SurveyMonkey

I recently created a survey in order to analyze the perception that my friends and the general population on facebook have regarding social media.

These are the questions: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/82QDN7W

The responses I received were somewhat disappointing, yet humorous. It turns out that there are certain individuals out there who use social media because "everyone crowds there like sardines" and to "tune bitches". All responses were quick to admit that they rely on social media and use it everyday, because they "flipping love it". 60% of the participants believe that social media is not safe, especially when "holding onto a tree with one hand", but on a more serious note, because even privacy settings can't always protect you. The other 40% of the participants did not feel threatened by social media; one reasoned that "there is very little chance it will impregnate me", whilst another (somewhat to my concern) saw himself as more of a threat to social media, than social media to himself. The youtube clip didn't change anybodies opinion on their perception of the safety of social media, due to the fact that one participant does not believe that google will change the chances of him being impregnated and therefore his safety is not compromised, another participant admitted that he "couldn't be bothered" to watch it, and most interestingly, because another believes that he is the antichrist - not google. Lastly, 100% of the participants had previously had a myspace and/or MSN account, but have all discontinued using them because they feel as though these social media platforms are "ghey", "outdated", and "annoying".

In conclusion, perhaps surveys are not too successful when used in the realm of social media, and I think it is unlikely that these responses will help me with my assignment.

Week 4 Lecture: Cyberspace and Cyberpunk

Cyberwhat!?

Prior to this weeks lecture, I had never heard of the term 'cyberpunk'. So I decided to dig into the topic a little, and learn more about this futuristic style of communication. The term was originally coined by author Bruce Bethke who used it as the title of his 1983 novella. The name suggests a fusion between two things: cybernetics and punk. Cybernetics, as defined by professor Michael O'Callaghan, is;

"The science of communication and control. It maps the pathways of information by which systems may either be regulated from outside, or regulate themselves from within. The science thus has two main branches: the first one deals with the control of machines, and led to the development of things like computers, automatic navigation systems for spacecraft, guided nuclear missiles, and so-called "smart" weapons. ... The second branch deals with the more complex control processes through which self-organising biological and social systems regulate themselves and adapt to the environment on which their survival depends" (as cited in Umpleby 2000).

Punk, on the other hand, is a loud, fast and anarchist-advocating style of music with a "seize the day" approach to life, represented in bands such as Pussy Riot and Sex Pistols. With these two elements combined, cyberpunk came as a shock to audiences who were used to the sheltered and predominantly safe storylines of "space opera", such as Star Wars (Stockwell 2012).

The uniqueness of cyberpunk is found through the gritty aesthetics, technologically advanced material, questionable morality, and its amalgamated genre that combines detective fiction, film noir, sci-fi and literary postmodernism (Stockwell 2012).

Although I am still new to this concept of cyberpunk, I can appreciate it as a science and an art form. I like that it challenges the ideologies of its viewers, and also the systems within society. It is good to keep this generation on their feet, questioning their surroundings, government, and standards that they live by (although I do not necessarily agree with the morality portrayed in cyberpunk). But what I do agree with is the cyberpunk notion to always search for the truth, which is evident in movies such as The Matrix. Striving to find truth in this world that is a labyrinth of lies, manipulation and deceit is an asset that is becoming increasingly rare; just look at the newspapers... We should all know by now not to take what is written, especially about celebrities for example, at face value...

References

Umplyby, S 2000, Defining Cybernetics, viewed 6 September 2012, <http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundations/definitions.htm>

Stockwell, S 2012, A Brief History of Computing and the Internet, Griffith University Lecture, unpublished

5 Key Moments in the History of Cyberpunk

This is a timeline I created to give some insight into how cyberpunk evolved:

http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/key-moments-in-cyberpunk--7

CyberReality

As technology continues to advance, the tangible world is slowly seeping into a 'virtual reality' - an artificial means of transmitting reality (Strickland 2007). I remember as a kid loving to go outside and play soccer, but nowadays, it's probably more popular to play soccer as a video game. Everybody in the Western world uses a computer, and the days of pen and paper are becoming more and more extinct. Video games, computers, phones, television, radio and basically any technological platform used to communicate information is a virtual reality, and its popularity growth has been exponential in the last century, especially the last decade (Strickland 2007).

