Well, as the term closes, we are asked to look back on the term and reflect on the lessons learned, did not learn, and what we would have liked to learn. This blog entry will address what I took from the course, the elements I perhaps did not take away from the course, and the elements I would have liked to take from the course. If anything, I hope the entry serves as a form of feedback for our professor and will help him in planning future courses.
Lessons Learned:
The most important element I am taking away from MC 7019 is an understanding of the social, economic, and political motives for the proliferation of new media technologies in our society. From a social perspective, particularly in the view of Howard and Jones (2004), the Internet is helping society to develop and effective channel for people to share their interests, problems, and ideas globally. The readings provide a variety of examples for us of effective forms of community deriving from the Internet that may seem both very connected and divided at the same time.
Our readings in Convergence Culture explain that movie franchises like The Matrix, Star Wars, and television shows like American Idol all utilize a multimedia approach to presenting content in order to tell a story. Jenkins (2006) tells us about how communities of people work together through new media channels to understand meaning, utilize, or even contribute creatively to each of the franchises. He suggests that this provides an interesting potential model for political participation that is driven more by consumer culture than a civic mindset. The real motive behind these approaches, however, is to boost sales and drive profit margins in each case by the respective production companies.
In both of the Howard books, we looked at how political campaigns utilize technology to push their campaigns. Specifically, we gained an understanding that campaigns lack political specialists who can utilize the technology effectively. To counteract this deficiency, we see campaigns hire specialists from various technical backgrounds that can apply their talents to campaign Web sites and create the sort of strategic connections that candidates are looking for. In the campaign process, however, we see potential areas of conflict between the technical advisers and the campaign organizers. In this way, their is the potential for conflict between the old way of running campaigns, whether social or political, and the innovative approach that campaigns have to engage in today to be effective.
We also get the sense from Montgomery's (2006) book that the up and coming generation of technology users will be the most savvy with emerging technologies. Their technical aptitude will allow them to use the technology to form social communities, for entertainment sources, and to create political advocacy channels. What the reading also illustrated is that while our kids may be the most savvy, they may also be the most at risk. Hardly a new debate, children's safety is argued with the emergence of every new form of entertainment media since the emergence of film as a mainstream form of entertainment in the 1920's.
The course has been a great resource for me to think about the primary social, political, and economic motives behind advancing the use of new media in society. Along with getting into the habit of keeping a weekly blog, this is probably the most prominent set of lessons I have taken from the course this year.
What I Did Not Learn (Or Un-Learned):
I would make the argument that this course was particularly useful in providing us with a means to overcome some faulty preconceived notions we may have had going into the course. In particular, I think we spent a great deal of time breaking down our sense of the obvious nature of the "digital divide" and on eliminating the commonly Utopian view of the Internet.
Personally, I came into this course with a simple sense that the Internet had the potential to help us accomplish things we never though possible. As I read further and we discussed issues, I came away with the sense that its entirely feasible that the Internet can open some doors for us to express views, present material, or to change mindsets. That said, I also came to realize how important all of the contributing factors like access, exposure, and technological capability were in allowing a person to get a desired message out to the public. In addition to these factors, I learned to balance a sense of the educational benefits for children that the Internet provides with the potential dangers of online predators and false information.
In the process of discussing the "digital divide," I think the class as a group came to see the issue as a much broader concept that cuts across racial, socioeconomic, and psychological factors and cannot be summed into anyone element that creates a divide. In fact, I would suspect that we as a group are far less receptive to the term divide as its a much broader problem in many different areas.
What I would have liked to learn:
I guess the one element I wanted to hear more about was how technology really drives policy in a U.S. and global perspective. I had a sense it might come in more throughout the course than it did, and now that we are wrapping up, I feel as though we are missing a week devoted to discussing how technology fundamentally drives policy.
If there is one other element I might like to change, it would be to find a way to reduce the two weeks of exposure we got to the "digital divide." The conversation in that time seemed to get more stagnant as we worked our way through the readings and it made for a very cyclical set of arguments.
Looking back on this course, I think the fondest element I have coming away is that I can pick up on the elements we talked about each week in what I see on the Internet or when I speak with family or friends. Perhaps the strongest example for me that we are in a very "tech savvy" period was the recent phone call I received from my mother in which she proudly proclaimed, "I wanted you to be the first person I called on my iPhone!"
Will wonders never cease? I do not know, but my sense is if my mother at 57 years can learn to adapt, then perhaps other cynics like Lyle will in time, too. So, with that in mind, perhaps there is a touch of Utopia in all of this for us. In the end, though, you have to keep it in perspective.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
More Legislation or More Talk?: Contributing Factors to the Mindset of the "Digital Generation"
Montgomery’s (2007) Generation Digital paints a divisive image of the potential role of new media in the lives of America’s youth as a result of the commercial and political influences that influence media consumption. Central to her argument is the idea that for all of the potential positive elements that new media can shepherd into a young person’s life, there are many negative consequences related to new media use. I believe, however, that Montgomery may be misappropriating an essential point in her analysis. Specifically, the role parents can play in their children's lives.
Montgomery (2007) points towards busy parents and two-income households as a driving force for teenagers and “tweeners” gaining an advanced sense of maturity, holding jobs and dispensable income, and seeking identity and interaction through new media channels like blogs, Web sites, or chat programs. While I agree with her on these points, I also believe that their absence is a mitigating factor in some of the positive and negative outlets that new media provide to young people.
