Thinking about the sharing of social media statuses in relation to Walter Benjamin’s essay on mechanical reproduction where he discusses cult value vs. exhibition value. Essentially he explains that an art piece’s cult value decreases as it is copied and exhibited. I think this idea can be applied to sharing posts on social media sites with the post’s meaning decreasing the more it is shared.
Like everybody on Facebook putting a French flag filter on their profile picture in sympathy for the Paris attacks. It was such a terrible event, a bit of photo editing doesn't really feel like enough.
I didn't think about that, but I agree with your point. What inspired my post was actually all the perpetual sharing of internet memes. Seeing a particular image once or twice is funny, but when everyone shares it, and its everywhere, it loses its comedic effect.
I had an experience with online surveillance recently (how exciting). A friend of mine sent me a message on social media site and it was censored. In place of the message was a yellow/orange text box with the words: “This message was removed because it contains blocked or harmful content”... When I asked my friend what she sent me, I was informed it referred to the previous message; she sent me: “I thought you might find that interesting^”. Good job social media surveillance team; how dare she tell me what I might find interesting.
Does social media represent a blurring between surveillance and sousveillance? An owner of a page acts as the administrator so they act according to surveillance—determining what content is appropriate for display. Additionally, they are a member of the intimate public they facilitate, so wouldn’t they also be governed by sousveillance, with members reporting on them?
Users online are watching everyone else while simultaneously being watched by everyone else.
That sounds terrifying. But according to my mother who grew up in a village, people have always been like that to some extent. One of the most common reasons for ethical behaviour is the fear of getting caught. It doesn't seem to stop internet trolls, though ... maybe because they can't get caught, being anonymous. It reminds me of that article Dr. Wunker showed us about the beginning of surveillance during the Black Death in Europe.
Temporary profile pictures on Facebook, in my opinion, further the idea of an intimate public—multiple people across multiple publics showing support over a common issue (such as the recent outpour of support for Paris)... I feel as if a new kind of intimate public is formed as a result—one which transcends the traditional definition as it transcends specific publics.
Is breaking news determined by the reader now? It used to be when a breaking news story occurred the two television channels you had would be interrupted to bring you the story but now it seems that important news is whatever is shared, re-posted, or re-tweeted the largest number of times—breaking news has been replaced by trending news, and the reader/sharer effectively fills the shoes of the reporter.
Copyright is interesting to think about in relation to web 2.0. I’m thinking primarily of video sharing and youtube. Music is an historically regulated medium, with free downloads going the way of the dodo. Yet, countless songs—especially popular ones—are easily found on youtube (sometimes as music videos, but commonly as standard mp3 uploads). While posting copy-written is illegal, some youtubers are allowed special permissions—particularly ‘let’s players’. I am interested to know what legislation is in place regarding this content, as well as the procedures required to share freely.
Your comment makes me think of copyright issues specifically for music classes. Music profs have to use a certain licensing company (SoCan?) to share music clips and videos. I'm not sure if YouTube is allowed to be used in music classes, but I know I've studied for some of my music classes using YouTube before.
In relation to my last post and ‘let’s plays’: I think that ‘let’s players’ embody détournement, a concept coined by Guy Debord and the Situationists. Détournement, put simply, is the removal—or twisting—of meaning from an artwork so that it can be used in a new context and given a new meaning. Many ‘let’s players’—such as those employed with Achievement Hunter—use video games as a medium for humour. Essentially, the video game that is played is removed from its original entertainment purposes and given a new one.
"Detournement" - what a great word, I'll have to remember that. It seems to sum up so much of what modern art and literature is about. Like remixes of songs, or parodies, or fan fiction. But where do you draw the line? How much can you take from someone else's work before you stop being "original"? Was Virgil a fan fiction writer because he based the "Aenead" off the "Iliad"?
Keeping the theme of ‘let’s playing’ from the last few posts: Walter Benjamin introduces the concept of the collector/collection in his text The Arcades Project. Benjamin suggests that, much like détournement, the collection repurposes/reassigns meaning. For the objects of the collection however, meaning is attributed through proximity and juxtaposition with other objects in the collect. Videos on ‘let’s play’ channels—or any channel—effectively act like objects in a collection, with no meaning outside of the collection. Like chapters in a novel, videos further the narrative of the channel; the identity and presentation of self of the author(s).
