Future gaze

So, whats next?

With the rapid advances in technology in this modern era, the possibilities seem endless. We now have the ability to carry our lives in our pockets. Increased access to social media via our mobile phones provides us with a twenty-four hour connection to the world. The theory of the cyborg posed by Donna Haraway has come to exist, as society continues to entrench itself in technology. How much further can we involve ourselves within the technological revolution? Maybe we could tattoo our favourite electronic device on our bodies so we can have it wherever we go.

What if we were to take this idea one step further? How about placing a subcutaneously implanted touch-screen in our arm? It could operate as a cell phone display that has the potential for 3G video calls that are visible just underneath the skin and run on the person’s blood. Sound crazy? At the recent Greener Gadgets Design Competition, an engineer posed just this.

The basis of the 2x4-inch "Digital Tattoo Interface" is a Bluetooth device made of thin, flexible silicone. It is inserted through a small incision as a tightly rolled tube and then it unfurls beneath the skin to align between the skin and the muscle. Through the same incision, two small tubes on the device are attached to an artery and a vein to allow the blood to flow to a coin-sized blood fuel cell that converts glucose and oxygen to electricity. After blood flows in from the artery to the fuel cell, it flows out again through the vein.

On both the top and bottom surfaces of the display is a matching matrix of field-producing pixels. The top surface also enables touch-screen control through the skin. The display uses tiny microscopic spheres, somewhat similar to tattoo ink but having the ability to change from clear to black. When the phone is activated the "tattoo" can be seen, but when it is not in use it is invisible.

The tattoo display communicates wirelessly to other Bluetooth devices - both in the outside world and within the same body. The device is always on, as long as your blood is flowing, but it can be turned off and on by pushing a small dot on the skin. When the phone rings an individual can turn the display on, and "the tattoo comes to life as a digital video of the caller," Mielke explains. When the call ends, the tattoo disappears.

Could such an invasive device have harmful biological effects? Actually, the device could offer health benefits. The device can actually monitor the body and pick up many blood disorders, alerting the person of a health problem. It can also measure blood sugar which could be helpful for managing diabetes.
The tattoo display is still just a concept, with no plan at this stage for commercialization. However, it is interesting to contemplate future technology and what it will allow us to do.   

When Second Life Becomes Your First Life

As technology grows and evolves, so too does the structure of cyberspace. Virtual worlds are increasingly becoming more and more like the real world.  The most realistic and sophisticated of these virtual realms is Linden Lab’s Second Life. Second life is a virtual world where players are able to choose and control the things that occur. Player’s create avatars which they can modify to their liking. Second life is not like any other game before it. It differs in that players hold the control in the virtual world and it also has its very own currency known as Linden dollars. Linden dollars can be purchased and exchanged with real money according to the currency rates in the world at the time. The major attraction of second life is the idea that you are able to be whoever you want to be. You are able to construct a life that is preferable to the one you where dealt in real life and given the choice, many people would choose to live permanently in second life.

As people continue to engage in virtual reality, there is a certain amount of addiction associated with it, which is having a real affect on their day to day lives. In some cases, people are actually losing the balance between what is real and what is virtual. Jean Baudrillard poses the idea of ‘hyperreality’ which identifies that reality is being replaced by representations of reality. Additionally, people living in hyperreality are unable to distinguish what is real. Counsellors are now seeing a growing number of marriages dissolve over virtual infidelity. One wife believes that her husband's avatar's marriage to another woman's avatar is cheating; he says it isn't. He explains that it is just a game but the wife states that "when it's from six in the morning until two in the morning, that's not a hobby, that's your life”. Another example is of a couple who met on second life, divorced their partners in real life and then went on to get married in both second life and in real life.

Not only are marriages falling apart but individuals’ contributions to society are suffering as well. Some addicted second life players, although very successful in second life are just the opposite in the real world. They create beautiful avatars that are meant to represent them but in real life they are obese and do not own a nice outfit. They are sometimes even unemployed and spend more time on second life than doing anything else. An article in the guardian reported that a new mother was so addicted to raising a second life child that her real life baby died of neglect. These examples show the severely detrimental effects of this game. What makes this game so meaningful to an individual?
It is no surprise that what we think about ourselves affects the confidence with which we approach the world. What is a surprise is that this applies in the virtual world too. It seems that the qualities you acquire online — whether it is confidence or insecurity — can spill over and change your conduct in the real world, often without your awareness. A study done by Stanford University looked into the way self-concept can be affected by playing the game.

