M5.2

http://getglue.com/andrewpause

I was able to check in on GetGlue 6 times during this assignment. This under-represents my media consumption as I enjoy a lot of media via YouTube and Twitch.tv (which are not represented on GetGlue), much more in fact when compared to my consumption of traditional media such as television.

My overall impression of GetGlue was strange. It seems to me that GetGlue isn't really providing any service or real value at all, rather trying to create from kind of cultural capital in television, sports and film interactions between consumers. I didn't get much out of using GetGlue besides knowing that dividing my attention between media and the second screen of GetGlue takes away from my experience with the media I'm consuming in the first place.

It probably has some value to advertisers and producers for promotions. Besides this, all GetGlue seems to do is allow you to connect with other viewers online around the context of something like a fan club. Now, if you're asking me how I feel that might be valuable I'd say it does have some. Connecting people is always worth something. Besides that social value there is of course value to advertisers.

As users join they are encouraged to connect with others they may already know via Facebook, Twitter, etc. to build an immediate network. Then users are asked to select an amount of television programs, sports and movies to build an interest base, which then GetGlue uses to funnel more similar media to the user. From this point, the user is free to engage in interactions with other GetGlue users who share similar tastes in media. Many of these steps and other interactions are also fueled by a rewards system, stickers displayed on your account of your task of clicking on ten television shows you like, for example.

Personally, no, I didn't feel anymore engaged during my experience using GetGlue along side my television viewing. bit.ly/1mXYxWw  This link was also posted to my COMM 2P00 Twitter as part of discussion this module and I think it rings true, especially for myself. It is clear the vast majority does not care to engage in their consumption of media that GetGlue caters to. I believe this is largely do to the passive nature of consuming television, sports and movies.

The usual passive audience is definitely re-framed as more active and encouraged to engage through GetGlue. This is largely based on checking in to whatever media one may be consuming at that particular point in time. Part of what drives this motivation are the stickers offered  to GetGlue users for participation and interaction with other users. As far as I can't see this operates like a standard merit system. You get a few of the easy stickers, the low hanging fruit and as to you progress with more check ins and other interactions more prestigious stickers are awarded. I view this as a treadmill model that seems to be more and more consistent in participatory media. The treadmill model in action almost always goes like this; User A see's locked sticker "Super Awesome Sticker #1" either on another users account or elsewhere and proceed to unlock it, which will be relatively easy at first, then of course they spot "Super Awesome Sticker #2" which is a little bit harder of course but nothing they can't handle. Depending on the quality of the treadmill design this can go on for quite sometime, if not indefinitely, before one realized they've spent hours upon hours of their time hunting down virtual stickers.

http://mashable.com/2012/10/01/once-upon-a-time-getglue-record/

Here is a clear example of the increasing success of GetGlue's business model. Regardless of the fact that some will choose to no engage in their media consumption but rather just consume and leave it at that. Others are either seeking or engaging for the sake of engaging over their favorite media. I suspect GetGlue will continue to grow and more records for interaction within the company will be set. I'm curious though, if say one could access Twitters analytics, what would be the difference in interaction between a more popular and established social media platform such as Twitter when compared with a more focused one like GetGlue.

http://mashable.com/2013/11/06/i-tv-acquires-getglue/

For even more proof of success here is GetGlue moving up to the big leagues. Someone must either believe this is the future of television, sports and movies or (and what I really think) someone needs this to be the future of television, sports and movies. In order to extract more ad time and therefore cents per viewer, social media platforms centered around popular media are being acquired by the industry.

M5.1

In the past year I've consumed and engaged with a myriad of media and in a range between (seemingly) original content all the way to complete mash-ups of music and different types of film. I'd have to say the most would be YouTube and Twitch TV, I even run a separate weekly blog of my YouTube finds which I guess is a mash-up in itself (http://pause-youtubular.blogspot.ca/) which would count towards my online production. It would also be in addition to activity on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube itself. Most contribution to these latter three is in the form of comments/posts, likes and retweets, always some form of commentary on whatever the subject matter happens to be. The kind of ground level interaction that these new types of media so easily allows is something that attracts me to participate. Before any internet like technologies I can imagine it being fairly daunting and it being much more of a take to write into a newspaper or magazine. Even then your contributions are easily ignored. While with digital media, whether intentional or not, somebody will read your opinion if it is online. My only inhibitions are towards being more of a voice that a critic online. Such as a focused contribution like a blog, YouTube channel, Twitter account, etc, dedicated to a specific area of interest.

