It is no secret the Internet can be a dangerous place, particularly when the user is unaware of its true potential. While most Internet users have acquired online best practices through their own trial and error, the many forms of social media magnify this process more intimately. Stories of teen suicide sparked by cyber bullying and other forms of virtual exploitation filled the news in 2010. While social media provides a platform for building networks of friends, it can also create a false sense of belonging for those yearning to fit in. When one or more members decide to be hurtful to another member, the damage can sometimes be irreparable.
Another form of social media that has found its way into mainstream news is “sexting.” The term “sexting” refers to sending nude, partially nude, or sexually suggestive messages using a texting device. In 2008, TRU, a global leader in research on teens and 20-somethings, conducted “the first public study of its kind to quantify the proportion of teens and young adults that are sending or posting sexually suggestive texts and images.” The study revealed that 20% of teenagers between the ages of 13 and 19 have posted “nude or semi-nude pictures or videos of themselves”, and an overwhelming 39% have posted “sexually suggestive messages.”1 These activities seem frivolous to these young mediators, but in the eyes of the law, they are felonies.
In a 2009 CBS news report, Harry Smith discusses a Pennsylvania case with CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom where six teens faced charges of child pornography for having nude images of each other on their mobile phones. If convicted, these children could spend years in prison and will be required to register as sex offenders, something that will follow them the rest of their lives. Although large numbers of teens are engaging in similar activities, Smith comments, “few realize they are breaking the law.”2
How can these children be held accountable if they are unaware these activities are illegal? One might argue in the traditional sense of the law, one cannot claim ignorance as a defense. However, these teenagers were given access to a global playground without proper instruction. Should this be cause for concern? Is it time to consider some sort of regulation or educational reform to ensure a safe environment for our kids’ digital activities? A fair comparison might be putting a loaded pistol in the hands of an unknowing six year old without the expectation of some sort of mechanical exploration. The underlying issue here is not that these activities are statistically overwhelming, or even that they are illegal. The real issue is the inherent dangers that accompany such activities. When the above loaded pistol goes off and kills someone because of the child’s ignorance of the mechanism, the parent becomes the responsible party simply because as an adult, certainly he or she knows the dangers of putting a loaded weapon in the hands of a child. Should the same hold true for the parent whose child cyber bullies a classmate to a suicidal-end?
Another alarming statistic the TRU study revealed was that as many as 15% of the teenagers they surveyed admitted to having posted nude or semi-nude images of themselves “to someone they only knew online.” Chat rooms are common places to meet people while surfing the Internet. Sparking a conversation with an online persona can be exciting, especially when that persona fills a void. In most cases, these types of relationships blossom into something completely innocent. However, if asked to insert nude personal photos into an online conversation, the child’s virtual pen pal may have something more sinister in mind. Sexual predators lurk in chat rooms waiting to pounce on their prey, while their child victims are none the wiser. They believe what is revealed in their instant messenger window, simply because they have no reason for doubt, if doubt is even possible in their young minds. Chat rooms are like any other form of social media for these kids. MySpace, FaceBook, and texting is all commonplace in their daily lives. Much like prior generations wrote a letter or phoned a friend, the youth of today rely on digital media as a necessary component of their social relationships.
Fortunately, law enforcement realized the dangers of online child predation and put in place systems to fight these types of crimes. In 2006, NBC Dateline commissioned The Intelligence Group to conduct a nationwide survey on “What are kids really up to on the computer?”3 Out of 500 responses from 14-18 year-olds, 58% said a person they had met online wanted to meet them in person, and 29% said that they had a “scary” online experience. The survey also revealed that around 50% of the teens, “did things online they would not want their parents to know about.” These, again, are alarming statistics. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2009 there were approximately 22 million teenagers living in the U.S.4 If 23% of those teenagers chat with strangers online on a regular basis, and 58% of those same teens received requests to meet the stranger in person, the number of teenagers at risk, at any given moment, is approximately 2,934,800. That is a scary scenario that clearly illustrates the fact that a simple click of the mouse could effectively sign a child’s death warrant.
Social media is a wonderful tool for communication. It allows people to stay in touch, reconnect, make new connections, form online interest groups, quickly communicate and collaborate from afar, share ideas, images, and videos, all with minimal barriers or gate keeping. The free-flow of information runs rampant in this new age of digital technology, and since the inception of Web 2.0, the torrential outpour of creativity and expression has been both liberating and empowering. But as Jonathan Zittrain discusses in his book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, the very elements that make a free-flowing system strong are also its biggest dangers.5 For example, entering a dedicated chat room looking for an innocent conversation, could instead lead to disclosing personal information to an intruder with unsavory intentions. The freedom exists at both ends of the conversation. However, the opacity of the digital screen allows for deceit at either end as well. The unsuspecting chat room visitor has no idea who he or she is really talking to, while the individual on the other end is uninhibited to be exactly who he or she wishes to be.
