacktivism is the new activism. I believe that new media politics and engagement is one of the most important elements of social media in today’s society. Dictatorial governments and policy makers in countries around the world should be held accountable. There needs to be a balance, but as it stands, those that are missing out are everyday citizens and the only way to have a voice and have any kind of power, is through the use of new media tools like Facebook and Twitter. References Faris, David. 2010. “(Amplified) Voices for the Voiceless.” Arab Media & Society, 11. Available at: http://www.arabmediasociety.com/?article=750 Gladwell, Malcom. 2010. “Small Change: Why the Revolution will not be Tweeted.” The New Yorker, October 4. Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “New Media Politics and Engagement”: Week 8 lecture notes.” Accessed April 22, 2014. Shirky, Clay. 2011 “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change.”In Foreign Affairs 90:1. Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67038/clay-shirky/the-political-power-of-social-media

[kcb206group7]

New Media Communication

In week 6, Theresa spoke on ‘New Media Communication’ and the notion of whether it enhances or impoverishes practices of communication, languages and relations. I found this weeks reading, Personal Connections in the Digital Age by Nancy Baym, to be very interesting. It provided me with a lot of valuable information about the culture that is new media communication and it’s place in today’s society. Following the lecture in our Monday tutorial, Kim assigned us a task for the week. We had to communicate using only one form of medium. I chose Facebook. I realised shortly after choosing Facebook that I receive a lot of important emails both internally and externally. It was also clear to see how often I use text messaging as a major form of communication to family and friends who may not have access to the Internet or even have a Facebook account. Looking back, Facebook is probably the most informal and in some contexts, unprofessional form of communication out of all the possible mediums available today. One particular point I would like to talk about in this week’s blog is the use of non-verbal cues to communicate a message. Baym (2010) suggests in Personal Connections in the Digital Age that non-verbal social cues affected the perceived intimacy of each medium. In her survey responses, Baym indicated that face-to-face communication is much more intimate because of the use of body language, facial expressions and other human emotions intertwined, therefore is the most effective way of communicating. Whereas, speaking to someone on the phone only permitted vocal satisfaction and didn’t have the same effect. Lastly, the Internet seemed to be the quickest, easiest and readily available form of communication, however, was the least personal out of the three mediums. What happens to communication itself – the messages people exchange- when it’s digitally mediated? Well, I for one am guilty of using the Internet everyday. I use it to communicate with friends and family, check my Facebook and Instagram profile, stalk celebrities, listen to music and watch the latest trailer. I also message family and friends and email colleagues both internally and externally. But, does this mean my receiver won’t get the message I’m trying to say just because they can’t see my facial expressions or hear the tone of my voice. No!!!!! Face-to-face communication may be a diminishing form of embodied interaction, but it’s NOT the only form that issues the same result (Baym, 2010). Theresa (2014) introduces the term ‘mediated communication’ to be the use of tools/technologies to communicate and record information across time and space. “It makes sense that people question whether mediated communication can successfully serve social functions,” (Baym 2010). I think they can. And they do. Baym (2010) implies other ways in which people convey nonverbal social cues when limited to textual communication as well. These include: use asterisks as brackets, upper-case lettering, and letter and punctuation repetition to indicate emphasis, as in “I am SO busy,” “I’m sooooooo busy,” or “I am so busy!!!!!!!” "Our cumulative experience with communication technologies has gradually altered behavioral and social norms," (Baron 2008). It's apart of the cultural landscape we use everyday. In conclusion, new media communication such as texting, social media messages and abbreviated characters does erode language – spoken and written – but it’s the people who also influence it and are motivated to participate (it almost is a topic of speech). I know that if I’m sending an email to a lecturer I would use appropriate language like, “Good Afternoon Professor Harry Smith,” compared to if I was sending a Facebook message to a friend, “Hey girl, how you doin? We catchin up 2nite???? xo. Get me???? LOL. It’s the environment you’re in and how you choose to communicate that.