In my opinion many of them are already doing it. Considering Twitter, it is kind of an open platform if you think about it. Anyone can make an account and choose to use this platform in a number of ways. Some ways may be more successful than others but even those conditions for success are socially constructed, lending Twitter to be very socially fluid, perhaps more so than some could be in a real world situation. Everyone can have a soapbox to stand on.

Social platforms such as Twitter are approaching a point that we cannot see beyond when it comes to copyright. Many laws crafted to impose more enforced laws into the realm of the internet are being struck down and remade often. I believe it is only a matter of time before enforced copyright makes its way into the internet. It is very hard to say what could happen beyond this point. One way I like to picture it going is similarly to the plot of the film The Matrix. Once copyright (The Matrix) infiltrates the internet (Zion) Neo is given a choice, reset The Matrix or stand and fight. In this instance I think (like in the movie) The Matrix will have to reset a few times until the right Neo comes along. That reset being the abandonment of the internet we know today and the birth of a new, probably encrypted, internet. Can you tell I enjoy sci-fi? :)

M4.2

I’m going to take the position here that yes, I do feel compelled to communicate using present day mobile technologies and apps, but something about it just doesn’t seem right, I don’t particularly like it, and I especially don’t like where this practise of so many of us is potentially headed, while addressing what we can do to direct our own path.

Regardless of what I may think, I see many people merrily playing the part of the digital locus as Josgrillberg from his reading explains. I see these locus experience life through theirs mobile devices... and that has to be ok, do what you will, its your life, etc. But, considering the scale at which this behavior is breeding it is beginning to affect MY social life. When everywhere I turn everyone is safely perched behind a 4 inch screen. I has definitely changed how we all interact socially. It has almost become a socially awkward action to have a simple conversation with a stranger for the sake of it. I find myself seeking out to our elders, those born well before a time when iPhones existed for these types of interactions. Which has proven to be very insightful, but that is a blog for another time.

The Goggin reading lends much to the positive role of mobile technology and how its expanding our productivity in a sense. Goggin also says this technology has become a culture unof of itself. But it is specifically HOW this technology is used that I think really determines the culture. That being said, what this technology is producing in terms of cultural assets is so very well meaning but becomes ultimately vain and fleeting. With so many social media outlets FILLED with blogs and articles about how to look, what to think and what to feel. Now, we all learn these things socially anyways, but in the days before the internet much of this was learned through real life interactions. Ones with consequences, ones that taught real lessons and provided more opportunity to grow and learn.

Campbell and Park’s take on the changes of personal and private spaces is very noteworthy considering the changes they implicate to the social landscape entirely. They speak of the wide use of mobile devices as a change to the existing social environment rather than the creation of a new one. This does not sit so well. I would much rather this space be its own entity than change the social existence for so many people. What I worry about most is that such absorption into this culture, that encroaches most on our spare and free moments will sap us not only from the conversations with our fellow man, but more importantly and much more tragically, the conversations with ourselves. However, Campbell and Park seem confident that the forecast is good and we shouldn't be as concerned as I am. I can only hope that it move towards more true connections through technology, there is hope.

With all the information from the readings we’re better off not being so rash or quick to judge and accept this change in our social environment. And grow with it, it is obvious that there is much change still ahead and change we can constantly influence. While I might not like it now, its up to me to take a quote of Gandhi to heart and be the change I’d like to see in the world. This kind of thinking I must credit to a favorite author and philosopher of mine, Alain de Botton. He explains in a recent blog by him (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/30/how-to-be-smart-on-twitter.html) that specifically twitter, but I will extrapolate to the greater social media landscape, is highly maleable by us, its users. He has taken the steps to simply start using twitter to his own ends. This is the major take away I want to leave with those who read this post. Social media technology can be an extension of our social lives, and it is up to us to police it. So I encourage users to be vigilant with themselves. Know when and when not to turn to the vast array of social media tools. Participate only in the ones that matter in the long run. And, embrace and learn from those who do. So, I borrow again from the thought of another philosopher, Alan Watts, he would likely agree that the men and women choosing to live outside a life of the digital social realm should be held at a high regard. They chose not to participate and see much of the frivolous uses of modern mobile technology as a game. Which is fine of course, as long as we can remember this fact and know when to put it down.

