#sheriemeka

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup5]

Big Data

This techno-social society where we are linked by social media has created a new means of gathering information. Data produced from social media can be priceless to companies who know how to analyze it. There are some who question the ethics of big data, however, blame can’t be restricted to the corporations. Social media users can’t be blind to the fact that what information they provide on the site and what they do on it was intended for sharing, hence ‘social’ media. Data collected via people using twitter is used to benefit a company, yes, but it also promotes that sense of community and sharing that everyone goes to social media for.

Twitter especially is an important part of providing big data. The data gathered on twitter is hugely useful for any company. ‘It’s basic marketing; know your audience’ (Walden, 2013). Prior to new media, the price of conducting research to gather information could be quite excessive, and like all research, subjective. So it’s in a company’s best interest to go to a source where there is already data for the taking. In the case of television, twitter has given us ‘the capacity to efficiently collect enormous amounts of data, at relatively minimal cost and effort, about how people react to TV in real time’ (Harrington, 2013). Because of these benefits, we can now see traditional media outlets adapting to keep up with the ever changing times, encouraging the use of audience contribution via twitter. ‘Hashtags are a very good way of picking up data from the API… and can get a large sum of data which can then be analyzed’ (Woodford, 2014)

When I watch ‘The Voice’ I am overwhelmed with promos for their website and to join the conversation through twitter. While I personally won’t be joining in, I can see other people who are watching the show and their thoughts as a text box pops up in the corner of the screen with viewers twitter comments who tweeted to the #TheVoiceAU. Not only does this provide the program with information to profile their audience, but it’s also a free and effective way to advertise. This ‘cycle for free promotion’ (Woodford, 2014) has a ripple effect where if just one person tweets about ‘The Voice’ their followers will see it and may respond and so forth. And I don’t necessarily think this is a bad or immoral thing. ‘Anything that is public is fair game’ (Woodford, 2014)

When people sign up for twitter, Facebook or any other kind of social media, the sites privacy policy and terms and conditions and what they can do with your information is stated. So if users aren’t aware of what’s being done with their information and don’t like it, well they were warned. And if they were aware of how their information get’s used but still accepted the terms, they knew what they were getting into. To put it very simply, if you want to be completely private, just don’t use twitter or any social medium for that matter. And as for companies getting free advertising, no body forces people to tweet/like or comment something, it’s all done at their own will, because they chose to do it.

References:

Walden, S. (2013). Marketers, Do You Really Know Your Customers? Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2013/11/25/visitor-profiles-metrics/

Harrington, Stephen. 2013. “Ch 18 Tweeting about the Telly: Live TV, Audiences, and Social Media.” In Twitter and Society edited by Katrin Weller, Axel Bruns, Jean Burgess, Merja Mahrt & Cornelius Puschmann, 237-248. New York, NY: Peter Lang. https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB206

Woodford, Darryl. (2014). KCB206: New Media, Big Data and Telemetrics. [lecture recordings] retrieved from http://www.itservices.qut.edu.au/helpdesk/videos/#LectureRecordingsStudents

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup5]

Politics and New Media

The topic for this week was new media politics and engagement, and like much of this unit looked at where power lies in new media. It has been mentioned numerous times, that new media is a platform for freedom of speech therefore giving the people power. However, with new media, is society falling powerless to who and what is most popular, based on who can harness social media best? One of the three aspects of new media is that it is used as a campaigning tool for politicians.

Social media specifically, plays a large role in campaigning because it identifies a target market. How this happens is by people simply using these networks. Given the public nature of such sites as twitter and Facebook, any and all data submitted can be greatly useful. Known as ‘machine learning, [whereby] computers automatically develop new knowledge and capabilities by furiously feeding on modern society’s greatest and most potent unnatural resource: data’ (Siegal 2013, 3) which can then be utilized to predict an outcome. This ‘learning process identifies a carefully defined group of customers who are predicted to be, say, three times more likely than average to respond positively… so the company benefits… by preemptively removing likely nonresponders [from communication]’ (Seigal 2013, 10). In addition, social media has cut the cost of campaigning due to social media being free. Where this has played out it politics, as Sauter points out in the lecture, is in the case of Barrack Obama.

