A progressive shutdown, with hope.

This is a reflection of the past 13 weeks of DMC and I suppose I'm required to re-enact my understandings of trust and social media, and realise that I am one half of this technological generational gap that arose in conversation much too often. The truth of this angle is that indeed I have been living all that I express, often not so much on time yet always finding new truth in construction of the what this subject has taught me and what it requested I reflect upon by preparing a weekly blog. I maintain it has been a long running, on-way communication structure, however, it has proven to be one of the most enlightening conversation topic this year. I finally feel as though it is no longer our cohort of fellow media students that are battling the strain of constructivism, privacy, truth and new media. I have found ways to express what I have here to a much broader society, to population I can teach but telling them what I have just learnt. I have found too often that people are open and receptive to this information.

The blogs for me - no matter how daunting the initial process of actually typing one was - became very much ritual and flowing after the first line. Remembering a significant aspect of the time focussed on I was able to pull out personal examples and traits I had accidently discovered along the way of the semester. There were moments of feeling the pressure by fellow students who appeared to have high blogging experience, but there were also those who were very technical with their description. I believe that at the point you over come this threat you are able to produce information that is much friendlier to yourself and your readers.

I dare say it all ends here, that the system closes down, but I have a rather pleasant notion that the start of my blogging life has just begun. The structure of these blogs has allowed for flexibility within a given topic. These specifics allow for a much more in depth insight into a world of something I would have never chosen to begin with.

So I think I will head back to a media topic; before this shuts down, I may just offer a re-boot of the system to see how it goes.

Week 12. I solemnly swear to tell the (whole) truth?

I recently met with a few postgrad friends studying multimedia and we enveloped in to quite a heated discussion about none other then Facebook. One friend (shall be called 'X') was a teacher in the subject he had recently finished and had posted a status regarding how little teaching he was doing during exam time, yet how good the pay still was. Apparently his elder uncle had seen the post and complained about how unprofessional this post was, and in some case how it were possible to somehow be discovered by the Dean of his institution and cause him much trouble. Now X was very much sure with his knowledge that there was no way this could have been possible as there was no linkage with any of his peers at the University therefore no way of tracking down his profile or update. His internet-savvy uncle believed otherwise and claimed he had indeed fired employees in the past when he accidently came across their profiles and found complaints and mockery about their jobs. X was too sure all his privacy settings were in place, and only by choice could people know exactly what he chose to let them know.

Facebook policy (http://www.facebook.com/policy.php) states clearly that you can choose whom has access to the information you post. You are as responsible for it as you are for the details of your life. The policy also clearly outlines what kind of information they do require of you when you first join; compulsory details such as date of birth and gender which you can then choose to display. Facebook has indeed become a network of choice. So how then do you explain why many of it's users still abuse the nature of privacy and disclosing of personal actions and information you wouldn't share in general?

I first look at the listing of general information: music, likes, books, religion, political views. You may initially not see the big deal, but users lend detailed descriptions under these headings, whether honest or honest, they are selling themselves to whom they choose. There is absolutely no obligation to fill these boxes in. There is nothing left to the imagination this way, nothing to learn. So why are people so descriptive and committed to their self-descriptions? Is it if they are meeting new people there is an element of creating something interesting, to explain exactly what kind of person you are? Or is it reassuring your friends that you stand for all things you outline? There are privacy settings, yes, but people aren't maintaining any personal privacy, perhaps because it is simply not a big deal to display religious beliefs, to give away names of all family members, to share the name of a partner, to tell people that your favorite car is a BMW. Why the need to disclose this information if the assumption is that the people connected to your Facebook are your friends anyway?

It is clear to me that people genuinely trust those included in their Facebook lives. Iphone apps now post to Facebook the exact location of where you are at any given time - granted that you allow it to. If you've forgotten who's on your 'friends' list you may just want to think twice posting that you are 'in bed' and disclose your address; because we were so interested in the first place.

Week 11. Obliged to commit?

