roadtorisveglio

[roadtorisveglio]

The Deep Fake Phenomena

- Britt Paris & Joan Donovan-

In the chapter by Britt Paris and Joan Donovan “Deep Fakes and Cheap Fakes”,the spectrum between these two is considered. What this fakes refer to are images or videos that have been manipulated and therefore seem realistic causing problems with evidence and fake news. Through several tools and techniques people can alternate original versions and change the sounds, dates, and context. This process began by graphic designers. Later on, NVIDIA became the market leader of what Paris and Donovan call “ graphic processing units” and production as they are the company that holds the tools and technology to create deep fakes. Even though this process once began for experts only, now amateurs can play along and create as well. IN fact, the authors set up a spectrum of well done and what techniques were used to distinguish a cheap fake from a deep fake. For example, one of the easiest methods of manipulation can be changing the date of a photo or a video. If it is sensitive information, date and context will be essential and could cause problems if altered. On the other hand, there has been manipulation of videos where they completely change what the person has said making it look extremely realistic. This takes lots of expertise and tools. The authors mention “ digital rotoscoping” as a method to produce similar effects to those of deepfakes projection. Nowadays we have various apps that have similar tools. Some of these are tiktok or snapchat that through filters manipulate image and sound. Paris and Donovan mention that “By using lookalike stand-ins, or relabeling footage of one event as another, media creators can easily manipulate an audience’s interpretations.”, this could happen through even the most simplistic apps. Therefore, the danger of manipulation of content can have in more technological platforms increases.

So what is the issue with deep fakes? First of all, they have caused severe issues when used for political reasons. The manipulation of videos can be so real that videos of fake speeches can become viral in minutes breaking people’s reputations. For example, the former president of the USA, Barack Obama has been subject to several of this videos. In many cases they have become troublesome due to the type of language and statements he “makes” towards other political candidates. If people are not aware of this technology they might be easily fooled by these videos. Even the videos that are made solely for fun can become an issue. In the case of evidence, deep fakes are problematic since it's often hard to distinguish the truth from the manipulated versions. Through technology, evidence seemed to be objective, for example camaras would show what happened better than people who were being interrogated. However, now since you can manipulate videos and photos, authorities can’t fully rely on digital evidence.

A video aired by Buzzfeed in 2018 showcased the danger of deep fakes. This video which has now reached over 7.5 million views introduced Jordan Peel impersonating Obama, calling Trump insulting names. The video was able to explain how this alterations work in a humorous and transparent way. Indeed, it explained how nowadays you can’t rely on what you see online, since it might have been manipulated

#Youtube

[roadtorisveglio]

Miller uses his chapter to talk abouts Len Manovich’s analysis on digital media. He focuses on 5 principles that make digital media different. These five are: numerical representation, automation, modularity, transcoding, and variability. He depicts the difference from analogue media to digital one. For example, a key difference is how easily you can manipulate digital media since all media is made up of numerical representation. What this means is that in the digital world, content is written in binary code, therefore it is much easier to alternate or copy. Another key element of digital media is automation. Automations refers to the ability to have little to no human intervention, meaning machines do most of the work. This goes hand in hand with numerical representation as software can easily change things and provide you with an automated service. Automation comes with the assumption that there is already big amounts of information and you just have to invoke them. However, since digital media works through algorithms the experience we get is not really unique. Algorithms manipulate the results that you get online in order to benefits certain engines or companies. Therefore, through algorithms and automations humans are left with no true choices. Indeed, because of digital media we are faced with an illusion of choice as we think we have full control of our actions online, however they are deeply influenced by algorithms. Similarly, this is something that Manovich realizes when analyzing digital media. Similarly, Miller explains how due to automation “automation removes human intentionality in the creative process”. Because of automation human can rarely give their input or make their own decisions online. Our online experience has been previously crafted and not at all unique.

I found it especially interesting how in class we mentioned how now a days it is extremely hard to create original content. As of now, everything has already been thought of. Therefore, there is a new emphasis on curation and remixing of content that has been already created. I found an announcement on facebook by the website “Bored Panda”, that stated “Museums Ask People To Recreate Famous Paintings At Home”. Basically the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles asked people to bring their creative side out and recreate famous art pieces with three objects they found at home. I found this to be a perfect example of how in today’s culture interaction and participation is encouraged. In this way, not only did the musuem bring more exposure to their channels but created a viral challenge. After this first challenge, other museum around the world are asking their followers to participate in similar ways. For example, the Pinchuk Art Centre in Kyiv, Ukraine has followed their lead.

