Cybersubculture Report: Last.fm

See report

Convergence culture just around the corner...

As we read in Henry Jenkin's book, convergence culture involves shifting the way content consumers interact with content producers. We see the effects of convergence culture all of the time, nowadays. For instance, Jennie described in her report how Justin Bieber's stardom began as a video on YouTube. His clip caught people's attention, and eventually brought him across a table from Usher. This chain of events was not possible in the world of old media, and exemplifies how culture is changing. Jenkins also referred to blogs and their impact on the changing landscape of media. One of my good friends follows a gamer's blog called Kotaku. As an electrical engineering student, he is working on a senior design project with a couple of other group members. I was chatting with him recently and I found out that his group's project was featured on the Kotaku site. It's a short article, so I've gone ahead and included it here:

Here’s How You Handle Looking and Turning in a Motion-Control FPS

 Owen Good — Head- and eye-tracking will be the next big breakthrough in motion-controlled gaming. Forza Motorsport 4 will deliver it via Kinect. But for first-person shooters, we're still stuck controlling our look with our arms, an act as unnatural as it is inconvenient. Some University of Texas students have whipped up a solution for that. 

This concept placed third at UT's electrical and computer engineering senior design competition. Using a webcam, some custom software for the head-tracking, and a motorized pico-projector, you get this - a video gaming perspective that changes as you change yours.
The design team (two software engineers, one power systems engineer) demonstrated their creation with a flight sim and a military FPS. "In the FPS, your head was the in-game player's head. When you look right, the in-game player looks right, and the projector pan/tilts to where you're looking," they write. "It's almost like you're in the game!" 

That sounds fantastic, but I'm not so sure about this part: "In the flight sim, you used your head as essentially a joystick to control pitch and roll angles." While intriguing, and certainly a proof of concept, that seems to me to be the inverse of the current head-look problem in motion control shooters. 

"Ideally, we would have more money (we are students, after all) to get more powerful motors, a dome-like projection screen, and the best possible pico projector for the best resolution," they say. I think some developer or console manufacturer should get in touch with these guys. After they build that, maybe they'll discover something about delivering this on a consumer scale.

After congratulating my buddy, I asked him a few questions about the article. It turns out he has no clue how Kotaku got wind of their project. He thinks it may have been through the YouTube videos his group uploaded of their demos. The writer cites this page, but it's not clear what their sources are either.
Furthermore, the article has quotes from their group, but my friend isn't sure who they spoke to. He suspects it was one of his group members, but he's been too busy to seek it out.

I think this exposes some of the pros and cons of convergence culture. Information can travel quickly, and unprecedented interactions can take place. For example, one person comments, "Very impressive especially if it really is just a usb camera, my first call would be to Sony..." Another Kotaku reader points out that "[t]hey had motion tracking with just a usb camera and software, effectively killing the main selling point of Kinect" and he suggests "if they had business smarts, they should be shopping this software around to different companies." On the flip side, there's a reliability issue (as Jenkins mentions is his discussion of collective intelligence). My friend, who was one of the two programmers for this project, has no idea where Kotaku obtained their information. This calls into question the validity of Kotaku's other blog posts, and blog posts in general. How do we maintain reliability within convergence culture?

Literacy on Last.fm

Read any of my posts about Last.fm, and it doesn't take long to realize that this site is intricate and has complex features. As a member, I've encountered multiple literacies, on forums, profile pages, and other places around the site.

Profiles, wiki articles, songs, events and other pages have shoutboxes at the bottom where members can post comments or messages. There is an imposed limit of 1000 characters (pretty long for a "shout" if you ask me), but there is almost an unspoken rule that NO ONE should write so much. In fact, usually shouts are only a few quick lines. Artist and song pages often act as catch-all spaces for intense fandom or dislike (which makes sense because, like a lot of online opinion polls, involvement on these pages is voluntary and attracts polarized ideologies). For example, on the Radiohead wiki page Peppeworld writes,"I will kill someone in order to see them live." Zheinerovich clearly does not relate and replies, "Then you're one retarded motherfucker." MathIsUniversal and whiteclef1 are also less than enthusiastic about this group, chiming in with "shit band" and "shit album" (respectively).