A core discussion throughout the book is the risks that face children in the new media conduits they use. Montgomery (2007) consistently aligns parents’ concerns with their busy lifestyle and inability to monitor their children effectively. There is a consistent pattern that emerges in each of the risk conditions that follow. Fear of exposure to pornography driven by a child’s ability to navigate the Internet led to parents demanding functional filter software for their computers and government legislation to push censorship forward. Concerns about marketing Web sites being able to effectively gather personal information on children of all ages without parental consent, as well as other risks associated with disseminating such information drove parents to demand government intervention to regulate marketers’ ethical standards in gathering data. Even Montgomery’s discussion of AIM and Internet chat use makes the assertion that parents did not know and that kids were not readily volunteering the information about their Internet interactions. Each of these discussions frame parents as hapless victims of the deceptive actions of new media or their kids. This seems to ignore the possibility that perhaps the parents missed the point in each case. In each situation, they demand that someone else step in and ensure their children’s safety.
I understand parents who can not be there making this demand. From another perspective, however, it seems like parents who can be there are not presenting the critical first line of defense for their kids: themselves. Anecdotally speaking, stepping into a room, asking what your kids are doing, and not taking omissions or lies for answers always seemed to keep my siblings and I out of trouble as teenagers on the Internet. Perhaps part of the danger of the Internet is a growing sense of absentee parenting that Montgomery (2007) references in Chapter 8 when she speaks about Postman’s (1994) stance that family breakdowns are leading to digital immersion by young people. In this sense, parents and conservative advocacy groups may need to be more proactive with teenagers and “tweeners” before looking for the guiding hand of the federal government.
This need to grow up fast is not without its benefits, however, as Montgomery (2007) points out. Social marketing campaigns help give kids essential information in sex education and about smoking that might not reach them in any other way, potentially improving the quality of their lives. AIM helps kids learn to potentially interact in difficult social situations. New media is becoming a conduit for teenagers to engage in political and social issues in an effective and proactive manner, despite the potential negative effects of commercial influence. New media provide children with efficient ways to research issues, learn, interact, participate, protest, and to be active members of the citizenry. Although Montgomery does suspect that the threat of the digital divide and commercial influence may hinder the “digital generation” from maximizing their potential, many things are encouraging. It is quite possible that the words of Peter Townshend of The Who were quite prophetic when he penned, “The Kids Are Alright.”
Montgomery (2007) points towards busy parents and two-income households as a driving force for teenagers and “tweeners” gaining an advanced sense of maturity, holding jobs and dispensable income, and seeking identity and interaction through new media channels like blogs, Web sites, or chat programs. While I agree with her on these points, I also believe that their absence is a mitigating factor in some of the positive and negative outlets that new media provide to young people.
A core discussion throughout the book is the risks that face children in the new media conduits they use. Montgomery (2007) consistently aligns parents’ concerns with their busy lifestyle and inability to monitor their children effectively. There is a consistent pattern that emerges in each of the risk conditions that follow. Fear of exposure to pornography driven by a child’s ability to navigate the Internet led to parents demanding functional filter software for their computers and government legislation to push censorship forward. Concerns about marketing Web sites being able to effectively gather personal information on children of all ages without parental consent, as well as other risks associated with disseminating such information drove parents to demand government intervention to regulate marketers’ ethical standards in gathering data. Even Montgomery’s discussion of AIM and Internet chat use makes the assertion that parents did not know and that kids were not readily volunteering the information about their Internet interactions. Each of these discussions frame parents as hapless victims of the deceptive actions of new media or their kids. This seems to ignore the possibility that perhaps the parents missed the point in each case. In each situation, they demand that someone else step in and ensure their children’s safety.
I understand parents who can not be there making this demand. From another perspective, however, it seems like parents who can be there are not presenting the critical first line of defense for their kids: themselves. Anecdotally speaking, stepping into a room, asking what your kids are doing, and not taking omissions or lies for answers always seemed to keep my siblings and I out of trouble as teenagers on the Internet. Perhaps part of the danger of the Internet is a growing sense of absentee parenting that Montgomery (2007) references in Chapter 8 when she speaks about Postman’s (1994) stance that family breakdowns are leading to digital immersion by young people. In this sense, parents and conservative advocacy groups may need to be more proactive with teenagers and “tweeners” before looking for the guiding hand of the federal government.
This need to grow up fast is not without its benefits, however, as Montgomery (2007) points out. Social marketing campaigns help give kids essential information in sex education and about smoking that might not reach them in any other way, potentially improving the quality of their lives. AIM helps kids learn to potentially interact in difficult social situations. New media is becoming a conduit for teenagers to engage in political and social issues in an effective and proactive manner, despite the potential negative effects of commercial influence. New media provide children with efficient ways to research issues, learn, interact, participate, protest, and to be active members of the citizenry. Although Montgomery does suspect that the threat of the digital divide and commercial influence may hinder the “digital generation” from maximizing their potential, many things are encouraging. It is quite possible that the words of Peter Townshend of The Who were quite prophetic when he penned, “The Kids Are Alright.”