Digital Media—

[roadtorisveglio]

Google’s True Nature-

Christian Fuchs discusses several aspects of the massive platform that is google in his book: Social media : a critical introduction. Google who for yeara had “dont be evil” as their motto, might be indeed an unethical company. Google which is usually thought to be a user friendly and helpful search engine has great issue underneath their positive facade. In fact, billions of people use google without ever thinking on what is truly happening inside the company. Fuch reveals these secrets as he touches topics such google’s political economy, playbour, and privacy issues. For starters, Fuch brings up the issue of how profit is distributed in Google, as 70% of the company is completely owned by only three people that claim to have a modest salary. Throughout the chapter we learn that there is a huge power gap between high ranked workers, ceos, and other workers. In the video created by Andrew Norman Wilson, he talks about how depending on the color of your badge you get to access certain benefits in the Googleplex offices. He also explains how certain workers have very little benefits in the company. Moreover, he notices how the people with the less benefits and lowest ranked jobs are mostly minorities. It is evident that Google is not as egalitarian as we might think. Google has worked extremely hard on portraying itself as a fun company, even the Googleplex seems like a dream office. in 2005 Kucklich used the word “playbor” to define a type of work that doesn't fit the traditional idea of work nor leisure, this term can be easily applied to the googleplex. For example, google had a policy where they provide their workers with 20% of free time for them to create and invent new things. Workers might think that google cares about their free time and hobbies however this is not the true motive for the policy. Indeed, the issue is that whatever idea comes up out of this is then monetized by google.Therefore, they pretend to be encouraging creativity when the final end is always money. Lastly, another issue to consider is google’s privacy policies. Google has become a data saving machine. Everything you look for is later conserved to provide you with targeted advertisement. This privacy infringements have caused great problems for the company. The european union has already passed new policies to regulate it.

Recently I saw in the news how the software company “vital” came up with an app to deal with the COVID19 virus. They have made the app a symptom-checker and it has mainly been used in Oregon. The company has stated that apart from providing the service they can also sell information regarding locations and personal info. This information would be specifically used for personalized advertisements. This is a great example of how when you get a free service users are usually being commodified. Moreover, it showcases how technology has become completely capitalistic. This new app was supposed to be helping people identify their symptoms in order to see if they need medical help. However, the motives behind the company are to use the info provided to then bombard users with advertisement. Lastly, this app is a great example of technological solutionism as they find a technological way to manage a real life crisis. The creators of the app were convinced that their app could help hospitals manage the number of patients they had in a better manner. However, they did so while searching for other ways to monetize the crisis.

[roadtorisveglio]

The Science of Virality

Continuing our discussion on memes from the previous post, in the next chapters, Limor Shifman explains how interaction and participation takes place with already existing memes. She claims memes have three dimensions that can be further imitated. These categories are content, form, and stance. Form refers to the visual aspect of the meme, content to the message and convey, and finally stance refers to the attitude and position taken by the creator regarding a specific topic. Usually, memes that provoked the creation of parodies are memes that imitate form and manipulate stance and content. In fact, most memes are created based on previously viralized memes. We as users often overlook the deep messages memes hold within the them and understand them as just humorous messages. However, a meme can say a lot about what your attitude and position towards an event or an specific argument. Since we all share different opinions memes call for participation and addition. We feel free to make our own and interact with them imitation whichever dimension we like the most. Therefore, memes are a great example of the key elements of the participatory web, as well as read and write culture since we are not just a passive audience but play a role as well.

Furthermore, Limor Shifman focuses on what makes memes viral and whether there is a difference between memetic content and viral content. She realized that in most cases for something to become memetic and call for more reproductions of the same message, it most likely has to become viral. Therefore we can conclude that virality is almost a requirement for memetic content. The author also distinguishes a meme from something viral by explaining that a viral is one unit of media that becomes famous while a meme are various units of content as people continue to add and manipulate these memes. Furthermore, Shifman describes three attributes of virality. The first one is peer to peer diffusion, which explains that people feel more comfortable interacting when there is ordinary people as creators rather than corporation. It makes more sense for you to ask recommendations to a beauty blogger, or make fun of a random video when the subjects are normal people. The second attribute is speed which is often enhanced through social media as we tend to share content constantly. Lastly, she mentions broad reach which she then links to media convergence as a way of spreading content fast and to a large audience.