Lengthier shouts are not as uncommon on profile pages, however. User shoutboxes are analogous to Facebook Friend walls, so that anyone can read the shouts and it's not quite as annoying if messages are longer. On FatShade's profile, for example, lamma-assassina writes a long comment amongst a series of short shouts:

"I'm flattered, thanks! Well, I was taking a look at your library... Regina, Laura Marling, Tori Amos, Sarah Blasko, Fiona Apple... Sarah Slean is definitely missing! She's a singer-songwriter and pianist, her voice is just haunting and lyrics, pure beauty. I truly recommend this acoustic version of "Out in the park": [YouTube link] and her album "The Baroness". Oh, and she's a writer too. I haven't read her book yet, I must check it out, hm. Please let me know if you liked her! And if you have any recommendations, too, leave me a message:D I just got into Tori Amos, I'm totally loving her...how could I ignore her music for so long?"

All the same, post length on profiles trends towards the curt end of the spectrum. Even Marrajjj and jamesssxD (from my last post), who are obviously good Last.fm friends, keep interchanges fairly short. The pattern alters quite a bit, though, with regard to forum participation.

My focus is on the "General Discussion" and "In The News" forums, which exhibit stark contrasts in writing convention. Forum threads still display variability in posting literacy, but the manifestations are much broader here. Literacy flip flops from thread to thread, even post to post. For instance, one long-running thread titled “chatting on forums is a good way to make friends !! ;D” harbors posts that are random, even unpredictable, and any subject is up for game. The user iamstellar offers another forum poster tips on beating alcohol and drug addiction:

"Addicts are always seeking to fill their void constantly. So they will use what they can to fill it. If it isn't drugs and alcohol, it is sex… recover on your own and on your own terms. If you don't you will only seek to ‘fill that void’ with other shit you shouldn't be doing.”

In the same thread, the user annihilatethem shares dating advice and explains, “I've come to learn, ‘once a cheater, always a cheater’. Girl's have given me a HUGE reason not to trust them anymore.” Later, annihilatethem brings up totally different topic in the same thread: “So has anyone heard about the particle accelerator experiment they're working on in Switzerland… Black holes? Anti-Matter? Don't sound too good to me.” Where this thread renders subject-jumping with posts not only acceptable but also a crucial part of  interesting dialogue, many of the "In The News" threads exhibit posts of long discussions, immaculate grammar, honed in debating and serious ethical/philosophical issues.

For instance, a thread about India's exploding population – now at 1.21 billion, according to the 2011 census (article) – elicits a conversation about overpopulation and population control. Chab0's comment seems almost Malthusian: "This insane population boom is what's keeping the poverty stricken areas of India from developing. The more people, the less resources... Only time can cure overpopulation!" Later, sgath92 and Verslie each post diatribes of four or more paragraphs (thread). Verslie goes as far as calling Indians "uneducated, irresponsible people continuously churning out more and more children for stupid reasons," claiming "they can't be bothered with contraception, they want state benefits, they want an excuse to not work, they want to give their life some sort of meaning because their own miserable existence isn't enough for them." Verslie asserts that "[h]aving children is not a 'right'" and agrees with sgath92 that "[l]icensing is definitely the way forward." According to him/her:

"The majority of these children born in places like India, are likely born into incredibly poor families, where their only future is to live in poverty whilst working ridiculously long hours with ridiculously low pay just so they can afford to pay for their small amount of food in order to survive. What kind of life is that? It's better not to create life in the first place."

Aside from the ugly rhetoric and banter (see for yourself), this thread shows that Last.fm makes room for a spectrum of literacies. Interestingly, the context set by the forum & thread in conjunction with the tone established by users works to cue which literacy is appropriate. (Basically monkey see, monkey do.)