Monday, November 5, 2007
Perspectives on the Arguments of Free Culture
Lessig (2004) argues in Free Culture that citizens are now unable to have the same forms of creative output that this country saw in the nineteenth and twentieth century because of the current expansion of scope and restriction in copyright regulations. He makes these arguments through the use of several stories about past innovations that were the result of an innovative minds building on the previous works of artists who did not possess the current copyright restrictions. Among the more prominent examples offered are Walt Disney’s use of previous silent films and Grimm’s’ Fairy Tales to construct the Disney Franchise as we currently know it and the development of Kodak’s personal camera technology. Lessig labels this kind of use as creative and beneficial to our culture. At firs glance, it seems a bit unfair to the Grimms and Buster Keaton that Disney took their creative ideas, profited from them, and gave them no legitimate acknowledgement in his final product. Their can be an argument made for use on the basis that Disney was creating a parody of Keaton’s work, but I see no such correlation with the Grimms’ fairy tales.
To illustrate the development of our current copyright system, Lessig (2004) references the hypocritical lobbying of companies like Disney to protect their creations that built on the previously unprotected creative works that Disney creatively “pirated.” I would agree that this practice is hypocritical in the sense that Disney’s corporation would claim that the cartoon likenesses are their intellectual property, even though they are derivative of other people’s writing and development. In my mind, Disney has grounds to protect against any direct use of their content and their images only if they bear no resemblance to the descriptions that the Grimms or Buster Keaton made. I do understand the true motive for such a move, though, as Disney would like to limit potential competition. That said, Disney created a legitimate market replacement for someone else’s work, a violation of fair use in our current legal system.
All discussion of infringement aside, this reading made me curious about what types of creations today’s giants might be leery of. A simple examination of YouTube illustrates some examples. Might George Lucas (or the creative powers behind Monty Python) be concerned about a fan’s creativity in a project like the fan video displayed here? Using similar logic, might the Wachowskis and the Jim Henson estate be concerned about students using their material to create this fan video?
If the people producing such digital videos could create a competing market, Lessig might argue that the creators would litigate. The videos appear to be a parody of each of the previous creative projects. Through this parody, they exercise the same “creativity” that Lessig wants fostered. Moreover, they are not presenting a replacement for Star Wars in the competitive market. When applied to fair use, it would seem that Lucas would have no argument.
Recent Lucas-approved productions have brought fans of the franchise parodies on Seth Green’s Robot Chicken, as well as Seth McFarland’s Family Guy. In light of these productions, perhaps Lucas would prefer such forms of parody go uncontested. Through YouTube, fans are creating a sort of viral marketing for Star Wars that Lucas might not be able to generate from his own Web sites. Moreover, both of the television shows that made Star Wars parodies cooperatively worked with Lucas and were able to do more creatively than previously seemed possible. We have seen other popular science fiction franchises (Star Trek leaps to mind on more than one occasion) work with Family Guy in the past.
In general, I find Lessig’s argument interesting and correct that current copyright regulations are stifling the creativity of media literate citizens. One element I think he could do without is reflecting extensively on his failure in arguing against copyright regulations in front of the Supreme Court. On one hand, a dry recount clearly explaining his stance and the judgments might illuminate the faulty stance of the current court (and his failed arguments) effectively. On the other hand, I feel that Lessig spent far too much time emphasizing his anger with the justices and his failure to stem the tide of constrictive copyright regulations. His commentary on the Eldred litigation makes the previous 208 pages of historical and contextual analysis seem like sour grapes more than the reasonable assessment they really are.
To illustrate the development of our current copyright system, Lessig (2004) references the hypocritical lobbying of companies like Disney to protect their creations that built on the previously unprotected creative works that Disney creatively “pirated.” I would agree that this practice is hypocritical in the sense that Disney’s corporation would claim that the cartoon likenesses are their intellectual property, even though they are derivative of other people’s writing and development. In my mind, Disney has grounds to protect against any direct use of their content and their images only if they bear no resemblance to the descriptions that the Grimms or Buster Keaton made. I do understand the true motive for such a move, though, as Disney would like to limit potential competition. That said, Disney created a legitimate market replacement for someone else’s work, a violation of fair use in our current legal system.
All discussion of infringement aside, this reading made me curious about what types of creations today’s giants might be leery of. A simple examination of YouTube illustrates some examples. Might George Lucas (or the creative powers behind Monty Python) be concerned about a fan’s creativity in a project like the fan video displayed here? Using similar logic, might the Wachowskis and the Jim Henson estate be concerned about students using their material to create this fan video?
If the people producing such digital videos could create a competing market, Lessig might argue that the creators would litigate. The videos appear to be a parody of each of the previous creative projects. Through this parody, they exercise the same “creativity” that Lessig wants fostered. Moreover, they are not presenting a replacement for Star Wars in the competitive market. When applied to fair use, it would seem that Lucas would have no argument.
Recent Lucas-approved productions have brought fans of the franchise parodies on Seth Green’s Robot Chicken, as well as Seth McFarland’s Family Guy. In light of these productions, perhaps Lucas would prefer such forms of parody go uncontested. Through YouTube, fans are creating a sort of viral marketing for Star Wars that Lucas might not be able to generate from his own Web sites. Moreover, both of the television shows that made Star Wars parodies cooperatively worked with Lucas and were able to do more creatively than previously seemed possible. We have seen other popular science fiction franchises (Star Trek leaps to mind on more than one occasion) work with Family Guy in the past.