Collection or montage? Are social media updates (statuses, tweets, etc) objects in a collection or pieces of a montage? The term ‘collection’ suggests an underlying resonance in classification—something inherent which relates objects to each other. Social media posts aren’t necessarily linked with each other in a meaningful way, but they still combine to create meaning/identity. I suppose the difference between a collection and a montage exists on an organic level, with meaning in a montage evolving out of the objects themselves without any authorial intent.
Couldn't Twitter posts with the same hash tag be called a collection? Some people seem to follow hash tags so closely that they read everything new labeled with it - or else the GamerGaters couldn't have crashed our class feed last week.
Online communication, while beneficial in some cases, is inhuman. Humans are intuitive creatures—we rely as much on all of our senses. Online communication is fundamentally reading and writing which means many human operational imperatives are left unsatisfied. For example, while reading an email, or engaging in a chat-room, we are unable to read body language, listen for tone, notice any odd scents, or interpret other outlying sensory input which raise red flags. We are forced to rely on the words placed before us when interacting with people digitally which, especially if they are strangers, can lead to adverse experiences.
I guess that's why we invented emoji and certain slang expressions, like "all the feels" or "I can't even". Personally they make me cringe, but I can see how some people find them necessary - how else are you supposed to express strong emotion without showing your face or voice?
You raise a great point about how as humans, we rely on all of our senses. However, Skype, FaceTime, and other webcam activities like Chatroulette (eek) are ways we can read body language and listen for tone online. It will be interesting to see if we'll ever be able to smell things through online communication. Seems far-fetched, but the way things are progressing in our digital world, I don't think I'd be surprised.....haha!!
A tactile feedback system is in prototyping for virtual reality (which is in active production in first wave /now/); we will soon be able to literally 'feel' a digitized environment.
Smell will be harder, as we can't simply use force feedback or actuators or even direct muscle electrical stimulation. We'd either have to create the smell in the room with you for you to inhale, or directly stimulate regions of the brain.
A tactile feedback system is in prototyping for virtual reality (which is in active production in first wave /now/); we will soon be able to literally 'feel' a digitized environment.
Smell will be harder, as we can't simply use force feedback or actuators or even direct muscle electrical stimulation. We'd either have to create the smell in the room with you for you to inhale, or directly stimulate regions of the brain.
I’m taking a course on Queer Theory at the moment and it’s interesting to think of performativity in relation to online presence. So much of what we characterize as “identity” relies on codes and constructs involving people’s clothing and style—what they wear as well as how they wear it. I think it’s interesting to think about these ideas in relation to online avatars in mediums such as online games. People are able to construct a character however they see fit and dress them appropriately; some people even choose to game as the opposite gender. This gender-swap is interesting because, while not necessarily rooted in trans-gendering, it has the potential to be read as an example of such.
Is online content art? Specifically, are internet memes art? We typically categorise art as being something created, like a book, painting, poem, or film, which serves a purpose; it conveys a message. Internet memes are humourous, but is there more to them than that? Do they convey a meaning? Is that meaning at all diminished by their vast reproducibility? Food for thought…
I think they could be considered art in a sense. It really depends on what context you look at them in. Maybe on your Facebook newsfeed, you might not see them as art, but if they were displayed somewhere... I'm just thinking of art like Warhol's Campbell's soup can piece. I wouldn't say a Campbell's soup can is art by its own, but in the right context, seen in the right way, maybe it can be?
Fan-fiction: canon or not? The internet facilitates unparalleled production and sharing of fan-fiction, regardless of the topic (movie, TV show, book series, etc…) Because of this I am wondering if these creations can be considered as canon, or, as an alternate canon. Authors of fan-fiction are able to share their work while simultaneously critiquing others’. This inevitably allows the formation of an intimate public of sorts, with each member serving as an author; this collective is able to collectively construct a universe (based on one already established). The fact that some form of entertainment is able to bring people together in such a way is fascinating, and makes me think that, perhaps, entertainment is no longer just about ‘seeing a movie and talking about it’—it’s about experiencing entertainment and altering it as the collective sees fit.