Last.fm: gender-bending (and anything else you want) welcome

In my search for gender issues on Last.fm, I came across a trend of male-identifying users with very feminine online personas (some examples: BEST_FICTION, jordi_89, Blitzsims, Ruh_St). Last class I inexplicably claimed that I would assume a male is gay if he listens to female-dominated music, i.e. Lady GaGa. I am so, SO sorry if I offended anyone; that is not what I think or even meant to say. I crassly misspoke but didn't see another opportunity in class to elaborate, and I totally misrepresented myself (and embarrassed myself while I was at it). Hopefully this post does a better job of conveying what I've discovered from my research. To provide some context, the Last.fm community is truly global in its extent (albeit seemingly limited to countries with available Internet access). With a music database to suit even the most particular tastes, this recommendation service attracts and welcomes a wide variety of people and thereby personalities. Furthermore, there are many avenues for interaction or involvement with both the site and other users. These components collide to create a diverse, tolerant, anything-goes atmosphere in which members can engage with each other. With this backdrop in mind, I focused in on conversation between two male users in an attempt to uncover some of the social dynamics at play (specifically with regard to gender-bending).

Marrajjj

jamesssxD

Marrajjj, a 16-year-old male from the US, and jamesssxD, an 18-year-old male living in the UK, joined Last.fm last year. Marrajjj and jamesssxD have 1,091 and 2,532 shouts (comments) respectively. After switching back and forth between both of their shoutboxes, I would venture to guess that most of those shouts are to each other. They message one other multiple times a day, and have done so almost every day since January of this year. Their online friendship began through shared music interest, as they are both avid fans of Beyonce ("Bey"), Britney Spears, Rihanna, and – most of all – Nicki Minaj, whose photo serves as an avatar for both users.

This dialogue soon evolved into a fun, joking relationship. They humorously refer to each other as "barb"  – one of Nicki Minaj's catch phrases (see video at bottom). They often make candid or flirty comments to one another. For instance, Marrajjj pokes fun at jamesssxD bad habits, alleging "lmaooo barb! you is always stashin them coke cans in ya gucci bag. A MESS." JamesssxD jokingly responds saying, "cola? nigga there best be vodka in dat cola or #imdone #bye #ontothenextone." At another time,  jamesssxD posts this animation declaring, "my gewdies my gewdies i know u want ma gewdies!!" Marrajjj provokingly answers him, claiming "i bet you can gimme somethin waay better than dem goodies." The two users also frequently comment on new music from their favorite artists. JamesssxD, for example, asserts that the "whole sasha feirce album bored me but this single is back to old Bey, it's so different to such an anthem!! i wanna put on some 9 inch heels n wallk down the street strutting," to which Marrajjj responds encouragingly "get you[r] grind on girl." Eventually, the pair shared photos of themselves. JamesssxD explains, "i got reddish/brown hair n freckles deaaad im a total scottish steroetype barb... [link to photo] a mess, black on the inside though." Marrajjj reciprocates with a link to his photo and writes, "omggg is scottland the same as ireland? XD lmaoo and im from massachusetts... im like from a little country farm town lmao.... :X." This comes to jamesssxD's surprise who "thot [Marrajjj would be] a black ghetto boy ," but flatteringly admits "[Marrajjj looks] real barbalicious tho xD." Marrajjj assures jamesssxD that he's "black on the inside like [him] of course" and "very barbaliciouss and ghetto!" Regardless of their sexual orientation, clearly both jamesssxD and Marrajjj are very comfortable expressing themselves on Last.fm with no reservations about cultural or social reprisal.