In one experiment, researchers assessed how an avatar's attractiveness affected human behaviour, both online and off. Thirty-two volunteers were randomly assigned an attractive or unattractive avatar (attractiveness was rated by undergrads in a survey beforehand) and instructed to look at them in a virtual mirror for 90 seconds. Then they were asked to interact with other avatars, controlled by the experimenters, in a classroom-like setting. Overall, subjects using good-looking avatars tended to display more confidence, friendliness and extroversion. They were happy to interact with avatar strangers easily and confidently. On the other hand, the users of ugly-duckling avatars stayed away from strangers and were nervous about creating conversation. Nick Yee replicated this study but appended a second part. An hour after their interaction on second life with their avatars of varied attractiveness, the same volunteers were told they were participating in an unrelated study about online romance. They were instructed to pick two potential dates out of nine photos in an online-dating pool. People who had used attractive avatars seemed to hang on to some of the self-assurance that came from being handsome, choosing better-looking dates than those who had homely avatars.

Overall, the second life game has become an attractive way to escape from real life. Although in small doses this may be a form of therapy, the addictive nature of the game is causing serious issues in the lives of the users and the people around them. The ability to be able to create an ideal representation of yourself is causing players to form psychological connections with their avatars. They not only cause the individuals to internalise the experiences of their avatars but these feelings are then carried over into their real world behaviour. The powerful nature of virtual worlds, such as second life, must not be treated lightly. It is important to remember to balance and discern between what is real and what is virtual, so that we do not forget to experience what the real world has to offer.

The iPhone Phenomenon and The Impact of Mobile Media

The invention of mobile phones has permanently altered society. The idea that you can be contacted at any time day or night has provided a dramatic increase in communication. Mobiles have become a part of daily life, and many people feel lost without them. Although they were initially created for voice conversations, updated versions provided the ability to send word messages (SMS). However, with the development of iPhones these capabilities are old school. As well as calling and texting, these phones have 24hour access to the internet, including shortcut applications to social media sites. Additionally, they are a GPS, camera, ipod, alarm, calender, address book, diary, information storage device and portable game player. And there’s more! You can sync your iPhone with your Mac book and your iPad which allows you to update information on one device and it will immediately save the changes to all your other devices. The list goes on and on. Our entire lives can be controlled by a pocket size machine. So what are the implications for society or even our personal identities by having these mobile devices?

According to Ingrid Richardson (2007) mobile media has become a part of our bodily make up. Just as a car may be seen to be a part of our body because of our ability to use it to achieve goals, so too do mobile phones act as a tool to provide further function to our being. However, we are not always driving a car but we seem to have a strong bond with our mobile which makes it inseparable from us, just like an extra limb.
 

Mobiles provide us with a connection to the rest of our world, all our friends, family, work and information is accessible in seconds. If this connection were severed, how would you feel? So many people cannot even imagine life without their phones and there is now a term for this fear. Nomophobia is the fear of not having mobile phone contact. Someone suffering from nomophobia presents similar symptoms to anxiety/ panic attacks and depression. Jennifer Ledbetter writes an article which outlines common causes of this phobia which include:

Ø  Low battery charge with no way to charge your cell phone

Ø  A "No Cell Phones" sign

Ø  No signal strength on mobile device

Ø  A broken or malfunctioning cell phone

Ø  Lost cell phone

Ø  Just the THOUGHT of potentially losing mobile device

Ø  Stolen cell phone or fear of it being stolen

Ø  Any situation that causes you to not be able to use your mobile device.

Have you ever been faced with these situations? How did you feel? Are you a nomophobic?

Donna Haraway has also provided theories to help explain our connection with technology. Although written 25years ago, Donna Haraway’s theory of the cyborg is evident in this mobile society. Similar to Ingrid’s explanation, Haraway predicted that technology would become ingrained in who we are. Society has gone from individuals thinking they were isolated in the world, to thinking of themselves as nodes in a global network. It is interesting how everyone feels this need to be interconnected, yet when you walk through the streets people are not interacting with those around them but are all talking to someone else on their phones. Yes, we are communicating but are we really connecting? Are we able to fulfil our basic social needs through a machine? Although mobile phones have indeed transformed the way society functions and will continue to be a part of it for the foreseeable future, we must prepare for the times when our mobile devices don't work. I would even suggest turning them off occasionally so you can take some time to form deep connections with those around you. If mobile phones are just like a limb, at some point they need to rest too.  

Politicians and Social Media. Is it really about the politics?

In recent years social networking sites have become some of the highest traffic destinations on the internet. This has provided a new platform for political discussion. It allows like minded and opposing parties to banter amongst themselves without needing to be in the same location. For these people, it's great they are able to do this, but for the rest of us, who actually cares about politics? I know I don't. I dislike what they implement, how they justify taking my money and in general how they act. A lot of gen-y people would have to agree with me.