In general, I find Lessig’s argument interesting and correct that current copyright regulations are stifling the creativity of media literate citizens. One element I think he could do without is reflecting extensively on his failure in arguing against copyright regulations in front of the Supreme Court. On one hand, a dry recount clearly explaining his stance and the judgments might illuminate the faulty stance of the current court (and his failed arguments) effectively. On the other hand, I feel that Lessig spent far too much time emphasizing his anger with the justices and his failure to stem the tide of constrictive copyright regulations. His commentary on the Eldred litigation makes the previous 208 pages of historical and contextual analysis seem like sour grapes more than the reasonable assessment they really are.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Collective Intelligence in Media and Historical Contexts
Henry Jenkins (2006) in his book Convergence Culture uses multiple studies to make the argument that his definition of convergence is central to how individuals will coexist in popular, political, and civic culture in the near future. Specifically, he focuses on the ideas of media convergence, participatory culture, and collective intelligence. Of interest to me is this third concept, the idea of collective intelligence. I wonder if such communities do not already exist separate of technology.
Each of the studies illustrate how collective intelligence works to enhance the experience associated with media consumption. Jenkins (2006) makes the argument that the "spoiler" culture connected with Survivor is essentially a collective intelligence where individuals all contribute in some small way to solving the puzzle. Individuals will participate by posting clues that they have extracted about the show in order to guess how the coming season of Survivor will play out. Posters establish credibility in these "spoiling" communities through experience and the posting of accurate findings. The community in this case was strong until the emergence of a poster who posted relatively accurate findings without being discredited by the community. Once the game was “spoiled,” much of the community died down because they lost the sense of community success.
In his examination of MIT research of groups who view American Idol together, Jenkins (2006) suggests that collective intelligence works to keep each other up to date on the show, to make fans out of casual viewers, and to bring viewers closer to the show and the affiliate product brands that have ties to the show. Such shows work effectively to bring viewers to the brands sponsoring the show. Of course, I can think of marketing tactics that worked to include or remove brands that sponsors did not want in shows that go back to before reality television, specifically the sitcom Friends.
Jenkins (2006) suggests that The Matrix is a convergent media and one that requires a collective intelligence in order to fully understand the meaning of the story arc. The nuanced, layered content of the franchise requires a group of devoted fans each bringing something to the table in order to learn about everything that is in the story. By sharing knowledge, all members can come to a deeper understanding of the franchise. In this study. Jenkins notes the financial motives behind making The Matrix transmedia, but not the hypocritical impact it could have on the message of the original film. Going from Anti-Hollywood to media franchise is counter intuitive to the first film's message about the dangers of consumer culture (Proffitt, Tchoi, & McAllister, 2007).
In his examination of the Star Wars: Galaxies gaming community, Jenkins (2006) found that collective intelligence helped developers to create a game that fans could better enjoy in game play and in social interaction. Taking his perspective to the next level, Jenkins (2006) suggests that by utilizing the concepts of collective intelligence. We can better understand the politics of our society and hold them accountable. My only question here is whether or not citizens really want to invest that much time or interest in the enterprise of politics. Each of the groups Jenkins examines hold special interests in specialized forms of entertainment media. I can see a group of policy wonks engaging in such a practice, but not society in general.
While I agree that the concept of collective intelligence serves a critical function in each of these cases and that it can further benefit society, I question if collective intelligence is not just a naturally occurring social function. Close-knit communities often come together through neighborhood watches or associations to overcome crime and potential abuses by city officials. Graduate seminars are ideally a collection of students who come together each week and share ideas about the weekly topics to test each other’s perspectives and to expand their understanding of the topics. From a historical perspective, revolutionary elites in the colonial period of the United States came together in a niche community to form ideas about overcoming British policies they disagreed with and eventually formed a government. While Jenkins (2006) makes a great case for the utility of such groupings, I believe that his work could be enhanced by considering the historical foundations for such collective intelligence communities, and how those traditions translate to this technological period.
Each of the studies illustrate how collective intelligence works to enhance the experience associated with media consumption. Jenkins (2006) makes the argument that the "spoiler" culture connected with Survivor is essentially a collective intelligence where individuals all contribute in some small way to solving the puzzle. Individuals will participate by posting clues that they have extracted about the show in order to guess how the coming season of Survivor will play out. Posters establish credibility in these "spoiling" communities through experience and the posting of accurate findings. The community in this case was strong until the emergence of a poster who posted relatively accurate findings without being discredited by the community. Once the game was “spoiled,” much of the community died down because they lost the sense of community success.
In his examination of MIT research of groups who view American Idol together, Jenkins (2006) suggests that collective intelligence works to keep each other up to date on the show, to make fans out of casual viewers, and to bring viewers closer to the show and the affiliate product brands that have ties to the show. Such shows work effectively to bring viewers to the brands sponsoring the show. Of course, I can think of marketing tactics that worked to include or remove brands that sponsors did not want in shows that go back to before reality television, specifically the sitcom Friends.
Jenkins (2006) suggests that The Matrix is a convergent media and one that requires a collective intelligence in order to fully understand the meaning of the story arc. The nuanced, layered content of the franchise requires a group of devoted fans each bringing something to the table in order to learn about everything that is in the story. By sharing knowledge, all members can come to a deeper understanding of the franchise. In this study. Jenkins notes the financial motives behind making The Matrix transmedia, but not the hypocritical impact it could have on the message of the original film. Going from Anti-Hollywood to media franchise is counter intuitive to the first film's message about the dangers of consumer culture (Proffitt, Tchoi, & McAllister, 2007).
