Ashley Stuart´s Blog

SOCS-The Battle over the Institutional Ecology…

shiaili — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:12:17 +0000

Laws that attempt to regulate social networks such as the DCMA and others have potential to make dramatic negative changes to our social networking systems. The ongoing legal battle over the security of what is put on the internet, such as music, movies, games or even ideas has come under scrutiny over the last decade. There has been a push for computers to be more “controllable and predictable devices” (Benkler 385), in order to protect what is on the Internet and what people share. Take music for example, we no longer buy music, we download it, pass it on, share it. There is a lot of money being lost because of the internet. You dont even need to own a TV anymore, everything is online.

But, we share more than just music, we share ideas. The accessibility for an individual to quickly share a brilliant performance piece, an ad, a documentary, or music is at the tip of your fingertips. And it creates conversation and which ultimately produces more ideas.Laws such as DCMA share the risk of “squelching emerging technologies in wireless storage and computation that are permitting to share access to resources”(Benkler 386) that pose a great risk to our ability to communicate with others on the web.

These laws threaten the very structure of our communicative abilities on the net. And its a scary prospect that has potential to become reality. What are the risks? How far will these laws go? We often over look the flexibility, convenience and ease at which we share information and how important it has become for us to communicate. New laws have the potential to restructure the freedom we have now, into something quite different: an Internet that is controlled and denies important conversations.

SOCS- Political Property and Commons

shiaili — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:47:08 +0000

Fragmentation between communities, families and people was not created by the Internet, it has been a process that has been developing since the mid 19th century. The alienation of the Internet is only a part of a longer history of human separation, such as the growth of cities , industry, transportation. But for Benkler, the Internet has not alienated us but has brought us together in ways that were previously impossible.

The Internet allows for people no matter how far apart physically to communicate. And through communicating online one on one, people have the inherent desire to build communities. Virtual communication breeds virtual communities. All of us online are not always talking one on one with one another, or by ourselves but, we are communicating with a breadth of people interested in the same topic. As Benkler explains ” there is a hunger for community no longer satisfied by the declining availability of physical spaces for human connection.. there is a new form of connection where peopl can connect despite their physical distance” (383). Take blogs, wikis or Flicker for example, these are all platforms in which we communicate as a larger community. They are tools that bring us together.

Moreover, the social tools on the internet have created an exciting new way in which we communicate. People online ” to do things with each other in new ways and to do altogether new kinds of things just like telegraphs and televisions did” (358). The internet is simply a new sphere in which we communicate, it is something to embrace for its positive outcomes.

Unlike its predecessor, the television which tends to isolate us from each other, the Internet is a two-way conversation between a multitude of people around the world. The Internet has created a new definition of what we think of the term community. And prehaps it is the change in structure of what we think a community is that is confusing to us. Without examining how this new Internet community functions we think that the Internet has isolated from one another when in fact it is the opposite.

SOCS-Cultural freedom

shiaili — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:38:22 +0000

Benkler describes culture as an ever changing processes, constantly redefining itself through the way in which people work within it: how they communicate and negotiate ideas. Thus, our new social tools such as Facebook, Flicker, Twitter and Blogs are actually changing not just our politics and the media but, the way our culture itself is structured.

Moreover, Benkler explains that culture is a ‘version of false consciouness’, meaning that some of our beliefs and values go unquestioned because we believe that it is common knowledge and a fact. We often believe that certain social norms or ideas are undisputable facts about how our culture functions but, as Benkler describes our ideas are never fixed or forever, they are always flexible and can change in a matter of time.

And if culture is made through communication between human beings, the structure of what we think is common sense begins to breakdown. Through active communication, as seen recently with the tools of the Internet ‘we make communication with each other what stays and what goes’ (284) and determine a new cultural framework and new ideas on what is common sense.

The more we communicate online, the more our ideas of our culture changes and at a rapid pace. Our new communication tools allow us to have discussions between anyone in the world in a matter of minutes, even seconds. This is a new tool for human beings to communicate and it is fast paced . And that is something that we have not quite encountered yet. How much will our old conceptions of our values, morals and beliefs change? And just how fast will our culture change? Will we be able to keep up?

SOCS-Political Freedom and the Public Sphere

shiaili — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:10:05 +0000

The accessibility of the internet and its tools has changed the way we communicate. It has become more democratic not by simply having more access of information to the public but , the internet has changed the way in which we participate and engage within the public sphere. Whether it be the news, a blog, a video or a debate, people are actively participating with one another, rather than being the what Benkler calls the ‘passive’ reader, listener or viewer. He explains that the elimination of such things as communications costs have encouraged such change in our ability to engage with one another.