It is mind-blowing to me how people use social media as a medium for public displays of emotion, both intimate and hateful. Why? To what end? Why feel the need to show people that you are celebrating your two-week anniversary? (What the hell even is that!? The word is anniversary—yearly celebration. You’re 50 weeks short…). Again with the “bad break-up”—why share that? There are more appropriate mediums for these displays/discussions, why not use them? I feel like Facebook is just one large palimpsest of raw emotion…
Hactivism is interesting to me with hactivists serving, ostensibly, as the cloaked vigilante, striking from the shadows. The internet, therefore, becomes analogous to the urban landscape. The problem with this transformation is that cities are governable by laws and regulations, and the internet is not. So here, we have a figure—who is accountable in the eyes of the law—running rampant in a “land” without laws (it’s like a western). It’s also interesting to think about the “levels” engaged in such a relationship: you have a real-life person, interacting with a non-real space, being hunted by real-life authority figures—it’s like a weird in and out phenomenon.
It’s amazing how stressful instant messaging is to some people. When they send a text and it is not responded to relatively quickly, or the send a message on Facebook and see it has been “seen” but not responded to, they lose their minds in a way that does not happen in person-to-person conversation or letter writing. And people never attempt to remedy this stress; they just sit with it. People always explain how amazing their phones are: “Oh, I can text so-and-so, use a GPS, search the web, keep in touch with all my friends through Facebook, and even access the weather and news—it does everything!”
Well, yes, but don’t forget: you can also call people with it—the original breakthrough in electronic communication. Do yourself a favour people: stop stressing and just call.
I can't help but think that it's more complicated than just calling. By relying on our phones as much as we do and communicating through text most of the time, texting has become somewhat of a science. Did they spell out the whole word? Did they use a period? What emojis did they send? What does that mean? We've developed a sort of unwritten book of texting etiquette. If you double text and then call when the person doesn't answer, do you risk coming off as needy, obsessive, or annoying? Maybe calling seems like the rational thing to do, but because of these unwritten rules it might affect the way people see you nonetheless. It's weird to think about why we do things like that and how it got to be this way.
I think texting and emailing is such a popular form of communication because you can edit before you send it. When you're on the phone or talking face-to-face, you rarely have the opportunity to analyze what you're saying before you say it. This can be positive (if you're sending a professional email for example), but also I think we can all agree that it's become a negative form of communication. Many people get anxious talking in person to people these days because it's become so rare.
There is an old saying: “Keep all your money in your mattress”. It’s interesting to me how, almost every piece of personal information—Social Insurance Numbers, banking information, personal correspondences, and the like, are all available online. Sure, these records are kept within the relative safety of the “deep web”, but they are accessible to someone, somewhere, and the deep web can be hacked; it happens all the time. The only thing that wasn’t online was how/what people think but now we have social media—some people’s lives are literally fully accessible online… The only safety is a lead-lined vault buried deep underground; gone are the good old days of international espionage—of the days where highly trained spies were tasked with breaking and entering a heavily guarded facility in an attempt to attain personal secrets. Now, any really tech-savvy14-year-old with a laptop and a strong internet connection can do it.
This post is quite unsettling. You raise great points! If the internet stopped working one day, I can't even begin to think of how much lost information there would be (including all my grade 6 Facebook albums!)
“Everyone’s a critic”. This used to be something derogatory said when one was met with resistance of some kind. Today, however, this is literally true; everyone, ostensibly, is a critic. People share and discuss their views on various topics until an absolute consensus is achieved by the general public. The review site Rotten Tomatoes facilitates this idea with hundreds of public and professional reviews, juxtaposed into a single numerical rating.