I don't exactly talk like this to my mum but let's HOPE it doesn't get to this stage!!!!!!!! References: Youtube. 2014. “Text Slang.” Accessed April 12, 2013. http://www.youtube.caom/watch?v=wB3D6W7ZHts Baym, Nancy K, (2010). Chapter 2 : Making New Media Make Sense. In Baym, Nancy K, Personal connections in the digital age, (pp.22 - 45). Cambridge: Polity Press. Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “New Media Enterprises. Week 6 Lecture”. PowerPoint Presentation. Accessed April 5, 2014.

[kcb206group7]

New Media Enterprises

In week 4, Theresa talked on the topic of new media enterprises. She placed large emphasis on the importance of reconceptualising audiences and also how new media capitalist has blurred the idea of participatory systems. The reconceptualisation of audiences around the world has impacted the way social media and the Internet exists. In the lecture, Theresa explains changing societies and how over time people are no longer driven by physical labour. This is because activities that they’re involved in consist of multiple smaller tasks that can take place anywhere and is less expensive with smaller technologies. Following this shift in societal changes, Zittrain (2009) supports the notion of a collaborative and participatory economy and emphasises the importance of crowdsourcing. In his presentation, Zittrain (2009) used Hurricane Katrina as a prime example of crowdsourcing and highlighted the effects that everyday citizens had on reuniting families during such a tormenting time. This is a positive example of how the reconceptualisation of audiences has influenced society. Theresa touches a little bit on the notion that consumers are no longer passive but active audiences and that people will not participate in future without payment (2014). She goes on to say that there is a change in the ‘work landscape’ to include companies and people positioning themselves in networks, with the ability to be more flexible, open-ended and dynamic. We’re all participatory systems in one way or another. This can be anything from commenting on a friends Facebook status to completing an online survey for a company. But is it really a shared space where workers and providers are both equally better off? No. There is definitely a capitalist approach when it comes to the Internet, but in the last few years there has been a significant increase in terms of how we as workers/consumers/the audience individually govern and take responsibility for our own work and the work of others. The second part of my blog will talk about the identifiable power that providers have on social media and how they position workers. Fuchs (2013) goes on to talk more about corporate colonisation of social media and how large corporations dominate the public sphere/participatory democratic space. An example of this is gamification and playbour. They are both ways in which users become workers by play and communicate are modes of production. In the long run, businesses gain a cheap and diverse workforce and workers are left without pay, without benefits and without an answer. These new enterprises, such as crowdsourcing, are ways for workers and consumers to participate and be a part of a bigger picture. No longer are they confined by top down regulations, but there is a sense community amongst online users. Although I found this week’s readings to be quite challenging, I have a better understanding of how audiences have, and are being reconceptualised and how the Internet now offers a more participatory approach compared to media from 20 years ago. References: Zittrain, Jonathan. 2009. Minds for Sale (video, 1hr 16mins). 16 November. Available at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2009/11/berkwest Fuchs, Christian. 2014. “The Power and Political Economy of Social Media.” In Social Media: An Introduction, 97 – 125. London: Sage Publications. (Available on CMD) Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “New Media Enterprises. Week 4 Lecture”. PowerPoint Presentation. Accessed April 5, 2014.

[kcb206group7]