Take a blog for example, it cost nothing to set up and anyone can make one. Moreover, blogs help create dialogue between you and those who are interested in your topic (whether it be politics or your art blog). Moreover, blogs help create more discussions within the public sphere. This changes the way in which we participate, in that the writer is no longer a passive listener, but is an active speaker. As Benkler states the Internet “changes in the structure of the public sphere from the commercial mass media enviroment” (213). We no longer have to absorb the media and have our private thoughts about the issues that concern us, now we can speak about our thoughts out in public. This dramatically changes our role in democracy, if we choose to participate but, the option is out there, and that is something we have not experienced before.

SOCS-individual freedom

shiaili — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:39:22 +0000

Our ability to share and make art, video, photographs and many other creative techniques has become more and more accessible to the `average´user than in any other time before. As Benkler suggests `the emergence of a networked economy has the potential to increase individual autonomy´(133). This is especially true in the arts. Think about how we are able to share our art work with others, either through blogs or websites. Before, we had portfolios and went from person to person to show our work. That was a lot of work and time in order to get one person to see our work. Now, you make a website and everyone can see your work, comment on it, give suggestions or buy it. This gives an artist more motivation to pursue the development of their art work because more people are actively participating in seeing it.

The tools themselves have become more and more accessible. Take Benkler´s example of the Roy Cejas and his Star Wars film. With simple software from your computer and a web cam, anyone can make a film or a vlog. Before, one would need to knowledge and the money to do anything video related (especially a quality one).

But now, making films has become more available to the average person. This allows for an even more democratic society ( for those who have computers) because more people can participate in all spectrums of knowledge, from art to science to anything one can think of. As Benkler discusses`the networked information economy increases the range of diversity…by enabling sources commercial and non-commercial, mainstream and fringe, foreign and domestic to communicate information and communicate with anyone´(134).

And this opens up the democratic nature of those who are connected online: everything is on there and everyone can participate in it.

SOCS- A Moment of Opportunity and Challenge

shiaili — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:53:59 +0000

The structure of advanced societies has drastically changed since the emergence of the Internet. The way in which we communicate and exchange ideas is on completely new platform, one that allows for an increasing amount of individuals to actively participate, communicate and enter the market at a faster pace than at anytime before. In fact, the Internet and its networking tools have shifted democracy to make it essentially more democratic.

What separates this new information platform from its predecessor is the shift of information economies to what Benkler calls ‘non-market’ and ‘decentralized individual action’. This allows for an increasing amount of individuals to cooperate and coordinate through new technologies in order to create change to previously existing systems. These changes increased access of individuals to participate in the market thus, taking it out of the hands of a few. Individual participation in the market allows for individuals to coordinate and cooperate in ways unseen before.

As previously discussed in Shirky’s book, social networking tools such as Twitter, Face book and Flicker, have allowed us to public participate in formally exclusive organizations. Such as journalism, Photography and the News. Increasingly individuals have been creating and displaying their work, ideas, art all over the Internet. Works such as these are made through cooperation of groups and individuals, who were previously excluded from participating on a global scale.

Moreover this new platform offers a significant shift on how not only individuals but also whole societies see themselves. As Benkler states “a dimension of individual freedom as a platform for better democratic participation…and to foster a more critical and self reflective culture…”

This ‘networked information economy’ creates a public that is conscious and self-reflective. The Internet and the information on it have become more transparent, and as a result it allows societies to actively participate

SOCS 300-Promise, Tool, Bargin

shiaili — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:38:19 +0000

“A bargain helps clarify what you can expect of others and what they can expect from you” (Shirky 270). With the multitude of social networking sites that have sprung up recently, the promise of what a tool can do for you may become more and more of a struggle. It all comes down to the audience. How will any new sites peak our interests? You can have the tool, the promise and the bargain and still face an audience that just is not there.

I wonder what the promise is for tools such as Twitter and why it is so successful. What do you expect from others? And what do they expect from you? Much of the information on Twitter is about your day or your life. It is a great tool to keep in touch and speedy way to communicate to others. Yet, the tool has more than updating you on a celebrity or your best friend, it also has the tremendous ability to organize groups of people quickly. It is how the tool works for you that ultimetly defines its promise.