I remember reading a quote from Justin Bieber (I think), where he basically said that music is hard because you have to constantly evolve in accordance with what people want to hear. To me, that is merely a crap excuse. If you are writing the music that you want to write and are enjoying it, your fans will enjoy it too and that’s what matters—music, or art in general, is not about the money, it’s about movement and meaning. Some artists, like contemporary blues musician Joe Bonamassa, have succeeded in transcending the music-as-income net, but it isn’t an easy achievement. As such, I am glad that web-services such as Soundcloud exist where anyone can take a song they’ve created—using whatever mixing program they use—and share it with the general public. This quite succinctly removes the monetary component from the music industry, reducing it to what it is for: movement. Sure, each artist has the potential to be picked up by a label, but this is not the point of the medium. (I’d like it on record that I do not enjoy the music of Justin Bieber; Joe Bonamassa is more my style)
What is it about social media communication which facilitates new linguistic constructs? With the innovation of texting and instant messaging, a new language has emerged—people now use abbreviations in place of actual words. A whole new system of codes exists now which didn’t exist before instant messaging: “lol”, “wtf”, “lmfao”, all of these mean things, despite their being jumbles of letters. Furthermore (and this is a pet-peeve of mine) What is with the terrible grammar!? You went to school for at least 13 years, did you forget how to spell “school” (skool)? Also, I am seriously disappointed by the idea that “you’re” might soon cease to be an official word—simply because everyone is using “your”. No! I refuse to use “your” in place of “you’re” simply because people are to lazy to retain basic grammar skills after high-school. I do not understand what is happening to our language. I love our language—the way it flows and the way certain sounds interact with others… Why has the inception of instant messaging facilitated its destruction? I text, but I still practice proper grammar! I went to school, I learned how to spell, so I am going to use this incredibly valuable skill!
I saw something interesting on television today. Apparently, there is a new show coming out on Space called The Expanse (which actually seems pretty interesting), with the premiere taking place on December 14th & 15th. What the commercial goes on to state is that viewers can go online and watch the premiere before this date. I think that it is interesting that a ‘professionally’ produced television program is available online before being available on television—it exhibits the shift in mediums, with web 2.0 overtaking television.
Stalking and the internet is pretty interesting (and terrifying) to think about. I recently read an article linked on Facebook about how a girl was stalked for years by her ex-boyfriend. While he didn’t stalk her online necessarily, it’s creepy to think about how much of our lives are broadcast online. It doesn’t even have to be through explicit posts; sometimes your phone will just upload to social media sites stating “so-and-so was at this place, on this date, at this time”. This inevitably makes it easier for people to stalk each other as the no longer have to leave their house to do so. Even the mere idea that my phone is keeping tabs on me creeps me out...
In relation to my last point: I remember when the Xbox One was announced and it was stated that the kinect (a piece of hardware with a camera and microphone) would be on at all times regardless of whether or not the console itself was on. People lost their minds—and rightly so I say! If there is a camera that is always watching me and a microphone which is always listening to me, who’s to say that no one is watching/listening to me at a given time? Does this mean the Xbox One would watch their owners sleep? Thankfully, Microsoft listened to their fans and removed this feature, but it’s still an interesting case study in panopticism.
Feeding off of my last point (again): I own a Playstation 4. I also live in a rural environment with a terrible internet connection. As such, loading games takes an extremely long time, as almost every game features some form of online content. I have my internet turned off on my PS4 in order to improve load times, BUT, because I have done so, I cannot access various functions of my console—some of which should not depend on internet connectivity—an example of this being my “trophies” (awards the player receives whenever they do something right in a video game). This was not the case with the previous console; I find it interesting how much of a necessity of an internet connection has become in just 3-ish years (you now need it to access basic functions).
Keeping the internet/gaming theme going: I was listening/watching a gaming podcast the other day (Dude Soup Podcast by Funhaus on Youtube—well worth the listen) and they suggested that a certain series of video games—namely the Dark Souls style games—are built around internet forums. These games are notoriously difficult; the game’s main mechanic is that you will die, over, and over, and over again, until you learn how to win. As such, these games have facilitated the formation of various online intimate publics, with people posting tips and tricks—usually in video form—online , for fellow players to watch and incorporate into their experiences. Furthermore, there is an in-game function which allows players to leave messages for any other players who are connected to the server. The game is still a single-player experience, but they can see these messages, and learn from any advice that they find... This feature can also be used to troll other players by luring them to their deaths... Man, I remember the days when video games were just blobs jumping over other blobs... Brave New World.
Thinking about the sharing of social media statuses in relation to Walter Benjamin’s essay on mechanical reproduction where he discusses cult value vs. exhibition value. Essentially he explains that an art piece’s cult value decreases as it is copied and exhibited. I think this idea can be applied to sharing posts on social media sites with the post’s meaning decreasing the more it is shared.