The Internet, one of the greatest technological advancements in the history of mankind, has literally changed the way the world operates. Gen M, the first generation fully occupied by digital pacifiers, is hard-pressed to imagine a world without iPods and DVRs. Anything less than High-Definition television with high-definition video games is considered “old school”, and having a mobile phone, a personal computer, and Internet access is the norm rather than the exception. Just as parents teach their children how to traverse the real world, they are now faced with a second, much more illusive landscape, a digital terrain that is perhaps even more complex.
Where should instruction begin? A good number of children know more about the digital landscape than their parents. Elizabeth Englander and Kristin Schank speak on this very topic at eSchoolNews.com. They write, “Although kids are comfortable with technology, they are not necessarily knowledgeable about it — don’t confuse the two. We all need to talk with kids about technology. Don’t worry about how much you know or don’t know. Ask kids what’s happening online with them. Ask them to tell you (or show you) what they’re up to online. And keep in mind that even if you might not know how to do a particular thing, you do know that even online they should watch what they say and be civil to others. Don’t hesitate to make that message loud and clear.”6
If teaching begins at home and enforces the same message, regardless of the medium, the result should be universal. However, if one or both parents are digitally disengaged, an entirely different scenario could materialize. This is very important. The child must be prepared for both worlds, offensively and defensively. If the parents cannot provide this kind of comprehensive guidance, the next line of defense lies within the educational system, where indeed it should. In Utopia, the two would interplay. In reality that is not always the case. This is one of those cases.
The technological shuffling of the last 10 years alone is mind-boggling. Now that it is a part of everyday life it would be irresponsible for our educational systems not to proactively address these issues as part of their everyday curriculum. The tragedies and missteps of our youth over the last two years must serve as an immediate call-to-action, and our school administrators must arm themselves for this imperative. Instructors must be prepared to teach the tools needed for personal and professional survival while simultaneously stressing the importance of safety and civility.
A Safe Cyber Space is absolutely necessary for the well being of today’s youth. Digital educational curriculum needs to begin in kindergarten and be incrementally applied through the senior year of high school. It should be integrated within the learning environment where applicable to the exercise. For example, a module on penmanship or spelling need not require the aid of a computer. However, writing a short story using the spelling words from the week would benefit from the use of the computer keyboard in a program such as MicroSoft Word, with spell checker disabled of course. The child would then print out the assignment and turn it in to the teacher.
The primary objectives for grades K-3 are learning how to use a computer as a tool for particular problem-solving tasks. Additionally, the development of a closed wiki-style class community serves as an introduction to learning about collaborative environments. Individual blogs are set up for the child to use for self-expression and for other students to comment on. As the gatekeeper, the teacher supervises the network using specific examples to discuss acceptable versus unacceptable uses of shared communities. Offline worksheets could be developed as homework assignments asking various questions about network etiquette. These types of exercises could also benefit parents who may be inept to the digital world, perhaps enabling their growth along with their child’s. Introduction of other digital devices like mobile phones provide a way of familiarizing students with their uses while also helping the child to remember his or her parent’s phone number.
By the end of third grade, having mastered the various uses of the computer while also acquiring some sense of appropriate community conduct, limited Internet access should be integrated into the fourth-grade learning environment. Again, under the watchful eye of the instructor, fourth graders will learn about the World Wide Web and its various uses as an educational tool. The application of a class wiki will continue for collaboration, creativity, and conversation, still controlled but perhaps not as closely monitored. Less gate keeping allows for the perception of increased freedom, testing previous lessons on community etiquette.
These lessons should be reinforced at every grade level, however relaxed incrementally throughout the maturation process, but always monitored to uniformly address misconduct as necessary. The point is not to punish the child. The objective is to teach respect and constraint both online and off. A good offline exercise might be to sit in a circle and say one good thing about everyone in the class. One might argue these types of activities are not part of standard educational curriculum. However, in order for a Safe Cyber Space to be realized, these types of exercises are appropriate and necessary. It starts with an understanding of what should and should not be said or done while communicating with others. By building a foundation of mutual respect, the children in these programs will be intellectually and emotionally prepared to act and react responsibly after the community controls have been lifted.
Fifth grade is usually greeted with more in depth reading and writing assignments. Armed with the knowledge that the Internet is a useful educational and research tool, fifth graders receive open access to explore the areas in which their assigned topics lead them. Restrictions still exist in the form of barriers of entry to inappropriate sites, and any type of social media is still maintained at the classroom level in the form of the closed wiki model.
Grades six through ten continue in the same fashion with open Internet access for research purposes only. The class wiki model continues, with more emphasis on writing and sharing ideas through the students’ individual blogs. Commenting is also now required in order for students to start learning about critical thinking and discussion.
At this point, perhaps even before, a good number of students will have personal mobile phones. It must be anticipated and therefore addressed early. Appropriate cell phone use should be integrated within the same curriculum as respectful online community behavior, emphasized in a way that will register once kids start using them freely. Unfortunately, educational systems have no control over when a parent decides to give their child a mobile phone. What they do have control over, however, is teaching best practices regarding its use. Again, homework assignments focusing on appropriate versus inappropriate cell phone use could be beneficial to both the child and the parent. For example, writing a short paper exploring the possible ramifications of cyber bullying or sexting would certainly get the student thinking about these things in a more pragmatic manner.