Cyberspace is a factor that exists within virtual reality - it refers to the realm of computer networking and metaphorically "gives the sense of a social setting that exists purely within a space or representation and communication" (Slater 2002).

William Sherman and Alan Craig's book 'Understanding Virtual Reality' explains the confusing relationship between the two much more clearly. Cyberspace, he explains, is "a location that exists only in the minds of the participants, often as a result of technology that enables geographically distant people to interactively communicate" (2003, p. 17). Cyberspace is therefore a social interaction that requires mental immersion between people, whereas virtual reality is a sensory immersion that is "not necessarily among multiple people, but rather between a person and a [computer-mediated] virtual world (which may not include other people)" (Craig, Sherman 2003, p. 23).

However, these elusive concepts are becoming more real in western culture and everyday life. Everyday life used to consist of the 'mundane' and the 'traditional', and cyberspace and virtual reality was an exciting new world that was apart from reality... But now, cyberspace has shaped and become our reality for communication, and western culture would not have advanced without it.

References

Craig, A & Sherman, W 2003, Understanding Virtual Reality, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Fransisco

Slater, D 2002, Social Relationships and Identity Online and Offline, viewed 6 September 2012, <http://www.dourish.com/classes/readings/Slater-SocialRelationshipsIdentity.pdf>

Strickland, J 2007, How Virtual Reality Works, viewed 6 September 2012, <http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/virtual-reality.htm>

Week 3 Lecture: A Brief History of Computing and the Internet

Apple Inc. is the company that has revolutionized the world of computing technology. It is famous for it's product lines such as the iPods, iPhones, Macintosh computers, and most recently the iPad. As of 2011, the annual revenue for Apple Inc. is over $100 billion, and it is the largest technology firm in the world (Dernbach 2011). So how did it become so successful?

Before Apple came into existence, IBM had produced the first commercial computers in the 1950's; large, expensive and unwieldily machines for military, government and corporate work. Computers were not exposed to the public until the Xerox PARC released the Altair 8800 in 1975; still a highly dysfunctional computer that was only adopted by tech-savvy hobbyists with a large degree of commitment (Stockwell 2012). At this stage, co-founders of Apple Inc., Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, created the first Apple computer in 1976 in their garage. Their dream was to create and sell the first self-contained PC for people who weren't tech-savvy, and that they most certainly did. After the production of the Apple II in 1978, dealers and distributors were marveled at the design and engineering of what would soon skyrocket and encapture 50% of the consumer market share (Stockwell 2012). Since then, Apple went through a rocky period in the market when Steve Jobs left the company in 1985 to start his own, but since his return in 1996, and his brilliant adaption of his own invented software into the technology, Apple has been an unstoppable force within the market because of it's sheer innovation, brilliance, and ease of use.

So are we to thank Steve Jobs for all these advances in technology? Or was there bound to be another creative genius around the corner? Steve Wolfram, founder of and CEO of Wolfram research in America, alludes to the idea that we are to thank Jobs for where technology is; “At the high end of innovative human achievement, the details never repeat; that’s what defines the innovation”. However, he goes on to state “that in at least a fair fraction of civilizations, people with these attributes will occasionally emerge,” suggesting that every once in a while, another Jobs will rise up and change the course of technology advancement (as cited in Van Grove 2011). Personally, I can't wait to see what is in store for civilization next...