I would like to focus on the chair challenge which began as a simple video of a couple in their home proving a theory. What they showcased is that after a series of movements women were able to hunch, grab a chair and stand back up. However, according to this video men couldn't stand back up once they grabbed the chair.. The video was originally shared through social media and began spreading as it was shared through several platform which showcase speed as well as media convergence. The video was showcased in several tv outlets such as in “Wake up America”. Similarly, “The Sun” a British news outlet has written articles about it, increasing its views as it shed more attention to the original video. Moreover, it was a domestic video that encouraged people to try it to and record themselves while doing so. The multiple replies to the video could also turn it into memetic content. It began as a single unit which became viral and ended up becoming memetic as people felt encouraged to participate.

[roadtorisveglio]

Memes, COVID19, virality

Ironically, there are lots of things COVID19 and memes have in common. For starters, they are both spread through virality. Both virus and memes can be found everywhere. In the case of memes through media convergence, it is not hard for them to travel through different social media platforms. On the other hand, virus are extremely contagious and are found everywhere, causing them to be so dangerous.

Even though they are not precisely new they are now more famous than ever. Memes are sources of culture and are spread through the internet. In fact, the internet facilitates and accelerates this process through media convergence. The word meme was first used by Richard Dawkins, a biologist that mixed genealogy and culture in his book “The selfish Gene”. The word itself comes from greek which mean imitation. His view on memes is extremely interesting because he attempts to connect Darwin’s evolution theory to memes. Dawkins focused on natural selection and how individuals that survived had had to adapt, which was connected to memes since they to need to adapt to fit today’s culture. The most flexible memes are given the most attention. Inspired by genes, Dawkins created a definition of genes that referred to them as “cultural units”.

Limor Shifman analyzes memes in her book “ Memes in Digital Culture”, she discusses their functioning, their spread, and inclusively some of the history of memes. First, the author claims that internet memes are “commonly applied to describe the propagation of items such as jokes, rumors, videos, and websites from person to person via the Internet.” ( Shifman, p.2). Furthermore, she states that you can have intertextuality in memes since many topics are tackled at once. This is key since memes are meant to be understood by a global audience, this means people of different backgrounds and customs. Therefore, one of the requirements for virality is their facility to be understood. In fact, most viral memes come from situations and events that a lot of people are aware of. This is due to a hyper memetic logic which explains that any event can bring a stream of memes.

Going back to the similarities between virus and corona Shifman refers to some issues that bring controversy. For example, she explains about the importance of awareness. Also, by assuming virus and memes are the same, Shifman explains that it is assumed that there is no human agent and that they are phenomenons that happen without any help. Next, we know how virus spread, but how do memes spread? There are three requirements as proposed by Dawkins, these are: longevity, fecundity, and copy fidelity. Memes begin from one person in a micro content and then spread on a macro space. Moreover, in order for it to become viral it has to be open for remixes and reproductions in a way people can feel free to interact with them.

Lastly, Shifman analyzes why people make memes. She finds three reasons. The first is an economy driven logic where people fight for attention. The second reason is a social logic of participation which is when memes are used for both the purpose of claiming individuality and showcasing you creativity while standing your common views as a group. According to her, through memes you can find common ground with groups and find a sense of belonging within them. Lastly, the cultural and aesthetic logic of participation which refers to the mixing and participating in content

[roadtorisveglio]

Emergence of Hacker Culture

-Gabriella Coleman-

When we think about hacking we often think of illegal intrusion. Because of how hacking has been presented to us by media we tend to associate it with illicit behavior. However, the word hack used to mean finding an effective solution to a problem. Nowadays hackers are often tech-savvy people that are fond of freedom of press and transparency.

Gabriella Coleman discusses the nature and history of hackers in the John Hopkins Guide to Digital Media. The first time the term “hackers” was used was in the 1960s at MIT, as a group of nerds that loved computers and creating software. In the beginning hackers were just people trained in computers who shared similar principles. They had the same liberal values as the hippies in the Californian ideology as they advocated for freedom and expression.

