Life Lessons in COMM 2F00

This course has served as a fantastic bridge between a few of the courses I have taken in the past, from audience studies to blogging courses. One of the most interesting things I have learned is the idea of planned obsolescence—I could not believe it when we learned about this concept, and I have shared it with more than one person in my life. I think everyone should know!! Products are made to break down. I suppose it’s really not that big of a surprise with new generations of iPhones coming out every six months and nylons ripping after one use. However, having actually read that this is a real occurrence, I now look at products differently when shopping. Ads will use terms such as “long lasting” and I consciously think about what a huge lie that is.

Another concept I will take from this course is the idea of the new audience, or the “produsers”. Many people think online producers must create content such as videos or memes; however, the simple act of sharing content or commenting on it makes those users producers as well. I find this knowledge extremely useful because people don’t often realize that they are creating content by posting pictures and liking content. Learning this has reiterated that we are constantly creating content that can be seen by others, which that leads to my last point.

Finally, I will keep in mind the limitations of privacy online. As highlighted in this week’s lecture, any material we post digitally, from cell phone use to Facebook use, will leave some kind of digital footprint which is able to be tracked. Online privacy is an especially important issue because, as noted above, people don’t often realize when they are creating content, and this becomes dangerous when that content can unintentionally be seen by the wrong people (family, employers, etc.). Anything we post is recorded online in a digital archive, as we learned from the Storify assignment. Accordingly, people must be very careful in what they post. This is perhaps the most important lesson I will take from this course, as the Storify assignment really illustrated that everything is preserved. This has helped me become more conscious in my online persona and the things I post, which is think is extremely important!

The Internet is a Tool, Not a Solution

Digital inequalities are a real concern. At the dawn of the internet, it was thought to have the power to eradicate prejudice because users cannot see the ethnicity and class of those they associate with online. However, over the years this stream of thought has proved to be false for a number of reasons. At the most basic level, there is the concern of the “digital divide”, which is the difference between those who are online versus not online at all (Hargittai, pg. 92). When thinking about the internet and its power to destroy prejudice, we must first take into consideration that not everyone is online to reap these supposed benefits. Hargittai’s study found that people who are already advantaged are more likely to have internet use and experience, as well as using the internet for more diverse purposes (pg. 92). The social groups that would most benefit from the internet are the lower socioeconomic groups; yet, they are less likely to use the web.

Perhaps the biggest reason that the internet has not created the utopian society that we had hoped is not found online, but rather stems from offline. Indeed, when the telegraph was first created, it was thought that “old…hostilities should longer exist, while such an instrument has been created for an exchange of thought between all the nations” (Boyd, pg. 156). However, this was not the case at all. The same stream of thought was brought about in relation to the internet, and the same events took place. So why does this happen? The answer is simple—because peoples’ use of the internet is shaped by their real-world experiences.

In her article, Boyd explains that this same train of thought is always anticipated of new technologies and these thoughts “suggest that the technology itself does the work of addressing cultural divisions” (Boyd, pg. 156). However, this is not (and can never be) the case. Rather than expect that the invention of a new technology will fix all wrongs, we have to realize that we must do the work. Certainly, technology is not a solution—it is a tool to achieve the results that we want.

So, if students’ use of the internet is shaped by their real-world experiences, then classroom settings and friend groups have a lot to do with their online behavior. Boyd explains that “[f]riend groups are often racially and economically homogenous, which translates into segregated lunchrooms and segregated online communities” (Boyd, pg. 154). Even though students of different race and class may interact in a classroom, this does not mean they are friends online. This is perhaps the largest reason that the internet is not the solution it was imagined to be—because people will interact online the same way they do offline, with the same people. Finally, users are discouraged to interact with new users because of “stranger danger” (Boyd, pg. 173), or the threat of unknown users. Thus, even if one was so inclined to branch out of their social circle, they have most likely already been taught that this is a dangerous act, and will therefore be unlikely to do so.

The internet certainly has the power to branch gaps of race and class; however, it must be used as a tool to do so. This means that users have to be aware of and want to bridge these inequalities before any changes can actually happen.

In the case of online classes, I think these inequalities still exist. However, speaking from my own experience, online classes are much more individual than those which physically take place in a classroom. In a classroom setting, we are able to see our peers, which means not only do we make assumptions based on appearance, but also on body language, mannerisms and speaking habits. Conversely, in an online setting, the only things we have to go off of are names and writing style. There is also a lot less interaction in an online course, and it is more focused on doing your own work. Thus, online courses may be useful in challenging inequalities, but only because they are laid out much more individually so there is less room for inequalities and biases.