By a student’s junior year he or she will try to buck the system in any number of ways, trying to declare their own independence while simultaneously searching for their own identity. The best line of defense for this age group is providing awareness. For this reason classes focusing solely on social media should be required starting with the junior year and continuing until graduation. Acting as a mentor, the class instructor will facilitate a discussion-based environment in which the “rules” of online etiquette are openly and critically addressed. It will continue a discussion that has been under construction since their kindergarten year, in preparation for this very moment. Students will learn how to build a personal online brand through the use of social media tools. They will learn what types of images and videos are appropriate for online disclosure, as well as keys to keeping the conversation civil and respectful.
In the senior year, this conversation continues but with increased professional emphasis. These lessons are imperative as students prepare to enter college or the work force. More and more companies are using FaceBook entries to screen potential employees. Our youth must be prepared to show they have the skills to act responsibly both online and off.
The above scenario is not too different from what is being emphasized currently in our educational environments, with a few exceptions. New tools of technology must replace the traditional tools of education. Teaching the appropriate uses of these tools incrementally throughout the maturation process will prepare our youth for the more illusive world they will come to depend on and interact with the rest of their lives. The emphasis on social media is extraordinary simply because it is an uncontrolled environment with potential unseen dangers. Requiring discussion in this area, allows for all variables to be explored in an open and honest forum. These types of exercises build awareness while creating better-informed and hopefully more responsible members of society.
Notes
1 The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and Cosmogirl.com,
“Sex and Tech,” (www.thenationalcampaign.org/sextech/pdf/sextech_summary.pdf, 2008)
2 CBS News, Smith, Harry, “Sexting Shockingly Common Among Teens,”
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/15/national/main4723161.shtml, June 15, 2009)
3 Dateline NBC, “Most teens say they’ve met strangers online,”
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12502825/ns/dateline_nbc/, April 27, 2006)
4 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey,” (http://bit.ly/dU9iBx, 2009)
5 Zittrain, Jonathan, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, (Harrisonburg, Virginia:
R.R. Donnelley, 2008)
6 Englander, Elizabeth and Schank, Kristin, “Reducing bullying and cyber bullying,”
(http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/10/06/reducing-bullying-and-cyberbullying/, October 6,
2010)
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It - Case Study Presentation
My case study focuses on generative systems, how they evolve, expand, populate the masses, and then become weakened from the very elements that make them successful.
I use the personal computer as my media object as it is a generative system which is adaptable to a great number of functions, all at the user's whim. Compared to an Information Appliance such as the typewriter or the old IBM Mainframe, designed for specific functions, not easily modified, and serviced by the vendor exclusively, the personal computer is designed with a low common denominator, making it easy to configure according to what the owner needs or wants it to do.
The Internet is also a generative system in it's current interaction with personal computers. Collaboration, innovation, ability to adapt to changing conditions are among the many advantages of the generative Web. In fact the Internet was created around the concept of letting it become what it will. The framers decisively held firm to the "procrastination principle", and didn't worry about what problems might occur, rather leaving such issues to the "end-points" to solve as the problems arose. This is what created the Internet as we know it today; a flourishing network of innovation, collaboration, communication, ideas, participation, and so on...
Unfortunately, Zittrain also talks about, (in Derrida style) the very things that make a generative system strong are also it's greatest danger. The dangers come from the exploitation of the network by amateurs and abusers. For example, amateurs unknowingly release harmful code. Contrarily, abusers very knowingly release harmful code. Either way, harmful code circulates the network waves infecting anything and everything it comes into contact with, and in an exponential fashion. So the freedoms that the Internet allows for honest people, also pathes the way for the bad guys.
In reaction and fear to this type of activity, the minds of regulatory personnel start spinning and debating solutions. Instead of applying the "procrastination principle" they will indeed be figuring out ways to stop online hackery and the threat of technological terrorism. So, in a worse case scenario the logical solution would be to disallow interaction with the Internet, relieving the threat that lies within.
I use the scenario of a "Read-Only Internet" as an extreme. There are many, many areas to explore in this discussion. One of them being freedom. Even that in itself opens many avenues of discussion.
However, if regulation deemed the Internet as "Read-Only" how would that effect us? For starters, our personal computers would become mere informational appliances. We could still create and innovate, but it would be more on a personal level. We could only use the Internet for research purposes. We would have no way of collaborating on projects or ideas with people around the world, or for that matter people in our own back yard.
I use extremes to make a point as well as hopefully creating a jumping off point for discussion. I truly, truly hope the Internet will never be "Read-Only" and honestly, I don't think it will ever be, at least in the U.S. My hope in my presentation is to get people thinking about how we as a participatory culture can prevent this from happening on a large scale.
I use the personal computer as my media object as it is a generative system which is adaptable to a great number of functions, all at the user's whim. Compared to an Information Appliance such as the typewriter or the old IBM Mainframe, designed for specific functions, not easily modified, and serviced by the vendor exclusively, the personal computer is designed with a low common denominator, making it easy to configure according to what the owner needs or wants it to do.