ReplyDeleteLike everybody on Facebook putting a French flag filter on their profile picture in sympathy for the Paris attacks. It was such a terrible event, a bit of photo editing doesn't really feel like enough.
DeleteI didn't think about that, but I agree with your point. What inspired my post was actually all the perpetual sharing of internet memes. Seeing a particular image once or twice is funny, but when everyone shares it, and its everywhere, it loses its comedic effect.
DeleteI had an experience with online surveillance recently (how exciting). A friend of mine sent me a message on social media site and it was censored. In place of the message was a yellow/orange text box with the words: “This message was removed because it contains blocked or harmful content”... When I asked my friend what she sent me, I was informed it referred to the previous message; she sent me: “I thought you might find that interesting^”. Good job social media surveillance team; how dare she tell me what I might find interesting.
ReplyDeleteDoes social media represent a blurring between surveillance and sousveillance? An owner of a page acts as the administrator so they act according to surveillance—determining what content is appropriate for display. Additionally, they are a member of the intimate public they facilitate, so wouldn’t they also be governed by sousveillance, with members reporting on them?
ReplyDeleteUsers online are watching everyone else while simultaneously being watched by everyone else.
That sounds terrifying. But according to my mother who grew up in a village, people have always been like that to some extent. One of the most common reasons for ethical behaviour is the fear of getting caught. It doesn't seem to stop internet trolls, though ... maybe because they can't get caught, being anonymous.
DeleteIt reminds me of that article Dr. Wunker showed us about the beginning of surveillance during the Black Death in Europe.
Temporary profile pictures on Facebook, in my opinion, further the idea of an intimate public—multiple people across multiple publics showing support over a common issue (such as the recent outpour of support for Paris)... I feel as if a new kind of intimate public is formed as a result—one which transcends the traditional definition as it transcends specific publics.
ReplyDeleteIs breaking news determined by the reader now? It used to be when a breaking news story occurred the two television channels you had would be interrupted to bring you the story but now it seems that important news is whatever is shared, re-posted, or re-tweeted the largest number of times—breaking news has been replaced by trending news, and the reader/sharer effectively fills the shoes of the reporter.
ReplyDeleteCopyright is interesting to think about in relation to web 2.0. I’m thinking primarily of video sharing and youtube. Music is an historically regulated medium, with free downloads going the way of the dodo. Yet, countless songs—especially popular ones—are easily found on youtube (sometimes as music videos, but commonly as standard mp3 uploads). While posting copy-written is illegal, some youtubers are allowed special permissions—particularly ‘let’s players’. I am interested to know what legislation is in place regarding this content, as well as the procedures required to share freely.
ReplyDeleteYour comment makes me think of copyright issues specifically for music classes. Music profs have to use a certain licensing company (SoCan?) to share music clips and videos. I'm not sure if YouTube is allowed to be used in music classes, but I know I've studied for some of my music classes using YouTube before.
DeleteIn relation to my last post and ‘let’s plays’: I think that ‘let’s players’ embody détournement, a concept coined by Guy Debord and the Situationists. Détournement, put simply, is the removal—or twisting—of meaning from an artwork so that it can be used in a new context and given a new meaning. Many ‘let’s players’—such as those employed with Achievement Hunter—use video games as a medium for humour. Essentially, the video game that is played is removed from its original entertainment purposes and given a new one.
ReplyDelete"Detournement" - what a great word, I'll have to remember that. It seems to sum up so much of what modern art and literature is about. Like remixes of songs, or parodies, or fan fiction. But where do you draw the line? How much can you take from someone else's work before you stop being "original"? Was Virgil a fan fiction writer because he based the "Aenead" off the "Iliad"?
DeleteKeeping the theme of ‘let’s playing’ from the last few posts: Walter Benjamin introduces the concept of the collector/collection in his text The Arcades Project. Benjamin suggests that, much like détournement, the collection repurposes/reassigns meaning. For the objects of the collection however, meaning is attributed through proximity and juxtaposition with other objects in the collect. Videos on ‘let’s play’ channels—or any channel—effectively act like objects in a collection, with no meaning outside of the collection. Like chapters in a novel, videos further the narrative of the channel; the identity and presentation of self of the author(s).