Works Cited:

Boyd, Dana. “Inequality: Can Social Media Resolve Social Divisions? ” It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2014. 153-175.

Hargittai, Eszter. “Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses Among Members of the ‘Net Generation’.” Sociological Inquiry 80.1 (2010): 92-113. http://www.webuse.org/pdf/Hargittai-DigitalNativesSI2010.pdf

Inclusionism vs. Exclusionism– The Great (and quite unnecessary) Debate

Wikipedia has caused a debate between its users, to the point where two groups have formed: the exclusionists and the inclusionists. Exclusionists believe that Wikipedia should be a serious encyclopedia, and would prefer to delete articles that are viewed as having less importance. In opposition, the inclusionists believe that Wikipedia should implement “no constraints on the breadth of the encyclopedia” (Carr, p. 198) and should include any entry that a user wants to enter. The inclusionist movement is winning at the moment, with 207 members in support (Carr, pg. 198).

Personally, I find the entire debate unnecessary because I don’t think the exclusionists have a real argument; especially living in this age. I understand that that side wants Wikipedia to be more of a typical encyclopedia, with provides strong information with a multitude of serious entries. However, as pointed out in the lecture reading, we have to consider what information and ideologies are being left out of sites, including Wikipedia. Indeed, if there are few people in control of the information and they seek to further trim down the available articles, they are most certainly ignoring specific world-views or ideologies. That is not to say that inclusionism does not do the same; however, because they aim to include more articles, they are more likely to include oppositional viewpoints.

Furthermore, I find the debate ridiculous simply because the encyclopedia has no boundaries. There is no limit of space, so what does it matter if smaller articles are included? The more information on the site the better, because it will assist more people. With that being said, when using an inclusionist model the articles have to be good; standards cannot fall simply because there is more content. Thus, the articles obviously have to be factual, explanatory and concise, as they are expected to be now.

If the inclusionist group can maintain the standards of Wikipedia and manage to include more material, there is no reason to set boundaries and delete smaller articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be an “open encyclopedia” (Carr, pg. 199), and this means allowing all articles to be published.

This way, it is a truly futuristic encyclopedia because there are no boundaries; it is fluent and ever changing to include new material as subjects become relevant. Further, we live in the information society; this means that with the internet at our fingertips, we have the ability to find information on any subject we want. It would be very convenient for Wikipedia to hold all of this information, rather than have most of it but force users to sometimes search other sites. In other words, if one can find obscure topics on other sites on the internet, why should Wikipedia not include it? If it is important enough for someone to publish somewhere, the encyclopedia of our time should do the same, because there is no excuse of limited space or having to republish.

Finally, having an inclusionist model creates less bias because users can find information on any topic, big or small. This means that all topics are given importance. Conversely, an exclusionist model would create more of a bias because it generates the idea that only specific, bigger topics are of any importance. Thus, in this period of time where information is always available, the idea of excluding any information from an encyclopedia without a tangible reason is simply ridiculous.

Works Cited:
Carr, Nicholas. “ Questioning Wikipedia .” Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader. Ed. Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, 2011. 191-202.

YouTube: Criticizing Culture One Video at a Time

Digital tools and platforms are extremely useful in thinking critically of our digital environment, and YouTube is an excellent example. Indeed, this is demonstrated though McIntosh’s piece, “A History of Subversive Remix Video Before YouTube: Thirty Political Video Mashups Made Between World War II and 2005”, as the author has created a collection of 30 videos which do exactly that: look at the contemporary digital environment in a critical way. For example, McIntosh sites videos of Cinderella (Video 21.“Cinderella+++” by Eileen Maxson [2002]) and The Lord of the Rings (Video 24.“The Lord of the Rings of Free Trade” by St01en collective [2002]), which were large cultural texts. This demonstrates critical thinking of the digital environment by using the digital environment because the mash-ups subvert the dominant meaning of the video in order to bring an oppositional reading to light. It is in this way that current users are able to harness digital tools, (notably YouTube), in order to critique the digital environment. In fact, this is a fantastic mode of participation which we are now able to utilize because, as discussed in previous weeks, people who participate in this way are not only passively viewing and sharing content; instead, they are taking existing content and reworking it, interacting with it, so as to create something entirely new. These participants twist the accepted meaning of the content in order to produce something more critical; thus, their level of participation increases because they are critical and active rather than submissive.