Shirky has a great example on how a social tool such as Wikipedia work with the notion “promise, tool, bargain”.The promise that the site would never go commercial and that it is dedicated to those who participate on the site is integral to its users. Although, Wikipedia is successful in this promise.I often wonder (while reading this book especially) when the advertising of other social tools will become a must. One could make a fortune with these sites! And it would be surprising either. Another domain for adverting online

SOCS-publish then filter with audio podcast

shiaili — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:19:09 +0000

With the use of our new social tools, like Flicker, blogs or Facebook our methods of communication have been fundamentally restructured in ways that have not been seen before. Technologies such as the invention of printing press or the telephone changed the way we communicate and brought us closer together but as Shirky suggests it” put the most expressive power into the hands of the individual (but) it didn’t create an audience” (106). Social tools of the Internet have the ability to create this audience that Shirky speaks of, where everyone has the capability to express and absorb information.

These new communications tools have the ability to challenge the status quo by letting anyone (with a computer) be able to express and share their stories, news or experiences from all over the world to others. Take Alisara Chirapongse from Thailand who blogged about the military coup in Thailand in 2006. Her blog and others were the only news that was coming out to the rest of the world. The power of the media is now in the hands of ordinary citizens, not in the hands of a selected few ‘professional’ journalists.

The ability for social tools to create a larger audience has the possibility for a society to change its social behaviours. It allows for the possibility for a more democratic structuring on how public opinion is expressed. Take the media for example. Now that large groups of people have the ability to post their own news, videos, documentaries and so on, the media is losing its control of power to a large audience of people creating their own news reports. One that may lead to its demise.

I recently saw a film last week called “Burma VJ” on CBC, and it really made me re-think my opinion on the impact of our new social tools. Huge demonstrations were taking place in Burma (Myanmar) in 2007, but as you may know the only news that comes out of Burma is what is created or controlled by the authoritarian government. In the movie a group of Burmese record the violence and the upheaval in Burma and sent their recordings over to Oslo through the Internet. The whole world witnessed what was happening in Burma, images that they had never seen before or did not have access to. And although the demonstrations were violently squashed, what is important is that the violence was witnessed and documented which has subsequently created outrage around the world.

In my own experience, I have been able to communicate with my friends all over the world. Many of which are artists themselves. The Internet, emails, blogs and Skype have allowed me to collaborate artistically, discuss and even have critiques with them. With these tools, ideas and information come together and have the possibility to create a larger artist audience, which I feel is quite essential to the artist community.

Burma vj

shiaili — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:23:21 +0000

I saw this on the passionate eye today. I thought it may be interesting to those in the course…this is the trailer. try to watch the movie. It shows the potential power of our online communites…

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/trailers/article6656145.ece

SOCS 300 week 3!

shiaili — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:45:44 +0000

In Shirky’s third chapter we encounter the breakdown of professionalism in areas such as journalism and photography throughout the growth of the Internet. One of my main concerns while reading this article was how I questioned my own stance on what I thought was more beneficial for society as a whole: mass amateurization or professionalism. One on hand, I find professionalism elitist and hierarchal. Those who write the paper are a small group who control the public’s ideas and opinions. And more often than not is just ONE opinion.

But on the other hand, I find myself questioning the thought of whether mass amateurization is beneficial to us either. We used to receive newspapers daily in the mail. How many people read the news online on a daily basis today? Yes, I sure there are lots, but are there as many as those who used to read the newspaper?

Today, there are millions of sites and blogs that report on the news. How do we decipher what is the truth? There is almost too much information on the web. It’s quite daunting if you think about it. Moreover, I question the public opinion. At least with professionals they were educated and knew what they were speaking about. Now, anyone can write anything and it can be taken as news. I think that the idea that everyone has the ability to express his or her opinion online is a revolutionary thing. I am just concerned as to how we learn to decipher what is news and what is not.

As a photographer I wonder whether sites such as Flicker hinder or help us. Shirky explains that the previous structure that once belonged to the professional photographer has begun to breakdown through shared photography. Although Shirky makes the distinction between the talent of photographers such as Annie Libovitz to the mass amateurization of those on Flicker, I wonder if artists such as Libovitz will become something of the past.

I find that many photographers both resent and praise these photo sharing sites. On the one hand, we can get our work out there, share it amongst ourselves and create discussion .On the other hand, there are so many photos up on these sites that are up there just for fun. I suppose everyone could be a photographer but they won’t necessarily be good ones.I wonder if our skills will be sidelined with the continual development of these social networking sites.