ReplyDeleteCollection or montage? Are social media updates (statuses, tweets, etc) objects in a collection or pieces of a montage? The term ‘collection’ suggests an underlying resonance in classification—something inherent which relates objects to each other. Social media posts aren’t necessarily linked with each other in a meaningful way, but they still combine to create meaning/identity. I suppose the difference between a collection and a montage exists on an organic level, with meaning in a montage evolving out of the objects themselves without any authorial intent.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't Twitter posts with the same hash tag be called a collection? Some people seem to follow hash tags so closely that they read everything new labeled with it - or else the GamerGaters couldn't have crashed our class feed last week.
DeleteOnline communication, while beneficial in some cases, is inhuman. Humans are intuitive creatures—we rely as much on all of our senses. Online communication is fundamentally reading and writing which means many human operational imperatives are left unsatisfied. For example, while reading an email, or engaging in a chat-room, we are unable to read body language, listen for tone, notice any odd scents, or interpret other outlying sensory input which raise red flags. We are forced to rely on the words placed before us when interacting with people digitally which, especially if they are strangers, can lead to adverse experiences.
ReplyDeleteI guess that's why we invented emoji and certain slang expressions, like "all the feels" or "I can't even". Personally they make me cringe, but I can see how some people find them necessary - how else are you supposed to express strong emotion without showing your face or voice?
DeleteYou raise a great point about how as humans, we rely on all of our senses. However, Skype, FaceTime, and other webcam activities like Chatroulette (eek) are ways we can read body language and listen for tone online. It will be interesting to see if we'll ever be able to smell things through online communication. Seems far-fetched, but the way things are progressing in our digital world, I don't think I'd be surprised.....haha!!
DeleteA tactile feedback system is in prototyping for virtual reality (which is in active production in first wave /now/); we will soon be able to literally 'feel' a digitized environment.
DeleteSmell will be harder, as we can't simply use force feedback or actuators or even direct muscle electrical stimulation. We'd either have to create the smell in the room with you for you to inhale, or directly stimulate regions of the brain.
A tactile feedback system is in prototyping for virtual reality (which is in active production in first wave /now/); we will soon be able to literally 'feel' a digitized environment.
DeleteSmell will be harder, as we can't simply use force feedback or actuators or even direct muscle electrical stimulation. We'd either have to create the smell in the room with you for you to inhale, or directly stimulate regions of the brain.
I’m taking a course on Queer Theory at the moment and it’s interesting to think of performativity in relation to online presence. So much of what we characterize as “identity” relies on codes and constructs involving people’s clothing and style—what they wear as well as how they wear it. I think it’s interesting to think about these ideas in relation to online avatars in mediums such as online games. People are able to construct a character however they see fit and dress them appropriately; some people even choose to game as the opposite gender. This gender-swap is interesting because, while not necessarily rooted in trans-gendering, it has the potential to be read as an example of such.
ReplyDeleteInteresting you bring this up! I tweeted about how much of the content we talk about in this class connects to performativity.
DeleteIs online content art? Specifically, are internet memes art? We typically categorise art as being something created, like a book, painting, poem, or film, which serves a purpose; it conveys a message. Internet memes are humourous, but is there more to them than that? Do they convey a meaning? Is that meaning at all diminished by their vast reproducibility? Food for thought…
ReplyDeleteI think they could be considered art in a sense. It really depends on what context you look at them in. Maybe on your Facebook newsfeed, you might not see them as art, but if they were displayed somewhere... I'm just thinking of art like Warhol's Campbell's soup can piece. I wouldn't say a Campbell's soup can is art by its own, but in the right context, seen in the right way, maybe it can be?
DeleteFan-fiction: canon or not? The internet facilitates unparalleled production and sharing of fan-fiction, regardless of the topic (movie, TV show, book series, etc…) Because of this I am wondering if these creations can be considered as canon, or, as an alternate canon. Authors of fan-fiction are able to share their work while simultaneously critiquing others’. This inevitably allows the formation of an intimate public of sorts, with each member serving as an author; this collective is able to collectively construct a universe (based on one already established). The fact that some form of entertainment is able to bring people together in such a way is fascinating, and makes me think that, perhaps, entertainment is no longer just about ‘seeing a movie and talking about it’—it’s about experiencing entertainment and altering it as the collective sees fit.