The Internet is also a generative system in it's current interaction with personal computers. Collaboration, innovation, ability to adapt to changing conditions are among the many advantages of the generative Web. In fact the Internet was created around the concept of letting it become what it will. The framers decisively held firm to the "procrastination principle", and didn't worry about what problems might occur, rather leaving such issues to the "end-points" to solve as the problems arose. This is what created the Internet as we know it today; a flourishing network of innovation, collaboration, communication, ideas, participation, and so on...
Unfortunately, Zittrain also talks about, (in Derrida style) the very things that make a generative system strong are also it's greatest danger. The dangers come from the exploitation of the network by amateurs and abusers. For example, amateurs unknowingly release harmful code. Contrarily, abusers very knowingly release harmful code. Either way, harmful code circulates the network waves infecting anything and everything it comes into contact with, and in an exponential fashion. So the freedoms that the Internet allows for honest people, also pathes the way for the bad guys.
In reaction and fear to this type of activity, the minds of regulatory personnel start spinning and debating solutions. Instead of applying the "procrastination principle" they will indeed be figuring out ways to stop online hackery and the threat of technological terrorism. So, in a worse case scenario the logical solution would be to disallow interaction with the Internet, relieving the threat that lies within.
I use the scenario of a "Read-Only Internet" as an extreme. There are many, many areas to explore in this discussion. One of them being freedom. Even that in itself opens many avenues of discussion.
However, if regulation deemed the Internet as "Read-Only" how would that effect us? For starters, our personal computers would become mere informational appliances. We could still create and innovate, but it would be more on a personal level. We could only use the Internet for research purposes. We would have no way of collaborating on projects or ideas with people around the world, or for that matter people in our own back yard.
I use extremes to make a point as well as hopefully creating a jumping off point for discussion. I truly, truly hope the Internet will never be "Read-Only" and honestly, I don't think it will ever be, at least in the U.S. My hope in my presentation is to get people thinking about how we as a participatory culture can prevent this from happening on a large scale.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Is privacy really that important?
My response to privacy issues was practically recited word-for-word by EFF in their article, "On Locational Privacy, and How to Avoid Losing it Forever." My stance has always been, "I'm not doing anything wrong so why worry about it". Reading those words as a "common response" definitely caught my attention. So if I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I worry about digital privacy?
As I type these words I realize I do think about it. I am cautious about what I do and say online. I'm careful about the online company I keep as well as things I search for. I have learned that once online, it stays online. It is now common practice for hiring professionals to conduct personal online inquiries in which they form "personal" judgements. Whatever happened to "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?" Recently, I came to the realization that my email signature may even be offensive to some. So, I removed my liberal stamp, along with my "thought-provoking" peace statement. Now, I'm nothing more than a pist off Democrat trapped in a red state with no one to talk to about it but my mom! Such is life.
What I found refreshing about this week's reading was the blog by Aspen (what a great name) Baker. She did not reveal her secret, but I would love to know what it takes to keep an online community private. Whatever she has done, I think she hit the nail on the head. We should be able to trust our online communications to the people we choose to share them with.
To that, one will most definitely argue, "What about terrorists?" I am certainly one of those. This is where I am conflicted. I am also conflicted on the many other online activities that prove as evidence in criminal wrong-doing. Where do we draw the line? Can we draw a line? I am very much on the fence on this issue. EFF made very logical assessments. Do I want someone to know my every move? The answer to that is probably "no", but like I said, safety issues aside, I'm not doing anything wrong so why should I care? My only response to these issues is, "If you don't want to be found out, don't do it digitally."
Similar case in point, the TSA security measures have recently been a hot topic of debate. If you don't want to be groped, don't fly. I would walk through an airport naked if it meant I would get to my destination safely. Yes, it's a sad day when we have to come to these measures, but it is now a fact of life, and I'm pretty sure most folks would prefer preventative measures before another 911. Privilege and freedom come with a price. I say, if you're not doing anything wrong, quit bitching about small sacrifices and think about the one's who have given the ultimate sacrifice protecting your personal freedoms.
As I type these words I realize I do think about it. I am cautious about what I do and say online. I'm careful about the online company I keep as well as things I search for. I have learned that once online, it stays online. It is now common practice for hiring professionals to conduct personal online inquiries in which they form "personal" judgements. Whatever happened to "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?" Recently, I came to the realization that my email signature may even be offensive to some. So, I removed my liberal stamp, along with my "thought-provoking" peace statement. Now, I'm nothing more than a pist off Democrat trapped in a red state with no one to talk to about it but my mom! Such is life.
What I found refreshing about this week's reading was the blog by Aspen (what a great name) Baker. She did not reveal her secret, but I would love to know what it takes to keep an online community private. Whatever she has done, I think she hit the nail on the head. We should be able to trust our online communications to the people we choose to share them with.
To that, one will most definitely argue, "What about terrorists?" I am certainly one of those. This is where I am conflicted. I am also conflicted on the many other online activities that prove as evidence in criminal wrong-doing. Where do we draw the line? Can we draw a line? I am very much on the fence on this issue. EFF made very logical assessments. Do I want someone to know my every move? The answer to that is probably "no", but like I said, safety issues aside, I'm not doing anything wrong so why should I care? My only response to these issues is, "If you don't want to be found out, don't do it digitally."