Progressively, hackers began emerging in different parts of the world and working on different projects. For example, there were the phreaks who interfered with telephones to get free services. Similarly, there was the issue that some hackers used their technological talents for evil ends. As an attempt to distinguish the good hackers from the ones involved in illegal activities they created the word “cracker” to refer to evil hackers. Moreover, 20 years after their emergence the government started to create policies against them in order to regulate them. As time went by, copyrights and security issues arised, hackers began to be posed as a threat. Inclusively, laws such as Computer Fraud and the Abuse Act, passed by the United States government prosecuted hackers for computer intrusions. By using the law they legitimized the negative associations linked to hackers.

Hackers have broken boundaries as they are present in different countries and work for different purposes. Anyone can be a hacker. Additionally, these people have played a role in several events such as political uprisings, or social media movements, as well as the leaking of information. The term ‘hacktivism’ has been born after the role hackers play in activism and mobilization.

For example, a well known group of hackers is “Anonymous” which as a decentralized international group have attacked several government and state institutions. Anonymous stands out because of its free participatory nature. Similarly, anyone can use the name for their personal purposes. Before 2008, Anonymous was directly linked to 4chan, and lulz and it’s internet pranks. Their power became evident in their organized attack against the church of scientology in 2008. Now, they have been responsible for cyberattacks and are considered activists. Inclusively they played a role in the Arab Spring, meaning the politicization of their actions .This group cherishes their anonymity and share the blame as a group for their action. In conclusion, we see how even though hackers are not bad people our view of them has been molded by media. Hackers are extremely important not only in finding a technological solution but for activism as well. They are a powerful group and feared by governments, which give people great amounts of power without exposing their identity.

[roadtorisveglio]

Copyrights

-Richard Stallman-

We are all guilty of posting things online, reusing songs for our videos, and inclusively of being parts of challenges that become viral online. The web we are familiar with encourages copies and user creation. By doing all of these activities mentioned previously and engaging with previously patented media we could be going against issues of copyrights. Copyrights have brought along a series of problems regarding privacy and ownership. Richard Stallman discusses this topic in his article “Why Software Should Not Have Owners”. I find him to be an abolitionist since he believes that copyrights should be eradicated from the web. He is deeply convinced that sharing and collaboration is the way to go. Before there were no ownership laws regarding software and the internet, people would freely share and exchange their programs. The tech-savvy and the nerds would create their software and then pass it on. There was a collective culture of collaboration among them. There was an emphasis in the sharing of information rather than just the gaining of profit. An event that changed the nature of sharing was a letter written by a young Bill Gates which complained and stated that sharing software was a type of piracy and a theft. He was convinced that there was profit to be gained from privatizing software and that developers should have been given recognition. Then came copyrights which were a direct attack for the public as it inhibited software from reaching its full potential. Several claims were made to demonize the sharing of software. What began as a collaborative practice turned into a theft.

Stallman correlated the birth of copyright to printing. This is true, especially because after the printing press those who owned the machine could mas produce copies of written text. Contrary to this, digital technology is much more flexible as it allows everyone to own the information. For example, in almost all cases online you are allowed to copy and paste text and share it. Since it has become so easy to share info, the owners of the information and software are putting all their effort into creating arguments on why sharing info is so detrimental to them.

The article mentions techniques such as name-calling, by labeling things in a certain way they can be negatively connotated. For example, the word theft and piracy bring along a series of other negative correlations. Therefore, when people see these they instantly assume its bad. Owners also use the exaggerating technique where they express how much they are affected by others using what is ‘theirs’. Other techniques include using legislative threats to divide what is lawful from illegal. Moreover, they claim natural rights over their information or program since they are the ones that created it, and feel a special connection to their creations. Sharing information and software is a good thing for users as they can take better advantage of the web and technology, however by using these arguments copyrights influenced owners into privatization of information.

Richard Stallman, therefore, asks a very important question which is: what does society need? He then explains that what we are most in need of is information that is available to us. This is linked to the idea of freedom and transparency. By allowing the sharing of information you are also encouraging citizens to be more collaborative with one another. Indeed, if we think about the several leaks of information by hackers we can understand that it is a direct response to the privatization of information. The more they hide things from the public the more people will try to get the information. You can either allow it freely or face the consequence of intrusion.