ReplyDeleteIt is mind-blowing to me how people use social media as a medium for public displays of emotion, both intimate and hateful. Why? To what end? Why feel the need to show people that you are celebrating your two-week anniversary? (What the hell even is that!? The word is anniversary—yearly celebration. You’re 50 weeks short…). Again with the “bad break-up”—why share that? There are more appropriate mediums for these displays/discussions, why not use them? I feel like Facebook is just one large palimpsest of raw emotion…
ReplyDeleteHactivism is interesting to me with hactivists serving, ostensibly, as the cloaked vigilante, striking from the shadows. The internet, therefore, becomes analogous to the urban landscape. The problem with this transformation is that cities are governable by laws and regulations, and the internet is not. So here, we have a figure—who is accountable in the eyes of the law—running rampant in a “land” without laws (it’s like a western). It’s also interesting to think about the “levels” engaged in such a relationship: you have a real-life person, interacting with a non-real space, being hunted by real-life authority figures—it’s like a weird in and out phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteIt’s amazing how stressful instant messaging is to some people. When they send a text and it is not responded to relatively quickly, or the send a message on Facebook and see it has been “seen” but not responded to, they lose their minds in a way that does not happen in person-to-person conversation or letter writing. And people never attempt to remedy this stress; they just sit with it. People always explain how amazing their phones are: “Oh, I can text so-and-so, use a GPS, search the web, keep in touch with all my friends through Facebook, and even access the weather and news—it does everything!”
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, but don’t forget: you can also call people with it—the original breakthrough in electronic communication. Do yourself a favour people: stop stressing and just call.
I can't help but think that it's more complicated than just calling. By relying on our phones as much as we do and communicating through text most of the time, texting has become somewhat of a science. Did they spell out the whole word? Did they use a period? What emojis did they send? What does that mean? We've developed a sort of unwritten book of texting etiquette. If you double text and then call when the person doesn't answer, do you risk coming off as needy, obsessive, or annoying? Maybe calling seems like the rational thing to do, but because of these unwritten rules it might affect the way people see you nonetheless. It's weird to think about why we do things like that and how it got to be this way.
DeleteI think texting and emailing is such a popular form of communication because you can edit before you send it. When you're on the phone or talking face-to-face, you rarely have the opportunity to analyze what you're saying before you say it. This can be positive (if you're sending a professional email for example), but also I think we can all agree that it's become a negative form of communication. Many people get anxious talking in person to people these days because it's become so rare.
DeleteThere is an old saying: “Keep all your money in your mattress”. It’s interesting to me how, almost every piece of personal information—Social Insurance Numbers, banking information, personal correspondences, and the like, are all available online. Sure, these records are kept within the relative safety of the “deep web”, but they are accessible to someone, somewhere, and the deep web can be hacked; it happens all the time. The only thing that wasn’t online was how/what people think but now we have social media—some people’s lives are literally fully accessible online… The only safety is a lead-lined vault buried deep underground; gone are the good old days of international espionage—of the days where highly trained spies were tasked with breaking and entering a heavily guarded facility in an attempt to attain personal secrets. Now, any really tech-savvy14-year-old with a laptop and a strong internet connection can do it.
ReplyDeleteThis post is quite unsettling. You raise great points! If the internet stopped working one day, I can't even begin to think of how much lost information there would be (including all my grade 6 Facebook albums!)