In fact, this type of participation has now become a trend among this generation. Certainly, mash up videos and spoof videos are extremely popular on social media and are shared quite frequently. What is more, oftentimes as soon as an event (or even another video) becomes popular, people will begin creating spoofs of it almost immediately. This shows that the existence of digital tools such as YouTube and digital platforms such as social media sites have created a niche for this type of content, as these types of videos are often funny simply because of their subversive meanings. For instance, a highly recognized example of this practice is the Closer (Fan Video) by eetstomoch Star Trek video. In the series, Spock and Kirk are depicted as buddies; partners in crime. However, this video took footage from the show and twisted it so as to heavily imply that the two characters are in love. This is a fantastic example of the way in which digital tools enable users to take a dominant meaning (Spock and Kirk as partners in crime) and twist it in order to subvert this meaning and create and oppositional one (Spock and Kirk in love).

However, this example was created long before YouTube. If this practice was a trend before YouTube, it has only grown since the creation of the colossal video platform site. Certainly, for every video on YouTube there are several spoofs of it. This shows that this generation of users is becoming more adept at criticizing hegemonic ideals in popular culture. It is actually a good thing that spoofing has become a trend because this practice is what makes users analytical and aware rather than inert; in fact, it is almost a reflex now to make fun of popular culture and subvert the meanings. Thus, this practice of vidding has created a new generation of participants who use this new digital culture to create and share their fight against dominant meanings.

Works Cited:

http://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/371/299

In order to support my point above, I have gathered six YouTube videos which demonstrate this idea of how the site can be used to criticize our digital environment. Each of these videos has a common theme; they are all a spoof or critique of some form of pop culture, whether it is a song, show, movie, or even politics. Above, I argued that digital tools such as YouTube allow users to critically examine the digital environment because the ability to create new content, such as these videos, allows users to reflect and interact with pop culture (within the digital environment) in an analytical way, rather than passively view it. This modern digital environment ensures that we are able to rapidly share content with one another, so pop culture is shared very quickly, and people are able to share their opinions on it instantly. Thus, with YouTube, users can create videos which critique this environment by critiquing the pop culture items themselves. In making fun of the current topics within the digital environment, users are in turn making fun of the actual digital environment. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PwpcUawjK0&index=41&list=PL78F0BA57CCD1C8FC

Closer (Fan Video) by eetstomoch

For example, this phenomenon takes place in looking at the video I have previously mentioned, Closer (Fan Video) by eetstomoch. This video is a mash up of footage from the hit show Star Trek, and depicts two of the main characters. However, rather than use the footage to show the characters’ relationship in its usual light, this video works to defy the dominant reading, and instead highlights a more oppositional one by implicating that the men are harbouring a repressed love for each other. By highlighting a different meaning, the creator of this vid has used a digital tool to think critically about the show, and therefore the environment itself. Certainly, it is interesting to read the comments on this YouTube video. Some users find it hilarious, while others actually get quite upset at the distortion; hence, this video is able to spark debate among other users which is another form of critically thinking about and discussing the digital environment.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYiQRaxcyH4&list=PL78F0BA57CCD1C8FC&index=43

Iggy Azalea ft. Charli XCX “Fancy” PARODY by Bart Baker

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_DwMLUh1YQ&list=PL78F0BA57CCD1C8FC&index=44

Pharrell Williams – “Happy” PARODY by Bart Baker

Both of these videos were created by the same user, Bart Baker. From what I have gathered from Bart Baker’s channel, all of the content that he creates and posts follows this theme of spoof music videos. Further, the songs that he makes fun of are always hit songs; these two are currently in the top 40—Fancy by Iggy Azalea and Happy by Pharrell Williams. In both instances, Baker chooses to recreate the actual music videos, but he uses different actors and changes the lyrics completely. The reason these videos are funny is because the lyrics still follow the beat and tune of the original songs; as well, the music videos are very close. So, in keeping everything the same except the actual lyrics, this user has created hilarious content because this approach really highlights what the author finds ridiculous about these pop culture texts. As I have previously explained, in making fun of current pop culture, the author is critically examining our digital environment because he is choosing to oppose the way the majority of fans see these texts—as excellent songs—and instead takes the oppositional view by critiquing them.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO6eydRPpyU&index=47&list=PL78F0BA57CCD1C8FC