An example of this could possibly be students sharing pdfs of a textbook from a certain class. Since they have decided to make information expensive, students find the “illegal” way to get this information. This also occurs in several illegal pages online where you can download movies and series that would have a cost elsewhere. I understand and agree that creators should gain money from what the produce. However, I also see the realistic side of things were every time something is “hidden” people find their ways to getting in underground. After reading this article I kept wondering on what the correct way to manage information would be, in a way were creators get recognition and profit yet making info freely available.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.muylinux.com/2019/09/27/richard-stallman-gnu-free-software-force/amp/

[roadtorisveglio]

Convergence Culture

Henry Jenkins discusses fan participation in his chapter “ Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars” from his book “Convergence Culture: where old and new media collide”. Throughout the chapter what is mostly discussed is the role of fan participation in shaping forms of media as well as the theory of media convergence. Similarly, the chapter also discusses how fan participation has changed throughout the years. The author states that “fan have always been early adopters of new media technologies” as the insist on having a role in the creation. This means that not only are they constantly commenting and giving their opinions on their media source of preference but they create new forms given what they’d like to see. 

Moreover, as technology and media continue to develop, fan creations are given more visibility. The chapter gives the  example of Amazon launching a Star Wars Parody: George Lucas in Love (1999) produced by Joe Nussbaum.  Previously, no parodical movie would have been aired to a public but now people are open to seeing new types of creations. In fact, George Lucas can be seen as an example of someone that is not eager of fan participation.  Regardless, the growing fan creations has slowly become part of mainstream culture as they were continued to be accepted by major media outlets. The author mentions how by allowing fans to create they are assuring their right to participate and collaborate in what we consider culture. Moreover, Jenkins addresses his theory of convergence culture which is the main theme of the book. This convergence is defined as content flowing from different media platforms and affirms that everyone is a participant. in fact, media convergence depends heavily on fan participation and media outlets that promote the movement of content. He then establishes the difference between interaction and participation. Interaction is defined as “the ways in which technology is designed to be more responsive to consumer feedback” while participation is described as more open ended and  mostly “under the control of media consumers”.  Currently the web allows more fan participation than ever as it encourages creativity and allows even amateurs to shoot their shots.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQZkldSHcUrAYpMSQz5FTwUESZP15vDUGCaDzzaM3nYuINZCY6d

Another topic discussed in the chapter is the view of the Media Industry regarding these creations. nowadays the media grows more dependent of feedback and participation from their consumers. It is not strange to become a  walking advertisements as brands put their logos on everything they create turning you into the best source of brand promotion. Similarly, many brands offer fans the chance to send ideas and feedback which allows the brand not only to understand consumer behavior but also to reduce their production costs. However, the issue is when brands feel the need to censor and stop this collaborations. In many cases producers do not know where to draw the line which brings confusion to fans and people who are eager to participate. This is problematic because since the web allows you to create and encourages new content other outlets might sue you. How do you know if your creations are steeping a line?? Similarly, Jenkins mentions that there are two approaches one can take to fan creation. the first one is the prohibitionist approach which emphasizes copyright and will easily issue lawsuits against what they consider illegal. on the other hand, the next approach to grassroot expression is collaborationist which openly acknowledges fan collaborations. Lastly, he mentions how in many cases media companies allow you to participate until they draw the line on what they consider to be “too much”. One can see how this is problematic as the line is blurry and you never know when a company is going to consider your collaborations as abusive.

After reading this chapter, I saw something that caught my attention in instagram, a clear case of a collaborative approach. An online brand was asking their followers to submit designs for dresses they would want sold by the company. At the beginning I thought how amazing it would be for customers to get there say on what was being made, its sizes and including the fabrics being used. I thought that is was a strategy to please customers. However, I then realized the huge favor customers were doing the company. They were practically working and designing for the company for no economic recognition. However, they were giving their users the freedom to participate and give their say. It is in cases like this where you understand how nowadays everyone is given a role and can actively participate if allowed. 