In his examination of the Star Wars: Galaxies gaming community, Jenkins (2006) found that collective intelligence helped developers to create a game that fans could better enjoy in game play and in social interaction. Taking his perspective to the next level, Jenkins (2006) suggests that by utilizing the concepts of collective intelligence. We can better understand the politics of our society and hold them accountable. My only question here is whether or not citizens really want to invest that much time or interest in the enterprise of politics. Each of the groups Jenkins examines hold special interests in specialized forms of entertainment media. I can see a group of policy wonks engaging in such a practice, but not society in general.
While I agree that the concept of collective intelligence serves a critical function in each of these cases and that it can further benefit society, I question if collective intelligence is not just a naturally occurring social function. Close-knit communities often come together through neighborhood watches or associations to overcome crime and potential abuses by city officials. Graduate seminars are ideally a collection of students who come together each week and share ideas about the weekly topics to test each other’s perspectives and to expand their understanding of the topics. From a historical perspective, revolutionary elites in the colonial period of the United States came together in a niche community to form ideas about overcoming British policies they disagreed with and eventually formed a government. While Jenkins (2006) makes a great case for the utility of such groupings, I believe that his work could be enhanced by considering the historical foundations for such collective intelligence communities, and how those traditions translate to this technological period.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Sexualized Gaming and Historical Hacking
This week’s readings in Critical Cyberculture Studies cover a broad spectrum of topics, and a couple of them caught my attention. The focus of this week’s entry is to look a little more closely at each of them, and to raise some questions I have after reading about them.
O’Riordan (2006) focuses her contribution on the visual presentation of female video game heroines in, including characters like Lara Croft and Ananova. She makes the claim that this presentation of women with large breasts and narrow waists is an attempt to sexualize the characters and to commodify the product. This argument seems tautological and an unnecessary inclusion in the conversation. The programmers are infusing sex appeal in the characters, and the morally questionable practice seems to be driven by the desire to make a profit. That said, I am pretty confident that the average consumer can look at a Lara Croft and think “sex symbol for profit” the same way they look at the run of the mill Hollywood actress. This is a problem that exists on a larger scale than the gaming industry. Whether it is movies, games, television, or magazines, we see it everyday in more perspectives than video gaming.
She precedes her argument about image and profit with the claim that creating these young, almost innocent, and attractive female characters for the user to control fulfills a paternalistic function. I have two criticisms of this statement. First, I find it highly doubtful that the average consumer who is swayed by the sex appeal of these characters will think of themselves as their father. Second, what about a Lara Croft or Ananova makes the declaration of “almost innocent” feasible? This perspective seems like a reach on O’Riordan’s part, and one the article could do without.
In general, I think O’Riordan’s (2006) arguments are valid, though I question the meaningful contribution they make. Female characters do suggest an absurd acceptable body image for women who play. A closer examination of female characters in gaming might help to show that the character development does create positive social characteristics for these characters as well. Lara Croft of Tomb Raider is a survivor, is educated in archaeology, beyond the image provides a positive female role model for women because she is portrayed as independent, strong, and confident in her pursuits (Kennedy, 2002). Samus Aran of Metroid fame is a female bounty hunter that tries to save the universe (http://cube.ign.com/articles/096/096588p1.html). Granted, these examples are a bit oversimplistic, but a young girl playing these games gets a positive message from female characters independent of the image that O’Riordan criticizes. I agree we need to broaden the image specturm of pro-social video game heroines. That said, this will not happen without a viable market.
Turner (2006) presents a historical account of the first Hacker’s conference, discusses the code of ethics, and presents an often-discussed element of concern in our readings lately, the debate over presenting innovations to improve society against the need to make a profit. These are both great elements to discuss, but he oversimplifies what it is to be a hacker in a complex context of modern interpretation. Granted, there are those out there who are computer enthusiasts who focus on coding in order to present a better world through computing innovation (e.g., Steve Wozniak).
There is, however, a very viable grouping of hackers that is more directly interested in cracking security systems that may or may not be computer-related, as a form of subversion. Turner references Theodore “John” Draper (a.k.a. Captain Crunch), who had little to do with computers in gaining fame. Draper, in fact, hacked telephone lines for free access to long distance calls. In addition to telephone hacking, many hackers now are engaged in computer hacking for a variety of good or bad purposes.
Hacking for benevolent purposes is typically called white hat hacking, and they will hack a system to determine its weakness and promptly report their findings to the company so they can improve their system. Hacking for criminal (and more subversive) purposes is referred to as black hat hacking, and they engage in hacking that results in personal profit, damage to the system they hack, or general mayhem to promote the decentralization of society that Turner refers to in the hackers’ ethic. A notable figure surrounded in controversy is Kevin Mitnick, who engaged in what he called social engineering from the age of 12 in gaining bus access up until his federal conviction for illegal computer access in 1995 (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/10/07/kevin.mitnick.cnna/index.html). Grey hats are the go between of the above two groups in the culture who may or may not take something, but will never profit and sometimes report the problems they see to companies they deem reputable.