Talk Nerdy To Me (Jason Derulo Parody) by K-Face Rules

This video uses the same technique as the previous two, but was created by a different user. However, this vid is different in that the creator has not only changed the lyrics, but also the music video itself  in order to generate a spoof. In this video, K-Face Rules plays on “nerdy” stereotypes; for instance, the characters who are singing in the music video are acting cool and confident, yet they are all dressed as nerdy stereotypes. One character is dressed as Gandalf from Lord of the Rings as he sings the chorus, changed to “talk nerdy to me”, and another is dressed as Harry Potter. This serves as a critique towards the common pop culture icon—“cool” guys who are always partying and getting girls. Thus, by changing the lyrics to something so opposite from the stereotype, this user is critiquing pop culture stereotypes and trends as a whole, and therefore the digital environment and the way in which these stereotypes are created and spread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Krz-dyD-UQ&list=PL78F0BA57CCD1C8FC&index=46

MEDIEVAL LAND FUN-TIME WORLD” EXTENDED TRAILER – A Bad Lip Reading by Bad Lip Reading

Next, this video is a parody of the popular show Game of Thrones. This user has taken clips from the show and replaced the audio in order to create a spoof of the series. The show itself is extremely serious and dramatic, so the lip reading is especially hilarious because it is so opposite to the show. Game of Thrones is easily one of the most popular shows on TV right now, so to make a parody of it and make fun of all the characters subverts the dominant reading of the series (the very dramatic, serious tone) in favour of a funny, oppositional reading. Thus, this is another instance of the way in which fans are able to harness digital tools such as YouTube in order to critique this digital environment. Fans take the show very seriously, so making fun of it in turn jests at the way fans discuss and share news about the series.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N37pMngyk2A&index=42&list=PL78F0BA57CCD1C8FC

Itegrity by twomanmovies

Finally, this text was created by a user called twomanmovies, and it is a parody of a political campaign, Alan Thompson for State Senator. The reason this is funny is because the user has taken what politicians do in a sneaky way (try to be passive and agreeable to everyone) and highlighted it as a very obvious tactic. In the video, the politician agrees with both sides of every issue and is shown to be very supportive of absolutely everyone. Hence, this video uses a digital tool, YouTube, to critique the political system. Further, rather than share his views by brashly insulting the politican, twomanmovies uses humor in order to make fun of the system. This creates an enthymematic situation in which viewers are encouraged to relate this video to actual political campaigns and pick up on the similarities. Thus, this is a powerful critique because viewers are able to come up with it themselves.

Facebook: The Addiction is Real

In his paper, “’Why I Left Facebook’: Stubbornly Refusing to Not Exist Even After Opting Out of Mark Zuckerberg’s Social Graph”, Ghel critiques Facebook by examining case studies from bloggers who have quit the social networking site. First, he discusses the idea of Facebook’s updated Terms of Service, and the way in which they have been updated to mandate that the site now owns all content of its users. These changes caused so much uproar that Facebook decided to pose the Terms of Service to a vote among users; yet, the changes were upheld. I myself was never aware of either of the votes, and I think that probably holds true for many of my friends and contacts on the site. I agree with many users that the new Terms of Service are unfavourable—why would I want a mass money-hungry corporation to own all the content I create on this site? That includes statuses and photos I post. Many people are already careless about what they post on the internet, and these terms only serve to take advantage of this fact. For instance, if a woman posts vacation pictures of herself in a bathing suit to Facebook, the mass networking site now owns these pictures. This means they could end up anywhere else on the internet, on any site. Yet, most people don’t think about these things when posting content to Facebook because we are given an illusion of privacy. Indeed, we are able to change our privacy settings on our personal profile to block certain users, or people who are not our “friends”, which means that people think they are safe because only their “friends” can see what they post. However, there is still the tiny fact that the site owns whatever we post and can share it anywhere or with anyone else, no matter what our privacy settings are.