In conclusion, new technologies allow for more user participation.  Fans want to feel a part of the cult item and want to have a say. This however, will depend on the approach and response given to these grassroots expressions. In some cases creation will be encouraged while in others it will be banned. As mentioned previously this can be problematic as it  confuses users on what they are allowed to do. However, overall we see a growing fan culture that continues to develop hand in hand with participatory culture. The most intelligent thing to do for media outlets and product creators would be to take advantage of user participation in order to understand their behaviors.

[roadtorisveglio]

Copyright Laws & Lessig

“Why should it be that just when technology is most encouraging of creativity, the law should be most restrictive?” ― Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy

In Lawrence Lessig’s chapter  “Remix: How Creativity Is Being Strangled by the Law” in The Social Media Reader by  Michael Mandiberg, he addresses the issue of copyright laws in today’s culture. He begins by telling three stories. The first tale is about the elite and the masses used to ignore each other because they spoke different languages. Back then the elite would speak latin while the masses would speak german, english, or french. The second story he tells is in 1906 when the phonograph was created which meant the transition from a a read/write culture to only read. Therefore, people could no longer participate nor create. Someone that was particularly affected by this was an american entertainer, John Philip Sousa, who expressed the issues he had found in the use of the phonogram. He believed that the phonogram would ruin creativity and the creation of music. He was especially worried about the issue of participation which he thought was no longer allowed with this new invention. The third tale is situated in the United States in 1919. At this time the country had gone to war with alcohol, consequently the prohibition era began. However, instead of protecting people from this evil, prohibition led to people finding secretive ways to do whatever they wanted. Prohibition also led to a  rise in crime.  Lessig also brings attention to the Roy Olmstead case. He was one of the most famous bootleggers in the USA, his case was brought up in the court where his use of wiretapping. Judging new technologies was a struggle for the judges, as they finally agreed that wiretapping did not go against the Fourth Amendment. 

Lessig continues to explore the issue of morality in technology as he explains that copyright is necessary for economic purposes. However, he believes that in order to fit today’s changing society copyrights have to evolve with technology. There is an extent to copyright, the rest can be considered creation. He finds the fact that copyright laws are too broad and lack distinction a big problem for today’s society. Then, he distinguishes two uses of copyright and copying which depends on who is doing it. Amateurs do it for fun while professionals copy things to gain money. Similarly, he believes that books are not meant for copies, while content in the internet is open to it. This is due to the diverse economies ruling the internet where certain things are free and open to anyone while others require fees and charge you for their services. He then introduces remixes as a perfect way to use content that has been previously created and re utilizing it in new ways. Remix refers to the changing, removing or adding of content to something already created. Lessig uses examples of youtube videos with the same songs and concepts yet created by people in different places of the world. Moreover, the benefits and problems of remixing are exposed. Some of the positive things are how it enhances creativity as well as a sense of community. Lessig continues the chapter by explaining that there are benefits to copyright laws such as the economic features as well as the fact that it incentives people to create more.  He does however think that currently people are obsessed by copyright and these laws. Lessig sees this as unproductive and connects it to the prohibition story where people react aggressively to controlling laws. He therefore believes that these laws will just bring creative underground. Lastly, he ends the chapter by asking people to contribute to creative commons and to fight for the end of this copyright war.

[roadtorisveglio]

How has the Internet impacted us?

-Simon Lindgren-

There is no doubt that the world has changed because of technology, in fact Simon Lindgren explores the effect of technology in society in his chapter “Digital Society”. He explores technological determinism, which is the view that technology is able to change society and human behavior. He begins by analyzing bits of the internet history and what its previous expectations were. For example, the internet was born for just a few people who could access it and wasn’t completely open for everyone. With time it began to open up for anyone and not just people who worked in technology. The internet was born with the idea of it being a cyberspace in mind, meaning a metaphysical place for communities were expression was encouraged and censorship non-existent. After this initial boom, the internet began changing to become more user-friendly and became more well known. This led to the creation of Web 2.0 which requires user participation for its survival.