For a brief interview of these three figures in hacking history, check this link out:
http://www.maniacworld.com/original-hackers.htm
O’Riordan (2006) focuses her contribution on the visual presentation of female video game heroines in, including characters like Lara Croft and Ananova. She makes the claim that this presentation of women with large breasts and narrow waists is an attempt to sexualize the characters and to commodify the product. This argument seems tautological and an unnecessary inclusion in the conversation. The programmers are infusing sex appeal in the characters, and the morally questionable practice seems to be driven by the desire to make a profit. That said, I am pretty confident that the average consumer can look at a Lara Croft and think “sex symbol for profit” the same way they look at the run of the mill Hollywood actress. This is a problem that exists on a larger scale than the gaming industry. Whether it is movies, games, television, or magazines, we see it everyday in more perspectives than video gaming.
She precedes her argument about image and profit with the claim that creating these young, almost innocent, and attractive female characters for the user to control fulfills a paternalistic function. I have two criticisms of this statement. First, I find it highly doubtful that the average consumer who is swayed by the sex appeal of these characters will think of themselves as their father. Second, what about a Lara Croft or Ananova makes the declaration of “almost innocent” feasible? This perspective seems like a reach on O’Riordan’s part, and one the article could do without.
In general, I think O’Riordan’s (2006) arguments are valid, though I question the meaningful contribution they make. Female characters do suggest an absurd acceptable body image for women who play. A closer examination of female characters in gaming might help to show that the character development does create positive social characteristics for these characters as well. Lara Croft of Tomb Raider is a survivor, is educated in archaeology, beyond the image provides a positive female role model for women because she is portrayed as independent, strong, and confident in her pursuits (Kennedy, 2002). Samus Aran of Metroid fame is a female bounty hunter that tries to save the universe (http://cube.ign.com/articles/096/096588p1.html). Granted, these examples are a bit oversimplistic, but a young girl playing these games gets a positive message from female characters independent of the image that O’Riordan criticizes. I agree we need to broaden the image specturm of pro-social video game heroines. That said, this will not happen without a viable market.
Turner (2006) presents a historical account of the first Hacker’s conference, discusses the code of ethics, and presents an often-discussed element of concern in our readings lately, the debate over presenting innovations to improve society against the need to make a profit. These are both great elements to discuss, but he oversimplifies what it is to be a hacker in a complex context of modern interpretation. Granted, there are those out there who are computer enthusiasts who focus on coding in order to present a better world through computing innovation (e.g., Steve Wozniak).
There is, however, a very viable grouping of hackers that is more directly interested in cracking security systems that may or may not be computer-related, as a form of subversion. Turner references Theodore “John” Draper (a.k.a. Captain Crunch), who had little to do with computers in gaining fame. Draper, in fact, hacked telephone lines for free access to long distance calls. In addition to telephone hacking, many hackers now are engaged in computer hacking for a variety of good or bad purposes.
Hacking for benevolent purposes is typically called white hat hacking, and they will hack a system to determine its weakness and promptly report their findings to the company so they can improve their system. Hacking for criminal (and more subversive) purposes is referred to as black hat hacking, and they engage in hacking that results in personal profit, damage to the system they hack, or general mayhem to promote the decentralization of society that Turner refers to in the hackers’ ethic. A notable figure surrounded in controversy is Kevin Mitnick, who engaged in what he called social engineering from the age of 12 in gaining bus access up until his federal conviction for illegal computer access in 1995 (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/10/07/kevin.mitnick.cnna/index.html). Grey hats are the go between of the above two groups in the culture who may or may not take something, but will never profit and sometimes report the problems they see to companies they deem reputable.
For a brief interview of these three figures in hacking history, check this link out:
http://www.maniacworld.com/original-hackers.htm
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Ethical Decisions, New Media Campaigns, and Project Vote Smart
Howard (2006) in New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen examined the practices and decision-making of several companies that utilized new media to produce campaigns. More than an examination of norms and routines, Howard attempts to discuss the ethical problems that new media campaigns face, as well as the future implications for new media campaigns as well. Specifically, Howard discusses three common decisions that were made in these “hypermedia campaigns” that will have implications for future campaigns, which I will expand upon in this posting.
The first decision is data mining for profit by some of the organizations. Of particular concern is the mining of personal information, including credit charges, addresses, contact information, and other details that are sold to anyone who can meet the price tags associated with acquiring the information. Howard goes into some detail about how the practitioners dealt with an inner conflict between improving democracy and having to make profit to keep the project going. While I agree that generating income is a necessary evil in projects without benefactors like the organizations studied, it would seem that there are better opportunities to generate income than by marketing the credit histories and contact addresses of citizens. Of greater concern is that any data was marketed without the prior consent of citizens who participated on the discussion boards or in polling. In this regard, Howard (2006) is on the mark that this decision is problematic because the need to generate income may in this case undercut the desire of practitioners’ to help improve democracy. Considering the choices made, one has to question how well the organizations thought about how to improve society for its citizens.
The second and third decisions are related. The second decision that concerns Howard (2006 is the choice of practitioners to politically redline citizens by using mined data to strategically target campaigns to mobilize citizens that are most likely to agree with organizations or candidates on issues. The third decision was to focus campaigns in areas where campaigning clout was needed. I agree this was an opportunity to change the status quo from typical political campaigns or communication campaigns in general.
I question, however, the blame Howard (2006) leveled at the companies to who assist campaigns with the information and implants. There is no ethically sound explanation for using the mined personal data to target citizens, but the practice of targeting is a natural part of the campaign process. Campaigns make decisions about which audience to target because of budget and time constraints. Redlining takes place because if a campaign were to tailor messages for all audiences, they would run out of time and money at every critical point in the campaign (Denton, 2005). In addition, the desire to win on an initiative or in an election drives the decision to target campaigns in areas where more of a push is necessary. An immediate example is the use of moral referendums on the ballot in battleground states in the 2004 election (Denton, 2005).