References

Dernbach, C 2011, Mac History, viewed 4 September 2012, <http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2011-01-24/the-history-of-the-apple-macintosh>

Stockwell, S 2012, A Brief History of Computing and the Internet, Griffith University Lecture, unpublished

Van Grove, J 2011, Will There Ever Be Another Steve Jobs?, viewed 6 September 2012, <http://mashable.com/2011/10/08/another-steve-jobs/>

Goodbye Napster

Napster was an internet peer-to-peer file sharing service, that specialized in sharing audio MP3 files, especially music. It provided a platform where users could easily share their music and download other people's music directly between each other (Cross, Wilson, Walsh, Coen, Smith 2003). Music-lovers regarded it as a music search engine, because it's popularity meant that it had nearly every song in existence. Its main attraction was to college students, who would use it to download music for free. Napster peaked in February 2011 with 26.4 million users. Shortly after, however, it was shut down by court order due to copywrite violations, and many bands and artists like Metallica and Dr Dre pursued legal action also (Lipsman 2001).

Although Napster was shut down, its legacy continues to live on because of its huge influence on the way people use technology to download music for free. Michael Gartenberg, research director at Jupiter Research, said that "Napster may be gone but the legacy that it left behind was millions of users who were exposed to the concept of P-to-P networks. The genie is out of the bottle" (Pruit 2002).  It was the cornerstone for peer-to-peer music sharing, and since it's time, even more formidable music sharing platforms have arisen, such as Kazaa and Limewire. Kazaa emerged in March 2001, and has survived all the way until it's shutdown last month. With a total of 140 million users around the world, and its ability to share not only mp3 files, but also movies, videos and entire CD box sets (Pruit 2002), it is clear that Napster has paved the way for the future of free media on the internet.

References

Cross, S; Wilson, E; Walsh, A; Coen, D; Smith, C 2003, Napster, viewed 1 September 2012, <http://ntrg.cs.tcd.ie/undergrad/4ba2.02-03/p4.html#ANapsterTimeline>

Lipsman, A 2001, Global Napster Usage Plummets, But New File-Sharing Alternatives Gaining Ground, Reports Jupiter Media Metrix, viewed 1 September 2012, <http://web.archive.org/web/20080413104420/http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?id=249>

Pruit, S 2002, Napster's Legacy Lives On, viewed 4 September 2012, <http://www.pcworld.com/article/104762/napsters_legacy_lives_on.html>

Week 2 Lecture: Are We Communication?

It's interesting to see how the definition of communication has evolved. Two and a half thousand years ago, communication, as defined by Aristotle, was a simple model: "The speaker produces a message that is heard by the listener". This model however assumes several things; the speaker himself creates the message that is heard, the listener receives the message first-hand (face to face), the listener interprets the same meaning as the speaker, and that communication is audible only. Two and a half thousand years later, we have discovered communication to be something vastly complex and constantly evolving. Nowadays, communication has been intricately modeled as, "The speaker produces an effect on the transmitter which sends a message (which is degraded by the noise of the transmission process) that is intercepted by the receiver which converts it into an effect that is heard by the listener" by Shannon and Weaver in their book 'The Mathematical Theory of Communication'. This model takes into account the complexities of intersubjectivity and intertexuality; where the listener's interpretation is beheld to the parameters of his own experiences (Glynn, 1998), and where all messages sent by the communicator gain their meaning from past texts that relate, therefore no message is ever complete in itself (Chandler, 1994).

Just when you think that the definition of communication can't possibly get any more complex; I would unfortunately like to suggest that indeed, it does. There are several factors such as tone, body language, and context that can completely change the meaning of something being communicated (Krow, 2012). Even the words we say over facebook can carry a tone, with our manipulation of grammar to do so. Talking to friends in person as compared to over facebook and texting has taught me how easy it is for messages to become misinterpreted through technology. However, as the Shannon and Weaver model suggests, we do not have control over the interpretation that the receiver deciphers, therefore we constantly need to make wise choices and learn to communicate everything with clarity to try avoid misinterpretation that is so common with these new communication technologies.

References

Chandler, D 1994, Semiotics For Beginners, viewed 15 August 2012, <http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem09.html>

Glynn, S 1998, Identity, Intersubjectivity, and Communicative Action, viewed 15 August 2012, <http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cult/CultGlyn.htm> 

Krow, S 2012, Factors That May Affect Effective Communication, viewed 30 August 2012, <http://www.ehow.com/info_8131861_factors-may-affect-effective-communication.html>