Going back to technological determinism, this view fits both the cyber optimistic and pessimistic perception, as both groups acknowledge that technology can affect society either in a positive or a negative way. This is deeply connected to the fallacy of internet-centrism which refers to the belief (or more accurately the exaggeration) that the internet can change society in radical manners, regardless of the situation. Even though, this fallacy considers the internet stronger than it probably is, it is true that society has been shaped in both positive and negative ways since the development of the internet. This contrasting effect is referred to as a digital divide, which explains how for some the internet is a great thing while for others its an instrument for evil. For example, the internet was seen as a place for freedom of expression and a tool for democracy. Nicholas Negroponte, a cyber optimistic and technological determinist, argued that the internet and technology could be used as a tool to create communities and bring people closer. Similarly, collaboration would have been able to replace competition. He thought that access, mobility, ability to affect change, were the three elements necessary for success. In this positive view technology gave people a voice and made their opinions relevant.

Contrary to this, cyber pessimistic worried about the negative impact technology had on society. For example, Neil Postman wrote “Technopoly”, where he argued how technology was a threat to culture. He thought the media was an extension of us, and that it could take over and replace our appreciation for culture. Moreover, Postman was worried that technology could replace ethics and morality as it was to focused on consumption.The author raises Jodi Dean’s idea of communicative capitalism which explains how through the web the message loses its value since the only important thing is its circulation. Apart from media theories, nowadays, some of the negative aspects to the internet are linked to states. This occurs since authoritarian governments use the internet to censor and tighten their control. Furthermore, the internet is not as liberal as it seems as it continues to be controlled by hegemonic giants who decide what to keep posted and what goes deleted. There is only so much freedom to the internet.

The chapter also proposes a third point of view which is a midpoint between the two mentioned previously. This view understands that the internet is mainly situational. It emphasizes how context and motivation play a bigger role on the effects of technology instead of technology itself. There are thousands of factors that affect the users and how their experience with the internet is. Since the internet is so politicized, factors such as race, class, identity, economic situation, geographical location in between other can deeply influence your experience. Therefore, a midpoint is proposed by the author as he explains that that the internet is a tool and not an agent. Consequently, its effect can be good or bad depending on how you use it. As mentioned previously, why and in what context you use the internet will define your experience.

Nowadays we see several examples on how the internet is used for positive purposes as well as for negative ends. It allows users the freedom to use it as they please. The Google Chrome new campaign provides great examples on how you can use the web for positive reasons, and indeed the motto of their campaign is “The web is what you make of it”. For many, the internet is a place where they can get information and use it for educational purposes. You can even get a college degree online as use the internet for personal development. Also, many charities and fundraisers are based on the internet and work through the web. Others use it for social purposes and to stay close to their loved ones. However, the internet has also been used to spread violent messages and racism. Social media has been used for bullysm or body shaming rather than for community services. In my opinion, we as users need to understand that the internet is neither good or bad as it depends fully on your intentions

[roadtorisveglio]

Web 2.0

“Who has the data has the power.”

-Tim O’Reilly-

https://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/08/the-history.html

The internet changes so fast and evolves so quickly that we rarely notice the long term major shifts. The web went through several phases which are discussed by Tim O’Reilly. Initially, the first web was a one-sided platform where users could search for data. It was mainly based on information provided by websites. However, Web 2.0 the next phase of the internet is full of user-generated content as it works in a two-way street type of way. In this realm, users can freely express themselves and exploit their creativity. On the other hand, the internet also serves business purposes such as the buying and selling of products and services. Online, you can be anyone you want that being an artist or an entrepreneur.

In Web 2.0 users play a huge role in several aspects. Overall what has changed the most since the first launches of the internet is that now users get a fully interactive experience. It is a two-way technology where users can interact with websites and among each other. By using tools such as hyperlinks users can share information and websites can increase their visibility.

Similarly, users are content creators. Nowadays we post, tweet, blog, comment and interact with other users, we are a part of the web as anyone else. This means that most sites now act as platforms and just provide a space for users to create and innovate. In my opinion, this is similar to the idea of the internet regarded by the Californian Ideology created by Barbrook and Cameron. Our current web allows for self-expression which is what hippies expected to gain from a free internet. Similarly, it provides a space for entrepreneurship to thrive as the yuppies had once expected.

O’Reilly explained how much bloggers would influence search engines especially since trends are set online and constantly changing. Internet personalities are more common than ever, as their opinion is highly taken into consideration. In this way websites not only have to work less but they can benefit from their opinion and work. For example, O’Reilly analyzes how by having users comment and review products and experiences, companies do not have to do the work. This means that user participation can increase views and sales while reducing production costs for brands. In this way, it is the same consumers that help advertise the products. Lastly, users play a role as they decide what stays in fashion and what goes. If users are not keen on a specific website they just won’t use it causing it to slowly decay. Most websites now depend on user interaction.