Last.fm, what at first appears to be a Pandora wannabe (just another music recommending service), is in reality a playground for manifesting identity. Some users employ their profiles to outright announce their individuality front and center, such as jordi_89 who initially used "The queerest of the queer" on his profile in place of a real website URL (now he lists his Facebook). This speaks volumes about the kind of community Last.fm represents. As described in my last post, people can illustrate their identities to varying degrees, and there is no agreed-upon limit for how seriously individuals get involved. They can represent themselves with only the music they like – by scrobbling their listening history or adding photos of favorite artists to their profile pages, for example – or go further and fill in details about personal identity – by including more personal information, choosing emblematic avatars, participating in forums, posting shouts around the site, connecting or friending musical neighbors and more. Whether the aforementioned accounts are true expressions of sexuality or merely playful gender-bending experiments, Last.fm is a nonetheless a uniting force for these users and many others. Many of the self-identified male users with feminine Last.fm personas that I encountered are friends with each other. Similarly, I have come across other social circles that have connected based on different traits.

Last.fm's community guidelines concretize this value of tolerance and acceptance:

Be respectful to each other. Do not vent your frustrations at other members, whether through your comments or material you post on the site. There is zero tolerance for predatory behaviour, disparaging or defamatory comments, threats, harassment, illegal activities, invading privacy, propaganda, racial hatred, offensive cultural behaviour, vulgar or obscene content, or other inappropriate behaviour or the revealing of other members' personal information.

Though users are not forced to encounter the "other," or people different from themselves, there is an implicit, uncontroversial expectation within the community that this will probably happen. In other words, if you're not welcoming of the "other," you're not welcome on Last.fm (at least its social networking aspects).

Nicki Minaj explains the phrase "Harajuku Barbie"

Constructing identity on Last.fm

Last.fm, the subject of my report, is an expansive music recommendation site with mature social networking features. Becoming involved in the community seems, at first glance, a simple task: listen to radio stations, find and chat with your Last.fm neighbors (people with similar taste), and/or post on the forums. However, the inner-workings of the site are much more complex. The atmosphere is lax and opportunities for engagement are many, so that users display varying degrees of involvement. This results in an interesting mosaic of a unique identities.

Profiles stand as the primary stage for presenting identity on Last.fm. The first clue to a user's personality is their avatar – the image displayed next to their activity all across the site – which sits at the top of the profile page. This image can be realistic (1), humorous (2), sarcastic (3), or anything else the user pleases (4).

 Recently listened tracks, a preview of the person's library, top tracks and top artists lie below; a user's song taste serves as another patent, authentic indicator of sociality, given that Last.fm is inspired by music listening and discovery. The page sidebar has additional information: recent site activity, Last.fm friends, events the user is attending, and groups (not unlike Facebook Fan Pages). Groups in particular serve almost as identity badges, conveying individual opinions and personalities. There are few limits on what a group can be about, with titles such as "Classic Rock," "I Hate Hip-Hop," "I play too many damn forum games," "The Canadian Rock League," "I Still Buy CDs," "Introverted Lonely and Over-Sensitive," and "People with no social lives that listen to more music than is healthy who are slightly scared of spiders and can never seem to find a pen" to name a few.

Finally, the most personalized bit of screen real estate is the customizable portion of the sidebar near the top of the profile page. Where some users leave this blank or insert a short snippet of text, others create lengthy catalogues of photos, illustrations, animated images, dynamic infographics (i.e. top artists in the last 3 months, tag clouds), visitor counters, links to videos or other websites, lyrics, favorite bands, quotes, and more (example, another example). I think this portion of the profile directly speaks to the user's identity. This is the proverbial "blank canvas" of Last.fm, where individuals are free to express themselves. The representations of identity are incredibly diverse, so that some users put a great deal of thought into what they include. Profile embellishment does not necessarily correlate with community engagement however. The user Odessius, for instance, has only added a single button link to his profile page, but exhibits very high activity with 206 shouts and 1,323 forum posts. This provides just a glimpse of the complex nature of how users construct identity on Last.fm.