Similar case in point, the TSA security measures have recently been a hot topic of debate. If you don't want to be groped, don't fly. I would walk through an airport naked if it meant I would get to my destination safely. Yes, it's a sad day when we have to come to these measures, but it is now a fact of life, and I'm pretty sure most folks would prefer preventative measures before another 911. Privilege and freedom come with a price. I say, if you're not doing anything wrong, quit bitching about small sacrifices and think about the one's who have given the ultimate sacrifice protecting your personal freedoms.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Redemption of the fourth estate, or just another venture in capitalism?
While Ted Koppel's op-ed article in Sunday's Washington Post wasn't on the list, I found it rounded out this week's reading quite nicely. In his article, Koppel remembers a time when television news was objective and honest, when journalists reported the true state of affairs, and when the fourth estate, as intended, kept an unbiased, watchful eye over government activities. Of course that was also before networks figured out news could generate revenue. I guess they decided churning a profit was more important than churning the truth. I'm not going to lump all of today's journalists into one group as Koppel did, but his opinions are well-founded for a good number of them.
The issue at hand, however, is not what happened 20, 30, or even 40 years ago. The issue at hand is how we, as a participatory culture, combat what journalism has become. The current state of dominant news media consists of charismatic personalities with open wallets. While the righties head for the bank, the lefties head for MSNBC. I love Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, but I also know which side they're pulling for, and I shouldn't.
Ted Koppel also states in his article, "The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible." If that is true, we are seriously doomed, and on many, many levels. However, Boler gives me hope. The fact that we are aware gives me hope, and the fact that she and others have put theories into place gives me hope. The question now is how to put these theories into action. Collectively how can we establish a near equivalent to the objective honesty that once existed? How can we as a participatory culture realize and report the truth?
Boler suggests it must come from a grassroots movement where, "All are interested in challenging and intervening in dominant media structures, and in cutting across modes of distribution with aims of resisting the messages and form of dominant media".
So my question again, how do we do this? Boler provides a list of possibilities, but how do we enlist the trust of the masses? More importantly, how do we enlist the trust of each other? It takes support and it takes money. We have already established that honest news doesn't generate revenue. How long before we see ourselves in the mirror of our opposition?
Perhaps my once youthful optimism has been tainted by the practices of everyday life. My hopes of "changing the world" have been reduced to hopes of making changes in my own life. But even as I succumb to the realities of my culture, I have not given in to its ignorance.
On some level I do still have hope that the American people will wake up to the fact that the only objective of dominant news media is partisan perception, in some cases outright dishonesty. The youth of our nation are already clued in to this fact. Thankfully they are the future of this great country. At the same time, it saddens me that parody and satire are the preferred media portals for these same individuals. In retrospect, I guess the whole situation is funny in a sad sort of way.
If the internet is the answer to redeeming the fourth estate, I say hoorah for the good guys. But as Boler suggests, the term itself may be apt for a new definition. Perhaps one that includes the watchful eye of the people. If the government knows we as a people are watching them and reporting the real facts, perhaps then we can get back to the fabric that makes America a great nation.
The issue at hand, however, is not what happened 20, 30, or even 40 years ago. The issue at hand is how we, as a participatory culture, combat what journalism has become. The current state of dominant news media consists of charismatic personalities with open wallets. While the righties head for the bank, the lefties head for MSNBC. I love Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, but I also know which side they're pulling for, and I shouldn't.
Ted Koppel also states in his article, "The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible." If that is true, we are seriously doomed, and on many, many levels. However, Boler gives me hope. The fact that we are aware gives me hope, and the fact that she and others have put theories into place gives me hope. The question now is how to put these theories into action. Collectively how can we establish a near equivalent to the objective honesty that once existed? How can we as a participatory culture realize and report the truth?
Boler suggests it must come from a grassroots movement where, "All are interested in challenging and intervening in dominant media structures, and in cutting across modes of distribution with aims of resisting the messages and form of dominant media".
So my question again, how do we do this? Boler provides a list of possibilities, but how do we enlist the trust of the masses? More importantly, how do we enlist the trust of each other? It takes support and it takes money. We have already established that honest news doesn't generate revenue. How long before we see ourselves in the mirror of our opposition?
Perhaps my once youthful optimism has been tainted by the practices of everyday life. My hopes of "changing the world" have been reduced to hopes of making changes in my own life. But even as I succumb to the realities of my culture, I have not given in to its ignorance.
On some level I do still have hope that the American people will wake up to the fact that the only objective of dominant news media is partisan perception, in some cases outright dishonesty. The youth of our nation are already clued in to this fact. Thankfully they are the future of this great country. At the same time, it saddens me that parody and satire are the preferred media portals for these same individuals. In retrospect, I guess the whole situation is funny in a sad sort of way.
If the internet is the answer to redeeming the fourth estate, I say hoorah for the good guys. But as Boler suggests, the term itself may be apt for a new definition. Perhaps one that includes the watchful eye of the people. If the government knows we as a people are watching them and reporting the real facts, perhaps then we can get back to the fabric that makes America a great nation.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace..."