Funding just got easier

I found this weeks lecture and readings to be somewhat built around previous lectures and readings about convergence and the audiences role in new media. The idea surrounding this week’s topic had a close look at the reshaping of the entertainment industry relating to the professional practise in areas of media including journalism, television, film and music. To understand the reshaping of the entertainment industry it’s important to understand the reconceptualisation of audiences. Once you grasp this concept everything becomes clear. This paradigm shift into new modes of transmission including online, mobile, personalised and on demand services has enabled participation and interaction of audiences on a large scale (Sauter, 2014). As a whole, this weeks topic created a argument toward that shift in reconceptualising audiences and how they’ve come together to reshape the entertainment industry. I would like to discuss the following key points raised in the lecture and further supported in the readings and they are, the use of new media technologies and social media platforms (convergence), crowd funded content and participatory fandom, and ultimately forming alliances with audiences. Firstly, we must talk about how new media websites like YouTube and Facebook contribute to the ways in which audiences perceive media and the economy. Burgess and Green (2009) talk in more detail about the emergence of YouTube as a new media power, and how the repetitive stream of news stories with themes such as youth and celebrities has influenced audiences around the world, thus shifting the focus away from law and morality. Audiences play an important role in establishing what is newsworthy and what isn’t, and because of this, audience generated content is more likely to be popular and widely distributed. The second point is about crowd funded content and participatory fandom. In the readings, Shefrin (2007) explains this well in Critical Studies in Media Communication when she talks about the power audiences have in providing funding for media productions. The Internet has provided a platform for fans to maintain a ‘heightened connection,’ with media producers and their evolving franchise. Participatory fandom enables audiences to engage with producers about the social and cultural practices they produce (Sauter, 2014). A good example of crowd-funded content and participatory fandom is the Veronica Mars television series. In order for Veronica Mars to continue in production, the acting team approached fans via the Internet and asked for any possible donations to help fund the movie; this way fans could play an important role in the start up of the production while also receiving incentives for their contribution. Below is the end result of crowd funding, a low budget film that was funded directly through it's fans.

Lastly, with the convergence of new media technology and the introduction of social media platforms, producers have an endless supply of advertising. Fans are also equally advantaged with an increasingly active role in media production through social media sites just like the example of Veronica Mars above. The points I’ve raised in this short blog highlight the importance of audiences/fans and their place in new media production. References: Burgess, Jean and Green, Joshua, (2009). Chapter Two : YouTube and the Mainstream Media. In Burgess, Jean and Green, Joshua, Youtube : online video and participatory culture, (pp.15 - 37). Cambridge UK: Polity Press. Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “New Media: The Entertainment Industry. Week 5 Lecture”. PowerPoint Presentation. Accessed April 5, 2014. 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) pp.261-281.

[kcb206group7]

Spreadability & The Balance Of Power

In Week 3, Theresa touched on the topic of creating new media content in today’s modern times. In particular, how that content is being produced across a variety of platforms through the use of convergence and spreadability, which I‘ll talk more about later in the blog. Firstly, before I go into more detail, I think it’s important to acknowledge that yes; there is definitely a changed relationship between audiences and media providers, but does that mean audiences feel empowered or disadvantaged? In Jay Rosen’s blog (2006), Tim Porter suggests that everyone is each other’s audience, whether you’re a good listener, a critic or someone who comments on another person’s Flickr photo, the publisher-audience relationship remains, but instead it is a loop not a pipe. This loop supports the participatory culture in which we live today. No longer is there a top down form of communication; instead, we (the users) are more active participants in our consumption and distribution of new media. An example of this is the sharing of content on Facebook and YouTube, with the movement of messages from person to person (Green and Jenkins, 2011, 111). This form of spreadability has empowered users to be more active participants and draw attention to interests and issues that the people, formerly known as the audience prefer (Rosen 2006). Convergence plays a large role when you consider the different technologies today allowing us access to the internet. These include laptops, IPhones and androids, Ipads etc. Perhaps the most valuable reasoning in support of empowering users is from the inventor of the World Wide Web himself, Tim Berners-Lee, who noted that his intention for the Internet was that it be a two-way flow of information (Brake 2013). The emergence of the Internet has made it so much easier for users to interact and harness the power of user-generated content. For example, people are able to create their own personal websites and contribute information to others (Brake 2013). So why then are users being disadvantaged? Well, it’s obvious that most of the people reading this blog have viewed a YouTube clip, so let’s not beat around the bush. We have collectively generated data for online media businesses. I browse the web and view YouTube videos all the time, but does that mean I’m being disadvantaged because I enjoy new media? Yes and no. In the lecture, Theresa goes on to talk about the reasons why users are being disadvantaged, and they include, but are not limited to, material, motivation, skills including operational, informational and strategic, and usage access (2014). These are primary reasons supporting user disadvantage. In my opinion, Rosen (2006) nailed it when he said, “there’s been a shift in power.” He’s not supporting the fact that the people now have all the power and the media lost theirs. Rosen suggests that this new “balance of power” is significant and changes the equation. References: Brake, David. 2013 “Are We All Online Content Creators Now? Web 2.0 and Digital Divides.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. Published online before print: 8 Nov 2013. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12042 (Available on CMD) 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. (Available on CMD) Rosen, Jay. 2006. “The People Formerly Known as the Audience” PressThink: Ghost of Democracy in the Media Machine, June 27.(short blog post). Avaliable at: http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html

[kcb206group7]

New Media and Technology – Are we giving up our privacy in order to be social?