Despite this, the government has decided to use social mediums to reach out to younger generations. Unfortunately I don't think they realize that we actually have to click on their video or post to view it. After all, who really wants to spend precious procrastination time watching Julia Gillard on YouTube talking about creating a "sustainable future"? Additionally, we all know that she is lying anyway. Despite the labour governments over complex explanations to try and justify why the ‘plans’ had to change, in the end we were lied to. One example was when Julia Gillard promised there would never be a carbon tax under her government. However a few months later the motions were passed and guess what? We are getting a carbon tax.  

Although this type of political campaign has not been successful in Australia, it has had great success over in the USA. When Barack Obama was a candidate running for presidency, he had grand plans to help him beat the numerous odds that were stacked against him. He wondered if social networking, with its tremendous communication capabilities and aggressive database development would provide him with the edge he needed. In an article by David Carr he states that, “It was like a guy in a garage who was thinking of taking on the biggest names in the business.” However, his campaign was a huge success and he is now the President of the United States. So how can the same political objectives be rejected in one case and successful in another? Personally, I don’t think it has got anything to do with politics. Barack Obama is a charismatic and genuine guy who believes in what he says and goes through with what he has promised. His speeches take on a funnel type style, where he starts broad and explains what he is going to talk about. He then goes on to finish with a powerful statement that produces spontaneous applause from his listeners. He provides hope for his country and his citizens respect him. Additionally, President Obama is open to having some fun with his position. He is able to go on television programs such as talk shows and be entertaining while still delivering a message. One example is when Barack Obama appeared on the Jimmy Fallon show and did a slow jam of the news. This guy has personality, someone that we can relate to and trust.   

In contrast, by the time Julia Gillard has finished speaking, no one thinks about applauding as their attention is still focused on trying to comprehend what she was even talking about. Her reign has been filled with broken promises and excuses. I think it is great that we have the first women prime minister but that does not justify why she has struggled. Barack Obama was the first black president and he does not use that as an excuse.

Once again, it’s not about the politics or even the social media forms that politicians have began to use. It is about the personality of the person and the characteristics that constitute them. Just because you are crowned the leader doesn’t mean people will follow you.        

Produsage - The Ultimate Information Collaboration

In recent years, there has been an increase in cultural and societal participation in information production. These changes have been facilitated by the emergence of new, participatory technologies which allow information access, knowledge exchange, and content production. Many of these technologies are associated with the Internet, including websites such as Wikipedia and YouTube.

A concept known as produsage has been developed by Axle Bruns to identify this phenomenon. This idea highlights that everyone is able to engage in the collaborative creation and extension of information and knowledge. This participatory environment breaks down the boundaries between producers and consumers and instead enables all participants to be users as well as producers of information and knowledge.

 

 Information created through produsage is the result of a global brainstorming team who have critiqued and extended it. This enables unique, creative and innovative ideas to develop and be shared with the world. Produsage has also been said to minimize the psychological phenomenon known as groupthink. This occurs when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. However, due to the anonymity of internet users and the fact that most of the contributors have never met one another, this idea of 'maintaining harmony' is not an issue. Additionally, the incorporation of a global audience allows for diversity among views resulting in less subjective content.

Henery Jenkins, a key theorist in the area of new media has discussed the idea of 'collective intelligence'. This refers to a situation where nobody knows everything, everyone knows something, and what any given member knows is accessible to any other member through media platforms. This gives rise to a networked culture that creates alternate structures of power which stem from the ability of diverse groups of people to pool knowledge, collaborate through research and debate interpretations.  Through such collaborative processing, people are able to refine their understanding of the world. There is no regulation on the content which is created. This means that there is no higher power to oversea collaborations. Although this allows all sorts of ideas to be shared, it does pose an interesting question. Who benefits from the creation of content? Many information sharing websites like blogger.com, wikipedia, or Facebook are free to join and free to publish material. Some individuals have become overnight sensations by posting themselves on social media platforms, however this requires a large volume of views or subscribers. Advertising companies are able to buy screen space on highly viewed sites. This enables their content to gain the maximun audience possible. Therefore they are able to benefit from produsage.

On the other hand, the idea of produsage is not simply based on one persons contribution. It is based on the idea of the global collaboration of information. Therefore there may not be a need to give credit to one person or organization as we are all able to benefit from the readily available information. 

Wiki Leaks – The Citizen Journalists

Julian Assange is an internet activist famous for his creation known as Wiki Leaks. Wiki Leaks is an international, online, self-described not-for-profit organisation that publishes submissions of private, secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources, news leaks, and whistleblowers.