...I borrowed that line from an email a friend sent me, who borrowed it from Jimi Hendrix. Now I'm using it online, to share with you. I admit, a little tame compared to Girl Talk, but hopefully you get the point.
The reason I chose this quote as my blog title was to demonstrate my interpretation(s) of the dynamics that seem to be going on regarding the whole issue of copyright, participatory culture, convergence, and collective intelligence. I can sum up the entire scenario like this: The left is pushing against the right, and in the name of power, control, and money the right is pushing back...unless of course concession means more power, control, and/or money. But even then, the concession is only for their gain. I use the terms "left" and "right" (somewhat) loosely here. (I would have to do more research before I can talk more absolutely.)
The point is, one side is pushing against the other for political reasons. The side that wishes to open up the lines of communication, share ideas for a greater good, and participate in the world around them are being stifled by the side that wishes to maintain control. Jenkins uses the CNN/YouTube debate as an example. The simple fact that Mitt Romney refused to debate with a snowman, even though the snowman had a legitimate question, illustrates the higher ground on which these power players wish to be regarded. These "elite" types are much more comfortable controlling the conversation. They don't like the idea of participatory culture because incoming questions might make them uncomfortable or worse, make them look incompetent.
Unfortunate, for these power people, the internet is here to stay and it's only going to push the right further to the right and eventually off the playing field altogether. Well, maybe not altogether, but I do think the masses will be heard sooner than most may think. The world can only gain from sharing ideas and knowledge. Culture can only make itself relevant through innovation and creativity. Progress can only progress if it is allowed. A very small number of people hold the power, the control, and the money in this country. These are the same people who stand in protest against a culture of participation. They want to keep their power. They want to keep their control, and they most definitely want to keep their money.
It may seem I'm speaking only about politics proper. What I mean to convey is that politics are at play in every area that concerns power, control, and money. The owners of copyrights want to maintain the control of those copyrights to make as much money as possible. In this sense they hold the power. Participatory culture and collective intelligence would certainly dethrone patent holders if laws regarding certain types of patents were reversed, and convergence would keep a lot of corporate giants on their toes trying to keep up with the status quo. True, some companies have been successful in listening to their "fandom", but it was all in the name of making more money. Their attitude is, "If it'll make us more money we'll listen, if not we don't care what you have to say."
This tug-o-war won't end anytime soon. Meanwhile, the internet with all its channels of global communication will continue to grow. File sharing legally, and illegally, will continue to spread, and I don't think Girl Talk will go out without a fight. People have been borrowing, stealing, and manipulating ideas from the past since the beginning of time. Artists do it just as musicians do it just as politicians do it. The only difference now, the involved parties can share their creations online, and there inlys the problem.
Bottom line, the internet has and will continue to reshape culture and society. Those who keep up will succeed. Those who can't will fade away. Companies already see the necessity of listening to their customers. Politicians will acknowledge this truism soon enough. The remaining entity of Hollywood could be a different story. I think they will fight tooth and nail to the very end only to be slowly put out of business by the "amateur" film makers who collectively will prevail. At that point we will begin to see true democracy in action...at least for a little while.
The reason I chose this quote as my blog title was to demonstrate my interpretation(s) of the dynamics that seem to be going on regarding the whole issue of copyright, participatory culture, convergence, and collective intelligence. I can sum up the entire scenario like this: The left is pushing against the right, and in the name of power, control, and money the right is pushing back...unless of course concession means more power, control, and/or money. But even then, the concession is only for their gain. I use the terms "left" and "right" (somewhat) loosely here. (I would have to do more research before I can talk more absolutely.)
The point is, one side is pushing against the other for political reasons. The side that wishes to open up the lines of communication, share ideas for a greater good, and participate in the world around them are being stifled by the side that wishes to maintain control. Jenkins uses the CNN/YouTube debate as an example. The simple fact that Mitt Romney refused to debate with a snowman, even though the snowman had a legitimate question, illustrates the higher ground on which these power players wish to be regarded. These "elite" types are much more comfortable controlling the conversation. They don't like the idea of participatory culture because incoming questions might make them uncomfortable or worse, make them look incompetent.
Unfortunate, for these power people, the internet is here to stay and it's only going to push the right further to the right and eventually off the playing field altogether. Well, maybe not altogether, but I do think the masses will be heard sooner than most may think. The world can only gain from sharing ideas and knowledge. Culture can only make itself relevant through innovation and creativity. Progress can only progress if it is allowed. A very small number of people hold the power, the control, and the money in this country. These are the same people who stand in protest against a culture of participation. They want to keep their power. They want to keep their control, and they most definitely want to keep their money.
It may seem I'm speaking only about politics proper. What I mean to convey is that politics are at play in every area that concerns power, control, and money. The owners of copyrights want to maintain the control of those copyrights to make as much money as possible. In this sense they hold the power. Participatory culture and collective intelligence would certainly dethrone patent holders if laws regarding certain types of patents were reversed, and convergence would keep a lot of corporate giants on their toes trying to keep up with the status quo. True, some companies have been successful in listening to their "fandom", but it was all in the name of making more money. Their attitude is, "If it'll make us more money we'll listen, if not we don't care what you have to say."