However, an example closer to home is our very own Ex Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. He has been working social media since 2008 and continues to do so, mainly through twitter. With a whopping 1.8 million twitter followers, what made him so successful on social media is not only that he was one of the first Australian politicians to jump on the bandwagon, but he is also a very active social media user (Tudehope, 2011). His decision to use social media played an important part in him being elected as it made him more relatable to Australia’s youth and so he was able to target his audience. A 2008 ‘newspaper poll… revealed that a staggering 73 per cent for those under the age of 29 planned to vote for Labor's relatively fresh-faced Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd’ (Lateline, 2007). Additionally, keeping up with trends, Kevin Rudd posted a humorous selfie last year while campaigning again.

If twitter followers are an indication of popularity, Kevin Rudd is quite popular. But is Kevin Rudd just the Kim Kardashian of politics, (Steketee, 2013) widely popular, but lacking substance? And if so, does the same go for any politician who uses social media? While campaigning is always going to be about popularity, new media has introduced a new factor to the mix. Whether a politician is chosen for their work, or for their celebrity status.

References:

Siegel, Eric. 2013. “Introduction : The Prediction Effect” In Predictive analytics : the power to predict who will click, buy, lie, or die, 1 - 16. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Accessed April 29, 2014. https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB206

Tudehope, Thomas. 2011. “How did Kevin Rudd become Australia’s Twitter Master?” Accessed May 2, 2014. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2897554.html

Lateline. “Poll shows youth vote critical in election”. Last modified October 18, 2007. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2063603.htm

Steketee, Mike. 2013. “Rudd must give policy solutions not just celebrity appeal.” Accessed May 2, 2014. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4814094.html

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup5]

New Media and Communication

There is a common belief about how ‘internet communication is so impersonal’ (baym 2010, 3), ‘it’s making us scattered and superficial thinkers’ (Carr, 2010) and ‘writing online is making us worse writers’ (Baron 2008, 6) But how accurate are these accusations? According to Baym, many of the previous studies done on this topic are flawed. I’ll be first to admit that while I prefer face-to-face conversation for certain situations, I’m definitely pro instant messaging when it comes to daily life.  Given the domestication of technology, we are ‘always on’ so communicating becomes so much more convenient and effortless. Especially when it comes to maintaining communication around the globe. For example, my brother is overseas for the next 6 months, and I’m still able to talk to him daily on Facebook chat as if he’d never even left.

However, I understand where these worries are coming from. When we communicate face to face we send out non-verbal cues such as facial expressions or body language. These actions we see usually reflect what is being said and help us in understanding the conversation. ‘Because computer-mediated interact ants are unable to see, hear, and feel one another, they can’t use the usual cues conveyed by appearance, signals and physical context’ (Baym 2010, 54) so when we read a message online, we aren’t getting it’s full meaning. Which is why emoticons are used to help solve this problem (Baym 2010, 60). A written message can come across as abrupt or rude, however if you put a little ‘J’ emoticon in it, the message changes to a friendly and casual tone.

One of the main concerns that Baron raises in her reading is that because writing an instant message is so easy and quick now, it raises the issue of ‘what affect quantity may be having upon quality’ (Baron 2008, 6) for example, while we’re able to write out a proper sentence asking ‘what are you doing tomorrow?’, for the sake of effort, this message becomes ‘wat r u doin 2moz?’. While this might come across as being written by someone who skipped primary school, in many cases it’s more likely that ‘we could proof read… but no longer care to do so’ (baron 2008, 7). The use of IM talk can also be seen creeping into daily spoken communication. Such acronyms as 'LOL' and 'JK' are used in certain demographics general conversations.

While it may seem as though the use of virtual communication is dumbing down society and detaching people in conversations, contemporary attitudes and practices are in fact also ‘shaped by larger social forces we have incorporated into our own identities and carry with us into our mediated interactions’ (Baym 2010, 66) the devices we use such as computers and mobiles merely ‘magnify on going trends’ (Baym 2010, 65)

References

Baron, Naomi, (2008). Chapter 1 : Email to Your Brain : Language in an Online and Mobile World. In Baron, Naomi, Always on : language in an online and mobile world, (pp.3 - 10). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Accessed April 10, 2014. https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB206

Baym, Nancy K, (2010). Chapter 3 : Communication in Digital Spaces. In Baym, Nancy K, Personal connections in the digital age, (pp.50 - 71). Cambridge: Polity Press. Accessed April 10, 2014. https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB206

Carr, Nicholas. 2010. “How the internet is making us stupid” The Telegraph, August 27. Accessed April 10, 2014. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/7967894/How-the-Internet-is-making-us-stupid.html

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup5]

New Media and Entertainment

It’s evident that new media has altered the way the entertainment industry is run. It’s ‘no longer enough to produce something just for TV, you have to give the audience opportunity to not just view, but also engage with it on other platforms.’ (Saughter, 2014) We see the industry adapting to this with convergence, TV shows can now be watched on the viewer’s time and through a device of their choice.