Further, this article discusses the idea that it is nearly impossible to leave Facebook for a number of reasons. The first is that in order to delete an account, you must first “deactivate” it for two weeks. I suppose this is to ensure that you really think about the enormity of this action… Next, Ghel mentions that leaving Facebook is lonely because there is so much pressure to stay because of the knowledge that friends and family are still on there (Ghel, p. 224). Then there is the fact that deleting your account does not mean that all of the information disappears; certainly, friends might post pictures of you, or your previous comments may still remain on their profiles. Moreover, if anyone has copied the static link to a picture or post, they can always access it because it is never actually deleted (Ghel, p. 225).

As a Facebook user, I am in complete agreement with all of these concerns; it is difficult to quit Facebook, mostly because of the second reason. Knowing that all of your friends and family are still on the site posting content that you are no longer able to see makes it very lonely to leave the site. It’s almost like being exiled from the club. You know the other members are still going on without you, yet you no longer have the ability to participate in the conversations. Thus, it is easier to be on Facebook and use it rarely than not be on it at all and want to use it all the time to see what you’re missing.

 

Gehl, Robert W. “‘ Why I Left Facebook’: Stubbornly Refusing to Not Exist Even After Opting Out of Mark Zukerberg’s Social Graph .” Unlike Us Reader: Social Media Monopolies and Their Alternatives. Ed. Geert Lovink and Miriam Rasch. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. 220-238.

Hashtag Activism– highly effective or just plain lazy?

Hashtag activism is a controversial topic; some feel this form of digital participation is highly useful, while others feel it is simply a lazy, ineffective, “feel good” method. I myself am of the first group, as I feel that this form of participation—no matter what the topic of activism is—is highly effective. Certainly, it is useful in bringing an issue to the attention of a massive group of people, known as a macro group (Bruns, 2014). These groups are formed through a specific cause, which is found through hashtags. The term itself has been described by Urban Dictionary as:

 The kind of activism undertaken when you “do something” about a problem by tweeting or posting links to Facebook, without any intent of ever actually doing something.

 Evidently, this is a highly biased definition. While it may be true that people who use hashtags as a form of activism do not intend to do anything more about the issue, it is positively false that hashtag activism is useless. This form of activism occurs when multiple users bring light to an issue by using one hashtag until it is “trending”. This means so many people are using the hashtag that it has become a popular topic across the Twitterverse, and therefore a popular topic within the public sphere.

 So is this form of simply typing a hashtag into a tweet useless? Absolutely not. Let’s look at some examples:

 The reading this week explained that in 2012, the hashtag #StandwithPP began trending in order to voice concerns for the removal of funding from Planned Parenthood. Within a week of the trending hashtag, “more than 100,000 people had tweeted hashtags like #singon and #standwithpp” and funding was restored (Dewey, 2014). So let’s reiterate: just by tweeting and using a certain hashtag, users were able to reverse the issue and restore funding to Planned Parenthood. Useless activism? It doesn’t appear that way.

 There is a similar case with the #BringBackOurGirls campaign; Nigerian-American writer Teju Cole stated that the interest of this issue on Twitter has “oversimplified and sentimentalized the country’s issues, but failed to achieve anything”. Yet, that’s not true. In any way. Since the topic began trending, many celebrities and even the first lady, Michelle Obama, have joined the campaign. Consequently, the U.S., U.K. and France have promised support in the search (Dewey, 2014). Without hashtag activism, this case probably never would have been brought to light.

 So much of the world revolves around social media these days, that had this story simply been reported once or twice in the news, it never would have taken off like this. Yet, social media has the ability to help topics go viral, which means recognition around the world. Murthy (2012) asks if Twitter has altered the way we communicate, and how it affects social interaction (Murthy, p. 1701). The answer is yes; of course it changed the way we communicate and our social interactions, and the reason is this ability for issues to become viral. Twitter allows users to quickly disseminate bursts of information to each other, and band together using hashtags, which in turn creates a sort of public opinion for the users.

 Thus, as demonstrated, this sort of activism has real world consequences. Even though users are simply tweeting, if enough users band together to create a trending hashtag, it becomes a public voice which is able to create activism.

 Some have argued that hashtag activism is limited because the trends are usually started by advantaged outsiders, rather than the actual victims of the issue. Dewey goes as far to say that this occurrence made the #Kony2012 trend “icky” (Dewey, 2014). However, I strongly disagree that this is a limitation. It does not matter who starts the activism; the only factor of tangible importance is that the issue catches on and gains mass awareness. As demonstrated in the examples above, the popularity of an issue is what creates any sort of change or support. Not who starts it. Indeed, #Kony2012 still accomplished a great deal; it sparked a huge outcry across the world and would have garnered support, had the campaign continued.