This tug-o-war won't end anytime soon. Meanwhile, the internet with all its channels of global communication will continue to grow. File sharing legally, and illegally, will continue to spread, and I don't think Girl Talk will go out without a fight. People have been borrowing, stealing, and manipulating ideas from the past since the beginning of time. Artists do it just as musicians do it just as politicians do it. The only difference now, the involved parties can share their creations online, and there inlys the problem.
Bottom line, the internet has and will continue to reshape culture and society. Those who keep up will succeed. Those who can't will fade away. Companies already see the necessity of listening to their customers. Politicians will acknowledge this truism soon enough. The remaining entity of Hollywood could be a different story. I think they will fight tooth and nail to the very end only to be slowly put out of business by the "amateur" film makers who collectively will prevail. At that point we will begin to see true democracy in action...at least for a little while.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Multitasking mediocrity...
Yes, the many, many media streams do indeed keep us in a constant state of imagined crisis. Fortunately it hasn't really affected me too much, probably because I was raised in the "deep attention" generation (I don't feel the need to answer every phone call, text message, or email as soon as it arrives). Twitter seems to be calling my name a little more often though, so perhaps there is hope.
A couple things I found interesting in both Hayles' reading and Stone's presentation were the cognitive shift(s) that are taking place. The human mind is a very complex machine and its ability to adapt to different environmental conditions is quite remarkable. Now I understand better why some people think differently than me.
Growing up I remember my occupations were watching television (one of only three channels), listening to music, practicing piano, talking on the phone or playing with friends, and doing homework. All of these activities were centered on the activity itself. The word "multitasking" had yet to be coined (at least to my knowledge) and distractions were rare. I sat in solitude while I did my homework or practiced my piano, deeply attending to the completion of the activity at hand. It wasn't until years later that the concept of "multitasking" became the buzzword that it is today.
My definition of "multitasking" is being able to simultaneously work on multiple tasks while also being able to give each task the concentration it requires as if it were the only task being attended to. It's not merely a matter of doing two or more things at one time. Multitasking requires a total and complete shift in mindset in order for multitasking to be successful.
In other words, if someone claims they are multitasking, the result of each completed task must be of equal quality as if they had each been attended to in succession rather than simultaneously. For example, a fifteen year old is hired to keep the score of a basketball game. This activity in itself takes a good amount of undivided attention. However, while s/he is supposed to be keeping score, s/he is also texting with friends. When confronted, the teen says, "I can multitask", even though the purpose of the confrontation was the frequent inaccuracy of the score. In this example, multitasking clearly does not work because the quality of one of the tasks has been compromised.
This is where I become cynical when discussing this trend toward a culture of multitasking. My cynicism lies in the question of details that could become lost due to lack of deep attention? Will "Generation M" understand that certain things require more attention than others, while still other matters require complete attention?
The thing I find most interesting in Hayles' article is when the topic of AD/HD enters into the conversation, drawing links between "hyper" attention and the aforementioned cognitive disorder. I understand the commonalities, however one is a biological disorder while the other appears to be a cultural malfunction. We do not have control over the amount of media available to us. We do, however, have control over how much of that media we allow our children to consume. If an otherwise non-AD/HD child has to take Ritalin in order to perform well in school, there is something very wrong.
Good parenting requires regulating a child's consumption of anything that could be detrimental to that child's welfare, including over-consumption of media. Is it necessary to give children mobile phones with texting or internet capabilities? The current issues of "sexting" and "cyberbullying" could be limited if these options were not made available to kids under the age of 18. Similarly, a regulation such as this would put the purpose of the mobile phone into perspective for this age group.
Taking this idea a step further, why are social networking sites made available to kids under the age of 18? Furthermore, why do parents allow their children to participate on these sites at home? I believe the responsibility begins and ends with the parents. There are reasons for age restrictions, all having to do with the ability to handle the responsibilities that go along with the privilege.
A cultural shift is obviously taking place and I do find it intriguing. To imply, as Halyes does in her article, that "Children growing up in media-rich environments literally have brains wired differently than humans who did not come to maturity in such conditions" is simply fascinating. Additionally, as Hayles mentions, it is a condition that educators will have to come to terms with in order to be effective in their roles. A compromise between the two polarities of "hyper" attention and "deep" attention would indeed be an ideal scenario, and if educators could establish and maintain such a condition I think real progress could be made.
Therefore, I think what lies beneath these issues is perhaps thinking in terms of teaching our children how to manage a media-rich environment. A system might look like this: Kindergarten through 12th grade - limited forms of media are used for educational purposes only. Undergraduate settings - embrace previously limited forms of media in order to teach students how to use them both responsibly and professionally. A system like this would in no way discount the relevance of technology; it would simply impress the importance of different media tools in the right place and at the right time.