Next, Google is analyzed by Tim O’Reilly as he explains that it can only work through data provided by users. This is where our participation as users become key, we consistently provide addresses, credit card info, and even our relationship status. Internet platforms know more about us than probably most of our friends do. Not only does this work with the data you provide but with your search history as well. Google is an enabler between the search engine and the user experience (O’Reilly, 2005). The article explains how users build and grow these websites through the content they create. Moreover, websites serve as platforms as they allow users to navigate freely around and use the space as they please.

Therefore, there is huge importance given to data nowadays. He explains that now companies try their hardest to own as much data as possible. We could say that companies compete against each other to get the most data out of their users They even do this in sneaky ways by asking you personal details to keep your info. We now know how beneficial this is for advertising and companies. We assume that certain services are free however, in reality, it is because we are the product being sold. People are being commodified in this way. Your information, interests, and opinions are sent to companies to understand what people want. Therefore, who owns the data remains an important question.

The next change is that the internet nowadays is a service and not a product which changes how companies work. For example, websites have to be constantly updating themselves to fit user needs. O’Reilly mentions the state of “permanent beta” and I believe it’s a very accurate name since nowadays with technology things change extremely fast. The internet has to keep up with changing opinions and trends which means that for sites to succeed they need to keep up and constantly test waters to see what works. I find this especially true and linked to user role since as soon as websites change something users immediately praise or criticize the changes making it easier for the companies to know how to provide a better service.

In conclusion, even though this article was written 15 years ago I still believe many of the elements mentioned are still key features of the internet now. We as users pay for an experience and rely heavily on the web. Moreover, we like to be able to interact and use the internet as we wish. We find a sense of freedom, which in reality is fake freedom. Content is controlled, however, you feel like you can truly express your ideas online in this “ecotopia”, which is a space provided for expression. The participatory web might seem like its user-created and led, but as critical analyzers of media, we understand that users do not have full power and independence over the internet. The internet is ruled and controlled by hegemonic companies, especially those that survived the economic bubble of the internet once it crashed. Regardless of this intense control, users still play a key role. Without constant user interaction, the participatory web would hardly exist.

[roadtorisveglio]

The Californian Ideology

-Richard Barbrook & Andy Cameron-

 The Californian ideology is a critically scholarly concept invented by Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron. The Californian ideology was based off on the aspirations and expectations of two countercultures of the time, the hippies and the yuppies. Barbrook and Cameron describe its alliance as a “ bizarre fusion of the cultural bohemianism of San Francisco with the hi-tech industries of Silicon Valley” (The Internet Revolution, pg.12). These two groups had completely different views of the world, as the hippies were preoccupied with social issues and the yuppies about business and the economy. However, their biggest similarity according to the author was that they were both technological determinist, as they both believed that technology could help change society. Ideology wise both groups were considered liberal in two different meanings of the word since they had two very different views of liberalism and saw the internet as a place for different purposes. The hippies believed the internet was going to open up a sphere where freedom of expression could be possible. Therefore, they were looking for an Electronic Agora or an Ecotopia, meaning a virtual space where there was a lack of censorship and people could freely express their ideas. As the authors explain, the hippies were liberals mainly socially. Lastly, they saw the internet as a tool that could help direct democracy thrive since it would give people a voice.

On the other hand, the yuppies saw the internet as a place for entrepreneurs and a place were free market could thrive. The yuppies were looking for an electronic marketplace where “each member of the virtual class is promised the opportunity to become a successful high entrepreneur”(The internet Revolution). They were economically liberal and wanted little governmental intervention. The efforts of these two groups to push forward the internet caused the rise of a virtual class which referred to “digital artisans” who would be deeply involved in content creation and were communication specialists.

My reflection in all of this is related to the evolution and commercialization of the internet. I believe that it once started with liberal ideas yet ended up being almost purely capitalistic. In a way, we could argue that the yuppies' expectations for the internet are overpowering the hippie ones. Yes, some sites encouraging free speech and creation are available, however, there is still gainable profit from most of their operations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie

#californiaideology yuppies hippies