 Thus, this 21^st century phenomenon of hashtag activism is the protest of our generation. It has the ability to create mass awareness and real world consequences, and implement change.

  

Bruns, Axel. Layers of Communication on Twitter. 25 April 2014. http://mappingonlinepublics.net/2014/04/25/layers-of-communication-on-twitter/

 Dewey, Caitlin. “#Bringbackourgirls, #Kony2012, and the complete, divisive history of ‘hashtag activism’.” The Washington Post. 8 May 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/05/08/bringbackourgirls-kony2012-and-the-complete-divisive-history-of-hashtag-activism/

 Murthy, Dhiraj. “Towards a Sociological Understanding of Social Media: Theorizing Twitter.” Sociology 46.6 (2012): 1059-1073.

E-Waste on Pinterest

I grew up in a generation where children played outside every day. Yes, television was around, but still…we did not sit inside isolated on our computers every day. As I got older, the internet became more prevalent and slowly things changed; now it has reached a point where I am surrounded by technology on a daily basis. Every day I use my cell phone, which serves as many devices put together. For example, I primarily use it to text my friends, but I also use it to listen to music, check the weather, and go on social media sites such as Facebook and Instagram. In addition, I have an office job for the summer so I am on a computer every day from 8-4. At home I will watch television with my family, and then watch other shows on my laptop by streaming them. Evidently, my days have gone from playing outside to being surrounded by technological devices.

I bought my laptop from Best Buy for university three years ago and it has lasted through three years of constant use. However, it is starting to get very slow, despite virus scans and software updates. It still works, but the slow speed makes me want to buy a new one within the next few years. My cell phone, on the other hand, has been replaced many times. I have had three new phones in the last two years; the first was a blackberry I acquired through an upgrade with my Rogers contract. Unfortunately, it was stolen out of my purse one night at a nightclub. From there, I bought an iPhone off Kijiji because I did not want to spend $500.00 for an early upgrade with Rogers. However, after a year this phone began to malfunction and shut off randomly, until finally I decided it was time to buy another one. By this time the newest generation (5G) of iPhone had come out, so older generations were much cheaper to buy on Kijiji. I still have this phone, and will keep it until August, when I am due for a free upgrade from Rogers. I hate switching phones and wouldn’t do it if the circumstances hadn’t forced me. I try to keep my technological devices for as long as possible, simply out of financial interest.

I don’t care to upgrade my laptop based on trends; I do not own a MacBook Pro and do not care to. My HP works just fine and I would gladly buy the same brand. However, because phones are updated so frequently, consumers (myself included) feel more pressure to upgrade. The further behind the newest device you fall, the more pressure there is. For example, I have an iPhone 4 now that works perfectly. However, I am eligible for an upgrade in August and can get the iPhone 5. I don’t need this upgrade, but I will take it because it is free and will give me the newest device.

Yet, I am absolutely horrible when it comes to disposing of technology. I still have my first laptop under my bed because I don’t know how to dispose of it; I would throw it out, but I have been told numerous times not to throw out computers because it is easy to obtain personal information from them. My second phone was stolen, so I no longer have that, but I still have the broken one in a drawer at home because I can’t seem to throw it out, even though it won’t turn on. Further, I don’t know if I should simply throw it in the trash, or if there is somewhere I should take it to be disposed of. With that being said, social and environmental impacts did not cross my mind when I chose to get new devices; rather, I was just weary of people obtaining personal information/ access to my accounts through these old devices.

Check out my Pinterest board on the matter:

E-Waste: from trash to treasure

E-Waste is created from millions of gadgets being thrown away each year. This board is inspired by different ways to stop the excessive e-waste by using old technology in a new and creative way.

 

Participation Within Social Media

Given my experience thus far in the course, it seems to me that people, myself included, “participate” within contemporary digital culture every single day across multiple platforms. Most people are signed up for more than one social media site, and as we have learned, simply by posting a tweet or commenting on a YouTube video people are actively participating in the mediascape. I’m sure most people don’t view themselves as active creators of content; they save this view for people who create the YouTube video or design the meme. Yet, just by commenting on the material or sharing it online, people are participating in digital culture. Further, users are not only participating on one platform, but multiple. Thus, we have all become active participants via social media platforms.