Prof + p2p grading = learning at its best

`I really appreciated Cathy Davidson's points on the arbitrary, outdated nature of traditional grading. She explains grade assignment as a "meaningless, superficial, cynical way to evaluate learning in a class." Rather than fostering a lifelong curiosity among students, grades turn learning into a "crass competition" according to Davidson. She describes a new system whereby students accrue points based on peer-to-peer and instructor evaluation and point totals correspond to different letter grades. If an assignment is deemed unsatisfactory by one's peers, s/he can choose to revise the work for full points. This informs class participants from the get-go how grading works and what class expectations are. Davidson legitimizes her plan, citing that "every study of peer review among students shows that students perform at a higher level, and with more care, when they know they are being evaluated by their peers than when they know only the teacher and the TA will be grading." She believes this system will promote responsibility, credibility, judgment, and honesty among her students, as well as preparing them to offer and receive thoughtful criticism.

Personally, I can fall victim to shooting for a good grade more than shooting for a good understanding of the subject. I create so much anxiety for myself trying to decipher what "high performance" in a class means, when I should be learning and growing from my course experience. I know this bad habit stems from my K-12 years of public education, where it seemed like all of my efforts should be geared towards getting into college. Since an admissions office can't see me and mainly sees my grades, many of us were taught to aim for the highest grade possible, cross our fingers, and make the best of what we got. Previously, my perception of college was more as a means to an end (aka a job) than a worthwhile opportunity for growth. Even now, a lot of students mindlessly attend lectures, begrudgingly complete assignments, and resentfully write papers and/or study for tests. Grades are "received" not earned, and each task is merely a cumbersome, stressful chore instead of an educational opportunity. Davidson's model, on the other hand,  allows a student to truly "make" their grade by allowing them to revisit/redo past assignments based on feedback. This model gives students the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them – a tried-and-true method for growth, if you ask me – so that grades are not simply judgments but more faithful representations of understanding. This forces each student to view the flaws of their work and find a way to improve, which inadvertently inspires reflection and genuine interest for class subjects (instead of stress and frustration). I suppose, in a few words, Davidson's grading model appeals to me because it grants students the agency to define how they engage with and what they get out of a class.

S/R 3: eXistenZ

In his film, eXistenZ, David Cronenburg explores the blurred lines between meat and machine as well as virtuality and reality in a futuristic world where anti-game realists come into conflict with game advocates. The story revolves around Allegra Geller, the world’s greatest game designer, and Ted Pikul, a supposed marketing intern for Antenna Research, a premier gaming company. To initiate the test launch of her newest game, eXistenZ, Allegra plugs into her metaflesh game pod – a convulsing, organ-like unit made of mutated amphibian tissue. The meat-machine theme continues when a realist assassin attempts to shoot Allegra with a gun made of bones with human teeth for ammunition. Allegra and Ted escape, but she worries her pod, which contains the sole copy of eXistenZ, has been damaged during the accident. To check the pod, she must jack into the game with a friendly partner. Allegra urges Ted to “break out of [his] cage,” and go beyond his body via the game world. Pikul, lacking the requisite biological socket for linking to the pod, relents and agrees to have a bio-port installed. When Geller and Pikul finally port into the pod, Ted is surprised by the lifelike experience of eXistenZ exclaiming, “I feel like me.” This faithful version of virtual reality soon fades when Ted senses involuntary urges as the game forces actions to establish the plot and characters. Ted feels vulnerable and disembodied, worried about his real self. He pauses the game and is extremely alarmed, finding it difficult to distinguish the virtual world from the real world. Pikul complains that free will is obviously not a major factor of the game, to which Allegra replies “It’s like real life, there's just enough to make it interesting.” Having returned to eXistenZ, Allegra tries jacking into a diseased pod which erupts, releasing a swarm of spores. The pair awakens outside of the game but, in another twist, is stunned to see the disease has travelled back with them infecting Ted’s bio-port and Allegra’s pod. Ted suddenly reveals he is a realist and the confusion intensifies when Allegra kills him. She and Ted wake up in a circle of other gamers – characters in eXistenZ – fitted with normal, electronic gaming units. Participating in the test run of another game, transCendenZ, Allegra and Ted had apparently planned to kill its creator, acclaimed game designer Yevgeny Nourish, for “the harm he has done… to the human race” in creating the “most effective deforming of reality.” With the real and the virtual nearly indivisible, they murder Nourish and as one participant begs to be spared, he innocently asks if they are still in the game. The catch-22 is that, even at this stage, there is no definitive way to tell if the game has ended and real life has begun. This concretizes Cronenburg’s message that virtual reality – with its limited free will, diverse characters, randomness, and ambiguous ends – represents a metonym for actuality.