M4.1

We very much are both enabled and constrained by new mobile communication technology. Just this morning I was reading through a particularly hilarious AskReddit post on instances of extreme laziness and many of them involved use of mobile technology. For example, searching for an online textbook instead of getting the same textbook from the next room and downloading a movie that is on dvd in the basement, instead of actually going to get it. In a strange and funny way access to cellphones, laptops and wifi enable us to be that much more “effective”. I believe the constraint comes with time, when such behaviors become chronic for instance one extreme case in the same string of responses on Reddit was someone who spent an entire three day weekend in bed with nothing else but several bags of sour cream and onion chips, only leaving the confines of their bed twice to urinate. Sounds incredibly boring pre 1995, but in this day and age it is clearly plausible. Beyond this instance, behaviors such as this left unchecked can lead to some serious isolation issues. As many of the readings explain, this technology and its usage changes how we interact with each other.

Our access to almost anything online has affected how I communicate. I do my best to maintain a constant persona across all realms of communication, however, the anonymity offered by internet communication has created some foul beasts of men and women. The technology itself lends me to follow a path of least resistance, usually texting and ignoring most calls from strange numbers. Choice in who you communicate with is complicated. Depending on who is on Facebook or not, for me, is a significant factor in keeping in touch with many friends. Using myself as an example, If certain friends of mine do not use Facebook I can expect significant strain on those relationships, while it is much easier to at least maintain a connection via Facebook. Because of this I’ve made an effort to participate in many different social media technologies to keep these connections. Not because I feel a need to be a part of the technology or have that online persona to the world. I just want to maintain connections.

In my youth I was tasked with explaining this phenomenon of texting over calling to a couple senior citizens and we both left the conversation confused. Them still wondering why youth today insists on such a muted method of communication when a call takes a similar amount of effort and I wondering just the same. Yet my cohort still does it, and its even grown in a sense. Facebook and Instagram personas are particularly fascinating and definitely propagate the “need” to communicate and not just through texting, your whole life must now be displayed online and its all very much keeping up with the Joneses. I really do not like it at all yet grossly attached to it like so many others because we’ve all adopted it so wholeheartedly. I want to end saying how strange I think this attachment is, and in the back of my head I want to throw it all out and experience life face-to-face, but I can help but to think what I'd be missing out on.

M3.2

http://www.pinterest.com/ahhsity/what-does-it-mean-to-be-human-in-the-information-a/

I chose my pins from the widest variety of iterations of interpretations of the information age and living in it. From its strengths to its weaknesses. A pin regarding the phenomenon of micro-blogging limiting short bursts of information to 140 characters or less is an interesting one, one I think is neither a good or bad thing, merely a product of the information age's evolution, there is clearly more in store here. A clear weakness would be misuse of this same widespread and interconnected micro-blogging platform that lends itself to misinformation that can spread like wild fire and leave real social issues in the dust and priorities misplaced. Ethics is an issue in the information ages they is rarely mentioned, however, one I believe needs much more attention and implementation into how we conduct ourselves online should we continue to move towards heavy communication in digital media and information. In telling this story of kinds of right and wrongs in our journey through the information age it is nice to be grounded in some humor, so I included the following comic strip.

Which I thinks paints a funny yet frightening and accurate picture of how wrapped up we can get in these technologies that affect how we live our lives. An interesting emergence of the information age has been the spawn of its own currency, the Bitcoin. How it works exactly is still very shrouded, however the pin does provide some background. More good sides I've pinned are the gamification of learning, the impact of visual representations over textual and the hashtag which all lend to a positive future. But, I contrast this with two more pins stating a wariness over one's online identity and it permanence as well as a lag in businesses adoption of new means of interaction with its customer bases... which maybe isn't all that bad.