This is certainly true for myself: since the internet, more specifically social media, has become more prominent, I have seen myself change from being a ‘user’ to a ‘produser’. For example, when I first began to use the internet, it was essentially to browse through content and find information. Now, on the other hand, I am an active produser of content (especially in taking this course). Indeed, I am registered on many social media platforms, and I participate by posting pictures or status updates, as well as interacting with my peers’ posts. Further, this course has asked me to generate a meme, a new Pinterest board, and document my history of internet use on Storify. So, not only do I participate on social media, but I have gone further in the sense that in addition to viewing, sharing and commenting on content, I also create it. Therefore, I participate more now than I ever have.

As noted above, there are different types of participation on social media platforms, which makes it tricky to measure. Some users are more active on social media than others, yet they might not post a lot, but simply view content. Does this still count as participating? Meanwhile, other people may not go on frequently, yet they post some form of content every time they do. Does this make them more active than the non-posters? I would say no, both people are active users in different capacities. The lines become clearer as we look at content creation, however. For example, I would categorize weekly YouTube vloggers as more active participants than someone who simply goes on social media sites to view other peoples’ content, because the vlogger is consistently creating new content rather than just viewing and sharing old. So the more active the person, the more they participate.

Participating in the mediascape is both extremely emancipatory and yet also very constricting. For instance, looking back to the topic of previous weeks, we know that social media platforms allow us to think that we are active participants; yet, we use them according to the software of the site. Certainly, we can like a post on Facebook, but cannot dislike. We can comment on a picture on Instagram, but you cannot send a direct message to someone. Thus, even though we think social media frees us, we are still playing by the site rules, and consequently our participation is (to a certain extent) predetermined.

On the other hand, social media platforms are very emancipatory because they are quite adept at “[w]eakening the boundary between private and public history” (Kinder, p. 62). Everyone who is registered within the mediascape has their personal information online somewhere, which means that private history has now become public information. Therefore, such participation is emancipatory in the sense that it is able to free all of our private details and open us up to the rest of the world.

Of course, this is one of the trade-offs to this participatory digital culture. In order to register for any social media site, you as a participant are asked to give details such as your name and contact information, and sometimes more. Essentially, we are trading personal information for the chance to participate in the mediascape; yet, in doing so, we open ourselves up as targets to a multitude of companies looking to use our personal details to sell us things. Furthermore, as stated in previous weeks, our participation is acknowledged as free labour, because in participating we are generating new content and perhaps even gathering new users with this content, while at the end of the day it is the site that profits. Thus, even though we get what we want by participating, we are also trading our personal details, as well as doing free work for these social media websites.

 

Kinder, Marsha. “ The Conceptual Power of On-Line Video: 5 Easy Pieces .” Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube. Ed. Geert Lovink and Sabine Niederer. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. 53-62.

The Personal is Always Political

After researching this week’s topic of planned technological obsolescence, it is clear that personal technology use is absolutely political. As demonstrated by both the Light Bulb Conspiracy the New York Times article, and the Wall Street Journal article, our technological consumption is having massive effects around the world. For instance, because technology is created with a specific shelf life, we are constantly upgrading all of our devices, from cell phones to laptops to video game consoles. Yet, our old electronics have to go somewhere, so we are outsourcing this trash to landfills in China, Ghana, Pakistan, etc… As shown in the Light Bulb Conspiracy, children from these countries will root through the piles of electronic trash to scavenge for scrap metal or parts, and these massive piles are ruining the land. So, technological gadgets that we have bought for personal use are now ruining the locale in countries on the other side of the world. Not only that, but with the aid of planned obsolescence, we are creating an exponential amount of this trash because we simply keep buying new gadgets and carelessly disposing of the old. Thus, although we think our purchase of technology is strictly a personal choice, evidently it affects people around the world.

Not only is our consumption of gadgets political, but so too is our use (or perhaps our need) of the internet. For instance, large corporations use data centers to store and process information; however, according to the New York Times, these centers use a massive amount of energy in a very wasteful way, resulting in the waste of 90% or more of the electricity they take from the grid (Glanz). Furthermore, these centers use diesel-emitting generators to back up in case of a power outage. So these generators are simply a precaution, yet they use a ton of electricity and emit fumes. So once again, even though we use the internet for personal use, the processes used to grant us access are harmful to the environment, and extremely wasteful.