Organizations target elites and contested regions over the general population because they are more viable to help accomplish the goal of passing an initiative or in getting a candidate elected. When new media companies are employed by campaigns to conduct these practices, it is because that is what the campaigns request from them. If critics like Howard (2006) want to reform the practice, we must find a way to get campaigns to address all audiences in a manner that is efficient in time and cost-effective. This problem is institutional in the American political system and the feasibility of running an effective campaign, not only the practices of these companies. Howard (2006) must qualify the blame leveled in this case, as companies seem to use new technology to complete traditionally effective campaign strategies in a more efficient manner. They are not the source of these decisions.
In addition to discussion these three decisions, Howard (2006) also compares the motives and rationale behind each of the four companies examined and how they practiced campaigns. He praises the pseudonominous GrassrootsActivist.org because of their use of technology and information to help citizens and community groups mobilize issue campaigns to help improve society. In this way, they seem to stay closer to the desire to improve democracy. Another current Web site for Project Vote Smart (http:// www.vote-smart.org/) provides a means for politically independent citizens to research candidates for each state and national election, to research policy issues on the ballot, and opportunities for citizens to volunteer, intern, or find work with their organization. This site seems to be morally grounded and interested in empowering citizens in the right ways. Perhaps not the most sophisticated in new Internet technologies, it does provide a variety of in-depth ways to learn the character, ethics, and issue stances of candidates.
The first decision is data mining for profit by some of the organizations. Of particular concern is the mining of personal information, including credit charges, addresses, contact information, and other details that are sold to anyone who can meet the price tags associated with acquiring the information. Howard goes into some detail about how the practitioners dealt with an inner conflict between improving democracy and having to make profit to keep the project going. While I agree that generating income is a necessary evil in projects without benefactors like the organizations studied, it would seem that there are better opportunities to generate income than by marketing the credit histories and contact addresses of citizens. Of greater concern is that any data was marketed without the prior consent of citizens who participated on the discussion boards or in polling. In this regard, Howard (2006) is on the mark that this decision is problematic because the need to generate income may in this case undercut the desire of practitioners’ to help improve democracy. Considering the choices made, one has to question how well the organizations thought about how to improve society for its citizens.
The second and third decisions are related. The second decision that concerns Howard (2006 is the choice of practitioners to politically redline citizens by using mined data to strategically target campaigns to mobilize citizens that are most likely to agree with organizations or candidates on issues. The third decision was to focus campaigns in areas where campaigning clout was needed. I agree this was an opportunity to change the status quo from typical political campaigns or communication campaigns in general.
I question, however, the blame Howard (2006) leveled at the companies to who assist campaigns with the information and implants. There is no ethically sound explanation for using the mined personal data to target citizens, but the practice of targeting is a natural part of the campaign process. Campaigns make decisions about which audience to target because of budget and time constraints. Redlining takes place because if a campaign were to tailor messages for all audiences, they would run out of time and money at every critical point in the campaign (Denton, 2005). In addition, the desire to win on an initiative or in an election drives the decision to target campaigns in areas where more of a push is necessary. An immediate example is the use of moral referendums on the ballot in battleground states in the 2004 election (Denton, 2005).
Organizations target elites and contested regions over the general population because they are more viable to help accomplish the goal of passing an initiative or in getting a candidate elected. When new media companies are employed by campaigns to conduct these practices, it is because that is what the campaigns request from them. If critics like Howard (2006) want to reform the practice, we must find a way to get campaigns to address all audiences in a manner that is efficient in time and cost-effective. This problem is institutional in the American political system and the feasibility of running an effective campaign, not only the practices of these companies. Howard (2006) must qualify the blame leveled in this case, as companies seem to use new technology to complete traditionally effective campaign strategies in a more efficient manner. They are not the source of these decisions.
In addition to discussion these three decisions, Howard (2006) also compares the motives and rationale behind each of the four companies examined and how they practiced campaigns. He praises the pseudonominous GrassrootsActivist.org because of their use of technology and information to help citizens and community groups mobilize issue campaigns to help improve society. In this way, they seem to stay closer to the desire to improve democracy. Another current Web site for Project Vote Smart (http:// www.vote-smart.org/) provides a means for politically independent citizens to research candidates for each state and national election, to research policy issues on the ballot, and opportunities for citizens to volunteer, intern, or find work with their organization. This site seems to be morally grounded and interested in empowering citizens in the right ways. Perhaps not the most sophisticated in new Internet technologies, it does provide a variety of in-depth ways to learn the character, ethics, and issue stances of candidates.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Bridges, Bonding, Politics, & Communities in Crisis - 10/4/07
This week’s readings in Society Online examine how organizations with diverse interests utilize the Internet to fulfill their needs in specific situations. The studies included reveal some consistent trends in motives for usage, and some specific examples of why gaps in communication exist on the Internet. Other studies examine the use of the Internet in the political communication context, as well as in the crisis communication context.
Norris (2004) examined the role that the Internet plays in bridging gaps in communication between people of different backgrounds and viewpoints, as well as how it provides a means of helping people with similar backgrounds and interests bond. The findings indicate that the Internet is successful at providing likeminded people with a vehicle for bonding, but is not helpful in bridging the gaps in dialogue between people of different backgrounds and points of view.