Shefrin’s reading looks at the contrast of embracing and rejecting fandoms, and how when utilized effectively, they can be beneficial to not only the circulation but also the production of media content. Because when it comes down to it, who knows a TV show better than the fans? Their ‘close textual readings… critical analyses… extreme dedication and growing numbers are [making] them recognized as important contributors’ (Shefrin 2004, 269) The example Shefrin uses is ‘Lord Of The Rings’, where Peter Jackson was interacting with fans through new media platforms and not only listening but acting on what the fans were wanting from the films. While this is an idealistic example of participatory fandom, it’s not realistically what is happening at the moment. However, that’s not to say that producers aren’t aware of their fandoms. It’s just that ‘the vast majority of cultural production by fans is occurring extemporaneously to, not collaboratively with, the ‘’official’’ authorship of the narratives’ (Shefrin 2004, 268). 

To show how involved fans currently are, I want to take a look at a TV show with a rather large and dedicated cult-like following, ‘Supernatural’. I constantly see ‘Supernatural’ related content on my dashboard and newsfeed. This TV series shows how committed the fans are to sharing, creating and editing its content, and how it has helped the show grow over the years. Which couldn’t have been possible had the producer’s been focused on copyright and power dominance. Additionally, the channel 10 ‘Supernatural’ website, has a section titled ‘Castiel gifs to help express your feels’. It can be seen here how the old media have embraced the ways of new media (and what the fans have been doing for years) in order to better relate to the audience. Furthermore, producer’s have even ‘openly acknowledged their fans’ (Felschow, 2010) in a ‘Supernatural’ episode where the protagonists find out their lives are recorded and made into what everyone believes to be ‘fictional’ books titled ‘Supernatural’, which have a dedicated fan following. ‘Viewers watching the program, recognise this meta-nod to the show's own die-hard fans’ (Felschow, 2010) Similar to this there have been numerous episodes that subtly reference an inside joke within the fandom. 

This shows how fans have some sort of role in the production of content, however they are not deciding what that content is. While the producer’s recognise and benefit from the power that fandoms have in sharing content and contributing ideas, they are still writing the story themselves. However, they write it with the fans in mind, which benefit both parties. 

Reference List

Felshow, Laura E. 2010. “Hey, Check it out, there’s actually fans!” Accessed April 2, 2014. http://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/134 

Shefrin, Elana. 2004. “Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Participatory Fandom : Mapping new congruencies between the Internet and media entertainment culture” in Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (3) pp.261-281. Accessed April 2, 2014. https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB206

Saughter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 Internet Self and Beyond: Week 5 Lecture Recording.” Accessed April 3, 2014. 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_4831513_1%26mode%3Dreset 

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup5]

New Media Enterprises

What are the limitations of your loyalty to technology? I must confess, after the readings this week my disposition towards my iPhone and laptop has been impacted. Zattain’s lecture and Fuchs chapter both analyzed new media enterprises, the greatness it brings into our life and the not so great that we are all too happy to forget. By now it is no secret that new media has been using us, the audience. These hybrid economies use our consumption and sharing to gain value and profit for their business. Originally, this didn’t seem like too much of an issue. However, after this week’s readings I realize that we aren’t getting as much credit in these new media enterprises as we should be.

Web 2.0 is supposedly a place of sharing and equal opportunity, however not too surprisingly, there are businesses exploiting this. ‘Corporations and their logic dominate social media and the Internet is predominantly capitalist in character’ (Fuchs 2014, 102). Each time we use these new media platforms we are being monitored, and our information is being put through algorithms to be sold to advertisers. And the more we use these platforms, the more value they have for advertisers, meaning that these corporations can gain a larger profit because of us. In doing so, ‘corporations reduce their investment costs and labor costs, jobs are destroyed, and consumers who work for free are extremely exploited’ (Fuchs 2014, 106) the issue here is not only that people receive little to no reward for their work which capitalists flourish from, but also that they aren’t being compensated for overtime. There are no set work hours for when prosumers are laboring because it’s disguised as play. ‘Nearly two-thirds of the Australian population now own a smartphone’ (Godfrey 2013) so for many, accessibility to these programs is 24/7. ‘On corporate social media, users create content, browse content, establish and maintain relations with others by communication, and updating their profiles. All the time they spend on these platforms is work time.’ (Fuchs 2014, 114)