New media is forever changing, and as Baym (2010) so eloquently describes it, we are that primary source of change in both technology and society. Deuze (2011) suggests that media has become a regular feature of everyday life because most of our time is spent using it; whether it’s checking our emails, posting a status on Facebook, downloading a new app on a smartphone, or researching for an assignment, media has become so easily accessible to a globally diverse user base, with multiple media functions now available on the same device (Flew 2010). This is a prime example of how convergence in the 21st has influenced our consumption of new media. As we progress into the future, new technology is being developed, as well as new meanings and new uses for that technology (Baym 2010). Theresa Sauter (2014) explains in the Week 2 Lecture on New Media Society/Identity, that new media is an infrastructure constantly evolving, and that the Internet is a platform for public opinion and social reform. Let’s use Facebook as an example. Mark Zuckerberg describes “I wanted to create an environment for the sole purpose of sharing whatever information people wanted with each other while having control over whom they shared that information with (2006).” But how safe is that information from high profile computer literates? Papacharissi and Gibson (2011) explore this in more detail and argue that aspects of the framework remain open to the indiscriminate sharing of information without guaranteeing privacy. In a YouTube video below titled "Facebook: What Privacy?" John Friedman talks about Facebook privacy and what you should do if you don’t like it. Friedman argues that Facebook is “opening your private life to other people,” and “if you don’t like it on principal or for a reason, you should leave” (YouTube 2012).

As a young adult, one of my fears is for an employer or a person unknown to me, to search my Facebook and learn information about me I understood to be private. Boyd (2011) argues that searching has become commonplace activity amongst Internet users today, with more than 2.4 billion (study shown in 2012) people using the Internet around the world (Terry 2014). People today have become so reliant upon media that it comes to shape our sense of reality (Deuze 2011). We build our lives around the internet, we search for definitions, organise meetings, pay our bills, book trips around the world, learn new languages, and even purchase products using our name, address, bank details and much more. We not only share our information with organisations and companies but with a space and collection of people (Boyd 2011). It's important to understand that the Internet plays a massive role in constituting our lifestyle, our identity, and our culture (Flew 2014). We are told to believe that our information is kept private however is not necessarily protected by coherent regulatory framework, but as Papacharissi and Gibson state, being social does require some (voluntary) abandonment of privacy (2011). References: Baym, Nancy K, (2010). Chapter 2 : Making New Media Make Sense. In Baym, Nancy K, Personal connections in the digital age, (pp.22 - 45). Cambridge: Polity Press. Boyd, Danah, (2011). Chapter 2 : Social Network Sites as Networked Publics – Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In Papacharissi, Zizi, A networked self – identity, community, and culture on social network sites, (pp.39 - 58). New York: Routledge. Deuze, Mark (2011). Media Life., Media, Culture & Society 33 (1) pp.137-148. Flew, Terry, (2014). Chapter 1 : Introduction to New Media. In Flew, Terry, New media, (pp.1 - 17). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Papacharissi, Zizi and Gibson, Paige L, (2011). Chapter 7 : Fifteen Minutes of Privacy : Privacy, Sociality, and Publicity on Social Network Sites. In Trepte, Sabine and Reinecke, Leonard, Privacy online : perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web, (pp.75 - 89). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. YouTube. “Facebook: What Privacy?” 2012. Accessed 14 March, 2014. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bywO--sXENU Zuckerberg, Mark. 2006. An Open Letter From Mark Zuckerberg. Accessed 14, March 2014. https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/an-open-letter-from-mark-zuckerberg/2208562130