My job requests of me one of the largest and often misused moral obligations: patient confidentiality. I am a minor part in a massive sector that requires complete and absolute obedience to a strict code of ethics. However, I have no effect on the parties in question; I am the receptionist. And without disclosing too much of my job requirements, I am in all instances the first person in contact with a client before the professional. This to me is the most difficult task. As mediator, I must firstly, without persuasion or opinion, decide on the manner as to which this person can make their first steps towards therapy. There is no signed contract, no legal obligation as I provide no therapeutic advice, my only difficulty is to remain as neutral yet discretely compassionate as I possibly can. This to me is humanistic judgment. Regardless of what an employer has directed me to follow, this behavioral instinct, this trust through a first meeting is trust in the business its self. And in this first instance, I am the business.

So let me ask this. When composing empathetic or sympathetic responses to fellow bloggers, or remarking on disheartening Facebook post, would you first ask 'Why the hell are you making this public' or would you say 'I better tell them what I think' ? Are we suddenly in that instance the mediator of what could possible follow, regardless of how disastrous or successful an outcome may be? I feel as though there arises a moral obligation whereby if you prepare to respond you then have a responsibility to acknowledge that you are then involved. The moment I pick up the phone at work, I am somewhat involved in the clients therapy. When a client walks in I have a moral obligation to confidentiality in any other case because I can recognise who this person is, where they live, where they work etc. And although you may say it doesn't often get this far through social networking, you should think again: this person is aware of your existence, you are aware they exist, you both know how to contact one another, you are aware that you're both floating around in cyber space. Just as easily, they may need you again, and just as easily, you will be found.

Week 10. Why YOU choose to YOUtube

When asked this week to hypothetically construct and conduct a survey on the publics Youtube habits, I strongly felt that there was much reserve when it came to talking about our OWN Youtube habits; almost like a shame or embarrassment. Regardless - as this could merely be my opinion - through further discussion it become obvious that many people knew several reason WHY people accessed Youtube and x-amount of CATEGORIES of videos that could be viewed. Fellow students shared exampled of satiric videos; mocking often serious political issues or rather pointless news. Others mentioned the vast number of slap-stick style videos; purely for entertainment sakes. What also came up were tutorial videos, with everything from hair and makeup tips, to use of software, and to cooking instructions. Youtube is an increasingly complex, yet successful society.

Firstly, I will be open and honest with my fellow bloggers. I am a closet movie trailer fan. I could spend hours on end discovering countless movie trailers for up and coming releases, often even past releases. What I do do most however is share my Youtube experience with friends via Facebook. It is almost natural now if after I have come across a new music video or track release, I copy the url and step two, paste it to a friends wall. Not only am I giving this video new exposure to the 40+ mutual friends we have, but I am also sharing a vital part of my self through the selection of music i post weekly on particular friends Facebook wall, or my own.

If I take myself out of the picture now, it will seem that I am not the only person in the world doing this. Youtube is no longer isolated or platform. Youtube is shared; it is made to be shared. Not internally, but on an external scale. It is discussed in media, discussed in person, it is a groundbreaking phenomenon responsible for creating phenomenon's. Take the sweeping blonde bombshell Justin Bieber for example, Chris Crocker's Leave Britney Alone melt-down (and the parodies to follow), and the heart warming sensation that crossed the world asking "Where the Hell is Matt?". Lives are being effected without the need to leave comfort zones; often other's are doing that for us, yet we give them something in return: acknowledgment.


* Check out the trailer of sweet little Mr. Bieber's up and coming movie, a depiction of his life (incase somebody in the Western world is be living under a rock):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COJCN3Mhr14

*A (very) public melt-down, and it's not actually Britney herself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

*See how many countries you recognize if you can distract yourself away from the most peculiar style dance in "Where the Hell is Matt?" (this is actually a personal favourite I post regularly to remind friends):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY

Week 9. Conversation & Control: Who started what?

We were categorized for class this week. Nothing discriminatory at all, just by our birth month and I evidently fell into group A, being a Summer bloomer it fitted well. Before each group were given a chance to evaluate set literature, we all discussed the one we had in common by Scolari*. What caught my attention about this particular literature was Scolari's particular approach to theories of mass communications surrounding the notion that over time, a paradigm develops in science which encompasses a theory which then gets overthrown by another theory and so on. Interestingly enough, the basis of conversations themselves were also enlightened. There is the impression that conversations are unstructured, free-forming and flowing is undermined by the notion that they actually are new ways of re-arranging ideas and re-interpreting news and answers. Scolari regards conversation as a major approach to media research. Evidently, it appears that by succumbing to be part of certain media, we are ALL participating in one global conversation.