Delete“Everyone’s a critic”. This used to be something derogatory said when one was met with resistance of some kind. Today, however, this is literally true; everyone, ostensibly, is a critic. People share and discuss their views on various topics until an absolute consensus is achieved by the general public. The review site Rotten Tomatoes facilitates this idea with hundreds of public and professional reviews, juxtaposed into a single numerical rating.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading a quote from Justin Bieber (I think), where he basically said that music is hard because you have to constantly evolve in accordance with what people want to hear. To me, that is merely a crap excuse. If you are writing the music that you want to write and are enjoying it, your fans will enjoy it too and that’s what matters—music, or art in general, is not about the money, it’s about movement and meaning. Some artists, like contemporary blues musician Joe Bonamassa, have succeeded in transcending the music-as-income net, but it isn’t an easy achievement. As such, I am glad that web-services such as Soundcloud exist where anyone can take a song they’ve created—using whatever mixing program they use—and share it with the general public. This quite succinctly removes the monetary component from the music industry, reducing it to what it is for: movement. Sure, each artist has the potential to be picked up by a label, but this is not the point of the medium. (I’d like it on record that I do not enjoy the music of Justin Bieber; Joe Bonamassa is more my style)
ReplyDeleteWhat is it about social media communication which facilitates new linguistic constructs? With the innovation of texting and instant messaging, a new language has emerged—people now use abbreviations in place of actual words. A whole new system of codes exists now which didn’t exist before instant messaging: “lol”, “wtf”, “lmfao”, all of these mean things, despite their being jumbles of letters. Furthermore (and this is a pet-peeve of mine) What is with the terrible grammar!? You went to school for at least 13 years, did you forget how to spell “school” (skool)? Also, I am seriously disappointed by the idea that “you’re” might soon cease to be an official word—simply because everyone is using “your”. No! I refuse to use “your” in place of “you’re” simply because people are to lazy to retain basic grammar skills after high-school. I do not understand what is happening to our language. I love our language—the way it flows and the way certain sounds interact with others… Why has the inception of instant messaging facilitated its destruction? I text, but I still practice proper grammar! I went to school, I learned how to spell, so I am going to use this incredibly valuable skill!
ReplyDeleteI saw something interesting on television today. Apparently, there is a new show coming out on Space called The Expanse (which actually seems pretty interesting), with the premiere taking place on December 14th & 15th. What the commercial goes on to state is that viewers can go online and watch the premiere before this date. I think that it is interesting that a ‘professionally’ produced television program is available online before being available on television—it exhibits the shift in mediums, with web 2.0 overtaking television.
ReplyDeleteStalking and the internet is pretty interesting (and terrifying) to think about. I recently read an article linked on Facebook about how a girl was stalked for years by her ex-boyfriend. While he didn’t stalk her online necessarily, it’s creepy to think about how much of our lives are broadcast online. It doesn’t even have to be through explicit posts; sometimes your phone will just upload to social media sites stating “so-and-so was at this place, on this date, at this time”. This inevitably makes it easier for people to stalk each other as the no longer have to leave their house to do so. Even the mere idea that my phone is keeping tabs on me creeps me out...
ReplyDeleteIn relation to my last point: I remember when the Xbox One was announced and it was stated that the kinect (a piece of hardware with a camera and microphone) would be on at all times regardless of whether or not the console itself was on. People lost their minds—and rightly so I say! If there is a camera that is always watching me and a microphone which is always listening to me, who’s to say that no one is watching/listening to me at a given time? Does this mean the Xbox One would watch their owners sleep? Thankfully, Microsoft listened to their fans and removed this feature, but it’s still an interesting case study in panopticism.
ReplyDeleteFeeding off of my last point (again): I own a Playstation 4. I also live in a rural environment with a terrible internet connection. As such, loading games takes an extremely long time, as almost every game features some form of online content. I have my internet turned off on my PS4 in order to improve load times, BUT, because I have done so, I cannot access various functions of my console—some of which should not depend on internet connectivity—an example of this being my “trophies” (awards the player receives whenever they do something right in a video game). This was not the case with the previous console; I find it interesting how much of a necessity of an internet connection has become in just 3-ish years (you now need it to access basic functions).
ReplyDeleteKeeping the internet/gaming theme going: I was listening/watching a gaming podcast the other day (Dude Soup Podcast by Funhaus on Youtube—well worth the listen) and they suggested that a certain series of video games—namely the Dark Souls style games—are built around internet forums. These games are notoriously difficult; the game’s main mechanic is that you will die, over, and over, and over again, until you learn how to win. As such, these games have facilitated the formation of various online intimate publics, with people posting tips and tricks—usually in video form—online , for fellow players to watch and incorporate into their experiences. Furthermore, there is an in-game function which allows players to leave messages for any other players who are connected to the server. The game is still a single-player experience, but they can see these messages, and learn from any advice that they find... This feature can also be used to troll other players by luring them to their deaths... Man, I remember the days when video games were just blobs jumping over other blobs... Brave New World.
ReplyDelete