M3.1

The information age, coming after the industrial age, moves value in real (manual) labour and real products having real value into an age where information and knowledge is commodified. In the reading the information in education is under attack. What was once a basic human right like clean drinking water is now being commodified and privatized. In this age labour is centered around information as well, while most industrial tasks not yet overcome by technology by means of robotics and other automation are sent overseas to less developed nations. Labour remaining in North America comprises mostly of tasks in management, marketing, and others in the realm of ICT. This age is not without its downfalls, specifically leaving behind those without access or training to participate using ICT.

Technology largely serves the political economy’s of governments and multinational corporations to maintain a hegemony. Just like anything else these technologies can be bought and sold and can generate income. Although not always electronic or digital, throughout the ages this has been the case when it comes to technology that its owners or controllers are at the throne of massive influence. So it is clear, the power is in the ownership here, usually the ones first up to bat as technology emerges. A companies like Microsoft and Google influence the political economy greatly as they are key in the shift from a point in history of an age of manufacturing to a post-industrial society. They emerged to fill technological requirements, and this is true of all technology. Most all technologies emerge as solutions to issues within a political economy, from the discovery of fire to the iPhone. Not all emerging technology has to be sold or used in some political or economic fashion. Fredrick Banting who discovered insulin as a treatment of diabetes gave it away freely to the world, even when he was entitled to patenting his discovery and charging a premium on its use.

Considering control and ICTs, it's clear they've been come major socializing agents but who is their master? Are we, the people, in control of technology as it emerges? Shaping it and bending it to our will? Or, is there a puppet master behind the curtain? Much like news media and its ever-controversial biases I believe ICTs are subject to the same fate. They are all in fact owned by someone or some business entity. And, each and all of them have their own vision for the future of technology and the age of man. Usually involving them making a buck or two in the process.

Wrapping things up here, its clear ICTs have a massive influence over society and CAN alter the future, however, emerging ICTs are as we all know, largely social. In a sense, this leaves the power in the hands of the collective users. We have a choice to step back and not be marketed to. What is particularly insane are the measures one has to go through to obtain such technological freedom of influence.Take the TOR network for example, which has received some media attention lately. The TOR network is like the underground railroad of the internet, and was created by some to escape much of the surveillance of the so-called “surface level” of the internet. Such as Facebook, Google, etc. Remember what I said before about technology emerging as necessary, to fill some type of need? The very fact that the TOR network exists is testament to the control of modern day ICTs.

M2.2

There are many ways, I find, in which people negotiate their public and private personae online. As if participants have different levels of comfort as to what they share or don't share online. Some look to not participate at all while others are fully involved in an online display of themselves. The bell curve puts the majority within having a moderate participation in social surveillance due to rising social expectation. And with this rise in expectation there comes a fading of privacy implications.

Anders Albrechtslund of firstmonday.org, in his article describing participatory surveillance in online social networking is highly accurate in his description of the current online culture as a hierarchical panopticon. Traditionally a panopticon would be seen in the physical world as a kind of structure wherein a single person could reach a wide audience efficiently due to their equal perspective of them. Albrechtslund tacks on a hierarchy as he moves this concept into the digital realm of social media which I think is accurate. Online in social media each person is his or her own panopticon, however, each is not created equal. There are those who share almost every aspect of their real lives, like a new breed of celebrity.

Whats more is when I consider that in this digital realm we still live in an age of capitalism and even though our panopticon isn't a real structure it is still owned by companies such as Facebook and Twitter who hold great influence and power over their users just through ownership, Cohen, author of The Valorization of Stirveillance warns. A further example of this power can be thought of and conceptualized in this fact, popular free picture texting app Snapchat is now valued at around $500 million USD for an app with no revenue. This is solely due to the prospect of future monetization.

Websites and apps such as Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat are merely platforms for living a digital life and just as in real life your social circles are in flux either at your will or not. In my online life I choose to lean towards more disclosure online and I find myself doing it as more of a going-with-the-flow than anything. This social digital world becomes strikingly similar to the real social world. With this similarity considered I believe room for managing anonymous digital lives is shrinking and the social expectation of having an online persona, one that is true to the self, is increasing.