In reality, technology is nothing more than a set of tools. A powerful set of tools which, through continued progress, will provide great possibilities for not only our generation, but for all future generations to come. Technology is also changing our culture, creating opportunities and efficiencies our forefathers could not have imagined. But like every other set of tools, the proper uses of technology must also be taught. If we don't start these teachings at a young age by incrementally focusing on the situational pros and cons of each type of attention, progress could potentially give way to an over-stimulated culture of self-indulged mediocrity. A mediocrity hidden behind the more politically correct guise of multitasking.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
...but is it probable?
Collective Intelligence left me feeling like a nebulous being floating within a larger cultural specimen being dissected and analyzed by those who fancy such studies. In this particular instance, the bunny men are microscopically drawing diagrams, relationships, interactions (or lack there of), and speculating outcomes of the fourth cultural space as it relates to its predecessors. Levy speaks of this fourth, or knowledge space, as perhaps a terminating space from which those who proceed its final formulation could enjoy the solutions to the thousands of years of strife that have come before. For the first time in my life, I feel like a part of history instead of a part of making history. A hard pill to swallow, especially in angst of my recent birthday.
I do however try to imagine how this whole idea of collective intelligence might play out. In Levy's Utopian scenario it plays out perfectly (of course): democracy by the people, for the people. After all, that's what our founding fathers had in mind, right? It was only when populations exceeded a realistic voice that we had to switch to government by representation. Now that we once again have the possibility of true democracy in the sights of our imagination, will we be able to return to a democracy truly by the people? A better question, will the powers that be allow us to return to such a system?
If collective intelligence is what our founding fathers intended, how will we achieve such collaboration in favor of good for the people? Has the current system divided us beyond repair, or will a system of demodynamics help us to overcome our differences? Given the opportunity, I think the latter would prevail. The majority of people care about equal rights for all. The majority of people are tired of corporations effecting policy. The majority of people want the same opportunities regardless of race, religion, gender, handicap, and so on, and the majority of people want to see these rights acknowledged and enforced.
Will collective intelligence in action affect the status quo? Indeed it will. Potentially greater than anything we have seen before. It will certainly disengage our state representatives as conduits to "what's best for the people". Their services will no longer be needed or desired. That is not to say that a core assembly of administrative officials should be displaced. Quite the opposite is true. Even a democracy based on collective intelligence needs a system of checks and balances.
My question is how this Utopian scenario might be put into practice? Is it possible? Is it feasible? It is certainly imaginable. What would the infrastructure look like and who would build it? How would the input and output be managed or filtered? How would we come to a consensus and how would our consensus' effect change? Case in point: The war we are currently engaged in. If we as a collective, "vote" against the war, how would that effect the overall state of affairs? Could we simply disengage? As Levy mentioned, these types of decisions are slow moving. Would this cause frustration?
On a larger scale, how would our relationships with other countries be handled? Foreign affairs often (if not always) affect us directly. How would we come to a collective consensus on issues like trade relations, immigration, terrorism? How would we go about correcting the mistakes our predecessors made, both here and abroad, if that's even possible?
I can imagine Levy's land of Utopia. But, it is just that, Utopia. If anything even remotely resembling a transition of this magnitude were to take place, it would (obviously) take years to transpire. Years that most of us probably don't have.
I do however try to imagine how this whole idea of collective intelligence might play out. In Levy's Utopian scenario it plays out perfectly (of course): democracy by the people, for the people. After all, that's what our founding fathers had in mind, right? It was only when populations exceeded a realistic voice that we had to switch to government by representation. Now that we once again have the possibility of true democracy in the sights of our imagination, will we be able to return to a democracy truly by the people? A better question, will the powers that be allow us to return to such a system?
If collective intelligence is what our founding fathers intended, how will we achieve such collaboration in favor of good for the people? Has the current system divided us beyond repair, or will a system of demodynamics help us to overcome our differences? Given the opportunity, I think the latter would prevail. The majority of people care about equal rights for all. The majority of people are tired of corporations effecting policy. The majority of people want the same opportunities regardless of race, religion, gender, handicap, and so on, and the majority of people want to see these rights acknowledged and enforced.
Will collective intelligence in action affect the status quo? Indeed it will. Potentially greater than anything we have seen before. It will certainly disengage our state representatives as conduits to "what's best for the people". Their services will no longer be needed or desired. That is not to say that a core assembly of administrative officials should be displaced. Quite the opposite is true. Even a democracy based on collective intelligence needs a system of checks and balances.
My question is how this Utopian scenario might be put into practice? Is it possible? Is it feasible? It is certainly imaginable. What would the infrastructure look like and who would build it? How would the input and output be managed or filtered? How would we come to a consensus and how would our consensus' effect change? Case in point: The war we are currently engaged in. If we as a collective, "vote" against the war, how would that effect the overall state of affairs? Could we simply disengage? As Levy mentioned, these types of decisions are slow moving. Would this cause frustration?
On a larger scale, how would our relationships with other countries be handled? Foreign affairs often (if not always) affect us directly. How would we come to a collective consensus on issues like trade relations, immigration, terrorism? How would we go about correcting the mistakes our predecessors made, both here and abroad, if that's even possible?
I can imagine Levy's land of Utopia. But, it is just that, Utopia. If anything even remotely resembling a transition of this magnitude were to take place, it would (obviously) take years to transpire. Years that most of us probably don't have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)