The aim of this site is to provide the public with important news and information, mainly political. Wiki Leaks boasts that they publish original source material alongside their news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth. This provides support for Henry Jenkins’ view of ‘collective intelligence’, which states that collective human action and the ability to ‘collectively think’ about problems will enable them to be overcome. Social media provides a platform where society can have a say. It allows users with similar interests to connect and share information to achieve a common goal. However, some information should not be shared with the world. Some of the leaked information on this site could be a threat to national security, resulting in a risk to the general public. This isn’t to say that the public should be left in the dark, but it seems logical that we are not willing to risk our lives to know a secret.

One of the debates caused by Wiki Leaks occurred when a video was posted from a soldier in Iraq. The video showed an attack by an American helicopter that resulted in a number of Iraqis citizens being killed. The soldier who sent the video to Wiki Leaks resigned from service as he could no longer justify his reasons for being in Iraq. Obviously this sparked a heated debate, especially for those families with loved ones still fighting. If it is no longer appropriate for American and allied troops to be in Iraq, then they should be sent home. This kind of conclusion is quite controversial but it seems logical. Furthermore, the soldier who leaked the video was given 52years in prison for leaking national secrets. Is it a secret or is it the truth that we were not meant to find out about? If the purpose of our mission in Iraq is legitimate then why are the governments so quick to shut down footage and punish men for trying to let us all know what is going on. Without these people who risk their lives and their jobs to give truthful information to the world, we would not be able to make our own educated opinions. The war in Iraq seems to have no end. Why should we send our loved ones to war, especially one where the costs seem to outweigh the gains?

Therefore it is important to know particular information. According to Bertot, Jaeger and Grimes, social media is able to offer a contrasting view to balance the media coverage that has a reputation for misleading its viewers. But there is some information that should not be made public. Take for instance the Iraqi nationals who helped translate information for the U.S. military. This was obviously beneficial to the U.S. however Wiki Leaks posted the names of these Iraqi people on the internet which has put their lives at risk in their own country. Where do we draw the line amid what should and should not be leaked? 

The internet has allowed everyone to become a citizen journalist and post the facts according to how they see it. However, to claim ultimate truth requires knowing all the facts. Maybe individuals need to think before they post and ask themselves the question, “Do I really know the whole story?” In some circumstances this may save someone’s life.

Extremism - Do we Cenosor or Not?

Ever since the internet first came into existence there have been attempts to censor it. A lot of people believe that the internet should be a place where all information is allowed to flow freely. Clearly the governments of most countries do not share this belief. These days the internet is censored to some extent pretty much everywhere. The reasons for this censorship may vary between countries. One reason however is to block sites that belong to terrorist groups and other extremists.

Is this a violation of the freedom of expression or should the censorship continue to occur on extremist sites?

Firstly, I would like to clarify exactly what is meant by extremist groups. Extremism is any ideology or political act that is considered to violate society’s moral standards. In democratic societies, these individuals or groups advocate their view in a dogmatic, violent way which aims to replace democracy with an inflexible authoritarian regime.

With the increase in technology, extremist groups have been able to use the internet as a very powerful tool. It provides the means to reach an international audience, to recruit members and to link extremist groups. It also allows members from around the globe to collaborate making their force even stronger. Besides the internet, the media in general is attracted by extreme terrorist acts, not only because it is their duty to report on any major event but also because the dramatic and spectacular aspect of terrorism fascinates the general public. Today’s terrorists exploit this and act in a way that will attract maximum attention around the world.

Terrorism should not affect freedom of expression and information in the media as this is one of the essential foundations of democratic society. This freedom carries with it the right of the public to be informed on matters of public concern, including terrorist acts and threats, as well as the response by the state and international organisations to them. However people want to feel safe. How far can these groups go before they need to be investigated and shut down? For instance, the Christmas Day bomber, who attempted to blow up a jetliner over Detroit, was recruited via the Internet and trained in just six weeks. Similarly, Philadelphia resident, Colleen LaRose assumed the name Jihad Jane online and used YouTube and other Internet sites to post communications about staging attacks in the United States, Europe and South Asia, in just a few days.

The big question is, “How do we respect individual freedom and access, yet find those who abuse the Internet and stop them before they act, resulting in a life-shattering event?”

If these groups are not censored and are allowed to exist, it does allow governments to access vital information about possible attacks or protests. However, they need to be creative in the way they enforce laws for the small number of people who take advantage of the internet to cause harm. For the rest of us, we need to make sure that the security on our computers is set to censor these sites, especially for the easily impressionable minds of our children.

If only it could be as Rheingold believed, that cyberspace would bring great democracy, equity and eliminate difference. However, even though the methods of communication and interaction have changed, that doesn’t mean that the people who use them have.