The intense draw of virtual reality games in eXistenZ is, to me, unnerving and unhealthy at best. For instance, while within transCendenZ, game fans are gathered in what looks like a church and hail Allegra like a religious idol. At the fuel station, Gas prostrates himself at Geller’s feet professing that she has “changed [his] life.” He admits that he still operates a gas station but only on “the most pathetic level of reality,” claiming that Allegra’s games “liberated [him].” As a former Everquest addict myself, I can relate to the escapist, almost worship-worthy nature of games that Gas expresses. However, fantasy games, which usually involve fictional species, creatures, and geographies, represent a complete departure from reality. Even games such as The Sims, which closely resembles normal life, maintain the player as a controlling figure rather than injecting them into the plot. In Cronenburg’s world where virtual gaming is indistinguishable from real life, eXistenZ and transCendenZ are merely fake reproductions of reality where societal rules do not apply. What attraction do such games possess other than to allow individuals to indulge their basest urges with no consequence? Cronenburg exposes this ethical issue through his film. While in the eXistenZ game, for example, Ted and Allegra are compelled (supposedly) by the game to become intimate in order to “heighten the emotional tension of the next game sequence.” Also, when Ted shows apprehension at the prospect of killing the Chinese waiter, Allegra casually responds that “[he] wont be able to help it so [he] might as well enjoy it.” Furthermore, Allera shoots her close friend and mentor without hestitation, merely because she felt he was toying with her mind. Is Allegra, or Yevgeny for that matter, really worthy of praise when these virtual realities enable such sadistic behavior? Even today, the negative effects of games are palpable. Lack of sleep, decreased academic performance, disrupted real-life socializing, and a decline in health are common symptoms of the avid gamer. Graver situations also occur, where last year a South Korean couple spent so much time caring for a virtual girl in a role-playing game that they neglected their three-month-old baby and she died of starvation. Ethical issues aside, real world achievements have permanence, so that the never-ending “game” of reality is infinitely more satisfying and worthwhile than the temporary, escapist draw of virtual games.

The New Digital Divide

Marcia Stepanek, in her article "The New Digital Divide," discusses the changing nature of technological division from an issue of access to one of ideological polarization. She explains that major web services, including Google and Facebook, employ algorithms to tailor content based on a user's past activity. Stepanek describes how these data-personalization and self-aggregating functions display content that attempts to fit in with the individual's existing viewpoints, and neglect to include differing ideas. She mentions the case of Eli Pariser – a cofounder and former Executive Director of MoveOn.org – who "tried hard to add conservative friends to his own Facebook feed but their link and feeds [kept] getting blocked by Facebook's personalization algorithms." Stepanek, after detailing how data filtering is highly personalized, takes place unannounced, and is set by the computer not the user, dispels the myth that computer code is unbiased.

Stepanek addresses other issues of digital divisions on the Web. She points out that racial segregation takes place on the Internet, in common places like Twitter. Stepanek mentions that, rather than using social media as a tool for connecting with like-minded people, individuals could take advantage of it to solve problems. She acknowledges that in order to bring about social change, "we must work harder to break out of these self-imposed (or machine-imposed) comfort zones." Stepanek points out that certain conversations  are only possible because of social media, including Deanna Zandt's discussion of discrimination with others on Twitter, but they only occur when people step out of their bubble of familiarity. She suggests that lack of media education maintains the status quo, where "most people still don't know how to use this Web power to organize and affect social change." Concerned that many assume civic engagement will take place Online on its own, she cites James Fishkin, the director of the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University, who believes "the best way to boost public deliberation online is to create it." Fishkin formulated a five-step deliberative polling process to help foster civic engagement where it is needed as part of a structured system. Stepanek ends on a hopeful note that the Web is a potent force for civic engagement, particularly in places that have historically lacked public political involvement, where the Internet creates a public space that would otherwise not be possible in closed societies.