Certainly, according to the Wall Street Journal, the internet is possible because of cables running along the bottom of the ocean which work to connect the continents (Blum). However, these cables are nearly full now, so we must implement more in order to keep up with the demand for global internet access. We are putting more of these massive cables into the ocean to connect the world, spending vast amounts of money simply to keep up with the demand. Thus, it is clear that our personal technological use is political because it has massive effects seen across the globe.

Second, the Light Bulb Conspiracy is a documentary which details the phenomenon of planned obsolescence, or the way in which products are designed to fail after a certain amount of use. This occurrence happens in anything from nylons to printers to light bulbs, and it ensures that consumers will continue to buy products frequently. This exact same thing can be seen in today’s digital culture, through the way that gadgets are now released in generations. This clever scheme makes consumers want to always own the newest generation so that they can be up to date with technology, and ensures that they will replace old technology quickly, even if there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, planned obsolescence is mentioned above, wherein we continually replace our electronics with newer products and ship the old waste to landfills around the world. We live in very disposable culture, where we feel it is okay to simply dispose of things we no longer want rather than to try and fix them. So, planned obsolescence has clearly taken over our mindset to create this new throwaway culture, and keep consumers purchasing the latest products.

 

Glanz, James. “Power, Pollution and the Internet.” The New York Times. 22 Sept. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/technology/data-centers-waste-vast-amounts-of-energy-belying-industry-image.html?ref=technology&_r=0

Blum, Andrew. “A Dive Into the Digital Deep.” The Wall Street Journal. 25 May 2013. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304840904577422370903409342

The Light Bulb Conspiracy . Dir. Cosima Dannoritzer. 2010. https://archive.org/details/PlannedObsolescenceDocumentary

The Creation of a Game of Thrones Meme

 

This is a Game of Thrones meme that I have created using a website called https://imgflip.com/memegenerator. After coming up with my idea, I googled images of Stannis and chose the one that I thought would best suit my idea. Once the image was saved, I uploaded it to the imgflip.com website and typed in the text that I wanted.

My idea was to inflect modern technology onto the series. In the show, there is a large plot line in which Melisandre, the woman shown in the meme, brings a new god to the attention of Stannis and his people. This god is named R’hollor, also known as the Lord of Light, and Melisandre is constantly trying to persuade Stannis to follow the Lord of Light. This god is never seen in the show, other than the allusion that he is visible in flames; thus, I chose an image of Melisandre leaning over Stannis’s shoulder as he looks into fire, AKA the Lord of Light.

I captioned the image so as to imply that R’hollor is tweeting at Stannis to follow him—the pun being that it seems as though this is a request for Stannis to follow him on twitter. I also chose to make R’hollor’s profile picture an image of flames, as that is (apparently) his only visible form. Further, the meme is funny because it depicts Stannis staring into the flames while the caption implies that the Lord of Light is addressing him directly. Thus, it seems as though Stannis is actually listening to R’hollor.

This meme is specifically geared towards Game of Thrones fans, because viewers who do not watch the show will not get the twitter handles, not the double meaning of the phrase “follow me”. They might grasp that it is a twitter reference, but they would have to know the backstory of the show in order to understand that this phrase is also constantly used in reference to R’hollor. Further, instead of making Stannis’s twitter handle @Stannis_Baratheon, or something similar which uses both his first and last name, I chose to make it @Stannis_Rightful_King, because that is what his character is referenced as in the series. Characters are constantly in battle for the Iron Throne, and Stannis immediately claims himself as the “rightful king”; yet, he is not a particularly well-liked character, so some fans see this as a bit of a joke because no one wants him to be king. However, if you do not watch the show, you will not get the humor of this meme because it requires this specialized knowledge.

I did not use an existing meme to create this one, but rather an existing image. I simply took an image and changed the context of the scene by placing a caption of it. This scene in the show portrays Melisandre telling Stannis to look into the light and try to see god. However, my caption changes it so that Stannis is looking into the light and hearing R’hollor address him. Further, the caption is funny because it indicates modern technology and social practices (such as using the phrase “follow me” meaning social media), while the actual image shows the characters to be in medieval times, based off of their clothing and stone wall surroundings. So the absurdity of the image and caption are interesting.

This meme is different from the other because this one plays on modern technology rather than a cultural catch phrase, but it is similar in that they both use modern things to change the context of the show. The reason that both of these memes are funny is that they bring the ancient and modern together to form an overly ludicrous contradiction.