Price for value is only one of the many issues with what Zittrain refers to as ‘crowd sourcing’. Corporations use the collective power of individuals to act as a Mechanical Turk (Zittrain, 2009) in completing mindless jobs for monetary rewards or satisfaction. As a result, people will complete these tasks without full consciousness of what they’re actually doing, and who their employer is. For years now I’ve been answering what I thought were security questions of captcha. I never really put much thought into what I was typing out. But now I see I was no more than a tool, decoding words for some company's larger plan, which I know nothing about. 

New media has blurred the lines of both moral and the law. In ‘the real world’ society takes work conditions very seriously, and people have strong opinions about what they believe is right and wrong. However, when it comes to new media we live in blissful ignorance, putting aside what is right and just, all for the love of our technology that we have become so dependent on. So while these media enterprises should be regulated, they aren't entirely to blame. People need to want change, which wont happen in this zombie-like state.

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)

Godfrey, Miles. 2013.  “Two thirds of Aussies own a smartphone: report” Sydney Morning Herald, July 29. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/twothirds-of-aussies-own-a-smartphone-report-20130729-2quj1.html

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup5]

New Media Consumption

The ways we create and consume media have dramatically changed throughout the decades. We are at the stage now where we are no longer following the early ‘hypodermic needle model’ (Sauter 2014) of media consumption. Sitting mindlessly in front of the television, while the media producers ‘inject’ us, the audience, is a thing of the past.  Development in technology has lead to the convergence of media platforms allowing a shift in how audiences interact with the media. To the point where users can now become producers with an infinite number of programs available for ‘DIY media making’ (Green 2011, 111).  American Idol was one of the first to encourage the participation of audiences and since then numerous other media have followed.  Businesses are now built on a delicate balance of sharing and commercial economies, known as the ‘hybrid economy’ (Lessig 2008, 177).  A few examples of these hybrids are YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook, which are all networks encouraging and functioning off of participatory culture.

These networks have radically changed how media is produced and consumed. I remember the days when all I used to watch was the television. I’d check the TV guide to see what shows were on for the night, and then I’d base my evening around that. Now it’s rare that I’ll be watching anything on my Television. No more am I bound to the TV room couch, but freed to the vast expanse of wherever I may find Wi-Fi. These days I’m found on my phone, tablet or computer watching the latest YouTube videos from Jenna Marbles. YouTube has given people the means to create their own videos and upload it to a mass audience. So now the audience are no longer just users, but producers. However, studies have shown that only a minority of users are actually creating 'user generated' content (Green 2011, 110) but that’s not to say these ‘inactive’ users aren’t still part of this participatory culture. In fact, consumers play a large role in spreading this content by liking and sharing it with friends. Because ‘choosing to spread media involves a series of socially embedded decisions’ (Green 2011, 113) the more it spreads, the greater value it gains.

As Theresa made note of in the lecture, the famous Oscar selfie that Ellen DeGeneres did this year was an online phenomenon, not only breaking the record for most retweets, but breaking down Twitter. There are rumors surrounding this event that it was all a publicity stunt for the phone brand used to take the selfie, Samsung. This then shakes the feeling of freedom and raises the question of who is in control, users or corporations? Keeping in mind that if nobody retweeted Ellen DeGeneres’s photo, it would have had no value at all. So it’s evident then, that the audiences who intermingle with the content have the power (Sauter 2014) by instilling it with meaning and value.

References

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 Internet self and beyond: week 3 lecture recordings” Accessed March 19, 2014. https://lecturecapture.qut.edu.au/ess/lti/v1/launch/BLACKBOARD/90e0f566-3969-40ff-8600-e7cac2c2e219

Green, J. Jenkins, H. 2011. “Spreadable Media: How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy” in The Handbook of Media Audiences, 109-127. Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester. Accessed March 13, 2014. (CMD) http://blackboard.qut.edu.au

Lessig, Lawrence. 2008. “Hybrid Economies” in Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, 177-224. Penguin: New York. Accessed March 13, 2014. (CMD) http://blackboard.qut.edu.au

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup5]

testing