Larsen (2004) examined how individuals use the Internet in practicing religion. The findings indicate a strong use for research and offering advice and support to other members in their faith. Similar to the Norris (2004) study, we see a trend that indicates that the Internet works well to strengthen the congregations of churches, but not in opening dialogue between different congregations.
The findings of both studies are indicative of the idea that we are less likely to participate in conversations in uncomfortable environments, whether interpersonally or in an Internet-based context. Perhaps this early scholarship on community building using the Internet could help address why the Internet is becoming particularly useful in political campaigns. Web sites seem quite successful at building vertical consensus on issues, but not in bridging gaps between organizations with different viewpoints. This Internet use seems effective for political parties.
Rice and Katz (2004) examine how the Internet is playing a role in enhancing political engagement in the 1996 and 2000 presidential campaigns. Current uses seem to support where they suggested Internet use would head. A simple examination of the Democratic party’s Web site (http://www.democrats.org/) provides the viewer with access to news and talking points on a variety of issues, the latest campaign and political news, the means to financially contribute, and the ability to search for local organizations that fit their needs.
An examination of the Republican party’s Web site (http://www.gop.com/) begins with a means to sign up as a member of the party, and then takes you to a Web site that provides many of the same features, but also gives the consumer some other interesting opportunities to engage, including a Spanish-language page, the ability to join the RNC’s “Official Facebook Group,” and links that allow readers to write their legislators on issues directly. I would speculate similar avenues for participation are available on individual candidate Web sites as well.
In a study that was a little out in this section, but interesting because of recent personal experiences, Schneider and Foot (2004) examined the role of organization and company Web sites in providing crisis communication to their publics. An allusion to Internet use immediately following the 9/11 attacks prompted me to consider similar Web use following the April 16th shootings at Virginia Tech.
Within the University community, my friends and I used Facebook extensively to get updates on friends (http://lsu.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2472900651), to mourn mutual friends lost in the shooting (http://lsu.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2350888467), or to discuss specific issues relating to the aftermath (http://lsu.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2323364268). In addition to these issues, we also made use of peoples’ individual pages to ask about them as well.
From the organizational perspective, Virginia Tech was diligent in presenting a strong crisis communication strategy to the public on its Web page (http://www.vt.edu/remember/), as well as its affiliate Web pages (http://www.hokiesports.com/). The Internet does serve as an effective means of communication in times of crisis both within an organization and external of it, as Scheider and Foot (2004) illustrate.
Norris (2004) examined the role that the Internet plays in bridging gaps in communication between people of different backgrounds and viewpoints, as well as how it provides a means of helping people with similar backgrounds and interests bond. The findings indicate that the Internet is successful at providing likeminded people with a vehicle for bonding, but is not helpful in bridging the gaps in dialogue between people of different backgrounds and points of view.
Larsen (2004) examined how individuals use the Internet in practicing religion. The findings indicate a strong use for research and offering advice and support to other members in their faith. Similar to the Norris (2004) study, we see a trend that indicates that the Internet works well to strengthen the congregations of churches, but not in opening dialogue between different congregations.
The findings of both studies are indicative of the idea that we are less likely to participate in conversations in uncomfortable environments, whether interpersonally or in an Internet-based context. Perhaps this early scholarship on community building using the Internet could help address why the Internet is becoming particularly useful in political campaigns. Web sites seem quite successful at building vertical consensus on issues, but not in bridging gaps between organizations with different viewpoints. This Internet use seems effective for political parties.
Rice and Katz (2004) examine how the Internet is playing a role in enhancing political engagement in the 1996 and 2000 presidential campaigns. Current uses seem to support where they suggested Internet use would head. A simple examination of the Democratic party’s Web site (http://www.democrats.org/) provides the viewer with access to news and talking points on a variety of issues, the latest campaign and political news, the means to financially contribute, and the ability to search for local organizations that fit their needs.
An examination of the Republican party’s Web site (http://www.gop.com/) begins with a means to sign up as a member of the party, and then takes you to a Web site that provides many of the same features, but also gives the consumer some other interesting opportunities to engage, including a Spanish-language page, the ability to join the RNC’s “Official Facebook Group,” and links that allow readers to write their legislators on issues directly. I would speculate similar avenues for participation are available on individual candidate Web sites as well.
In a study that was a little out in this section, but interesting because of recent personal experiences, Schneider and Foot (2004) examined the role of organization and company Web sites in providing crisis communication to their publics. An allusion to Internet use immediately following the 9/11 attacks prompted me to consider similar Web use following the April 16th shootings at Virginia Tech.
Within the University community, my friends and I used Facebook extensively to get updates on friends (http://lsu.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2472900651), to mourn mutual friends lost in the shooting (http://lsu.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2350888467), or to discuss specific issues relating to the aftermath (http://lsu.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2323364268). In addition to these issues, we also made use of peoples’ individual pages to ask about them as well.
From the organizational perspective, Virginia Tech was diligent in presenting a strong crisis communication strategy to the public on its Web page (http://www.vt.edu/remember/), as well as its affiliate Web pages (http://www.hokiesports.com/). The Internet does serve as an effective means of communication in times of crisis both within an organization and external of it, as Scheider and Foot (2004) illustrate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)