Take fan and discussion pages for instance - and in this case book/novel clubs - fellow readers join to reflect on a literature they have in common. If you follow a discussion, you can define at what point people's moods and views start to change, you can distinguish those that have grasped the story better, who apposed to certain narrative styles and characters. People are voluntarily subjecting themselves to cyber-scrutiny, yet gaining an entrance into a new cyber-dimension where the book becomes the topic of here-say and public opinion. Not only does conversation start to flow off the given topic, it often becomes personalised, excited and exaggerated. It supports this understanding that although we are given the impression that we should be focussed on the given topic, the participants are shaping and shifting the information being processed. The book no longer becomes the item in common; it becomes the reason for this social network.




Here's some terrific examples from my favourite online book club, it's extremely popular and has some great threads. If you're a manic book worm like me, you'll be glued for hours!


Extensive discussion on Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code:

http://forums.onlinebookclub.org/viewtopic.php?t=34

The craze of the Twilight novels vs Harry Potter novels:

http://forums.onlinebookclub.org/viewtopic.php?t=1654

*Scolari, CA 2009, "Mapping Conversations About New Media: The Theoretical Field Of Digital Communication", New Media and Society, vol. 11, no. 6, pp.943--964

Week 8. The 'good ol' days'

I recently stumbled across literature in relation to generational gaps in social media. It was made blatantly clear that this gap is evidence of an elder generation being unable to keep up with habits and preferences of those that are running ahead. We understand that as the predecessors of this current 'digital age' the new technologies they were exposed to wouldn't have been any less quizzical then what is exposed to us now.

Take for example, the mobile phone vs a cordless home phone. One could strut their cordless phone to all private and secluded areas of the home or garden; one was given flexibility. Yet the understanding was it was a communal object. The mobile phone in our understanding, is completely personal. Second, compare the use of e-mail communication vs instant messenger. E-mail's are often extensive, take some thought and care, are private or business matters. Instant messenger immediately feels like a social lubricant, there is no waiting period; you are aware of who is on and you have their (attempted) full attention. These are minor examples of what created 'generations' and what is now causing the 'generational differences' in media usage.

Of course taken largely into account now is the use of social networking sites, and whom makes use of them. I cannot, however, largely discriminate on those that are evidently internet savvy. However, there are many also whom this digital generation has to sit down and count step-by-step the methods to successfully create and maintain a Facebook profile. The only problem then - in many cases I'm sure - is please I beg of you, do NOT complain about how intrusive it feels.



* Buckingham, D & Willet R 2006, Digital Generations: Children, young people, and new media, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., New Jersey

Week 7: Picture me, picture you...

We should all be aware that photographs are a large component of out social networking lives, whether our own or desired images that represent our character in one strange way or another. So when we were asked to bring in photographs of our self to class during this week, it was suprising to see shy reactions and in general people that had forgotten photos or were reluctant to share them with a group. Why this was surprising is because the understanding is that we are all public people, willing and happy to share a little bit of our life. However, i understand where my idea may falter. Our class is not a large group of 'acquainted' people, we are not accepted 'friends', some of us are merely class mates. There is a lack of intimacy here.

However, in relation to the class, these images were part of the the 'self' image discussion; recognising the self and identify the ways of expression of the self. What I propose is really how revealing a photograph can be. Can one be breached of individual privacy rights through the exposure of a single photo of themselves. How will it be that if a photo is accidently given away, that any person will identify all your intimate details? ( this is something the individual should control themselves ie. provocative photo's etc) 

What new generations of bloggers and social networkers are supporting seems to be a freedom of expression in terms of the 'self'. They will aim for the most interesting and intriguing photo, perhaps capturing exciting moments, painting a small glimpse into the life you need permission to enter. As few bloggers will offer small snippets, tiny little sparks of intimate detail, before you are trusted enough to then receive more then you had bargained for. Beware.