I can understand the motivation behind data personalization. It makes sense to show an individual content that is pertinent to them, but I find it a bit infuriating that this process goes on without notifying the user. I posted a comment about privacy policies in the United States versus Europe, but I think it's relevant to hash out the details here. In 1995, the European Union passed a directive regarding processing of personal data. This established mandatory guidelines for data processing whether it occurs automatically or not. Under these regulations, personal data cannot be handled unless it meets three conditions: transparency, legitimate purpose and proportionality. For example, achieving transparency involves several criteria, where the controller must relay the purpose of the data processing, outline who will receive the data, and obtain consent from the data subject among other steps. (Wiki article). Rather than clearly upholding the right to privacy like Europe, the U.S. has largely neglected protecting its citizens' rights to control information about themselves.

Also, Stepanek reveals a lot of serious social problems happening on the Internet, but I don't think it's enough to tell people they need to "work harder" to bring about change. Call me a cynic, but I have no faith when it comes to asking people to pursue things they don't really want to. A person might know they should step out of their comfort zone and join in a conversation on Twitter, but why when they can just get on Facebook and talk to their friends? In my opinion, before people can even be taught how to use social media to cause social change they need to instill a genuine interest for civic discourse in themselves. Until individuals starting caring about civic engagement for its own sake, I think people will continue getting online just to talk to others with similar ideas.

The digital divide, not what is used to be

In her talk "The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online," Danah Boyd discusses how conquering the digital divide of access to technology is not necessarily a sure-fire way to revitalize democracy. She suggests, in fact, that and individual's choice "leads to a digital reproduction of social divisions." Using teenagers on MySpace and Facebook as an example, Boyd shows that people have different reasons for choosing a social network, such as "features or functionality... design and usability... perceptions of different sites," but in many cases choice boils down to "social categories in which we live." She quotes a 17-year-old high school student who describes the class division of MySpace users and Facebook users at her school:

My school is divided into the 'honors kids,' (I think that is self-explanatory), the 'good not-so-honors kids,' 'wangstas,' (they pretend to be tough and black but when you live in a suburb in Westchester you can't claim much hood), the 'latinos/hispanics,' (they tend to band together even though they could fit into any other groups) and the 'emo kids' ... We were all in MySpace with our own little social networks but when Facebook opened its doors to high schoolers, guess who moved and guess who stayed behind… The first two groups were the first to go and then the 'wangstas' split with half of them on Facebook and the rest on MySpace... I shifted with the rest of my school to Facebook and it became the place where the 'honors kids' got together and discussed how they were procrastinating over their next AP English essay.

Other students Boyd met with described Facebook as "more cultured, and less cheesy... of a cooler caliber," and as having "more adultness." She laments that her data reveals Facebook users as "far more likely to be condescending towards those who use MySpace than vice versa." Boyd points to the origins of MySpace and Facebook – the former arrived first attracting urban folks in their 20s, the latter began at Harvard and initially spread to Ivy League schools – as part of the explanation for these social divisions. She gives a telling analogy of this digital migration as a modern day white flight. Those who are white, educated, wealthy, or live in suburbs were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Much like the white flight of people from cities to suburbs, Boyd explains how people who left MySpace were in search of "a more peaceful, quiet, less-public space would be more idyllic." She claims the media, which "stems from privilege and tends to reflect the lives of a more privileged class of people," also encouraged the perception of MySpace as "ghetto." Boyd stresses that fear of the "other" runs through these divisions and that adults tend to practice homophily even more than teens, which is why she believes it is important for people check their online use.

Boyd ends her talk with key points about the social media situation. She exposes how the pervasive nature of social stratification carries over from offline to online activities. Boyd debunks the myth that online discourse occurs in a universal public space, and that social networks "highlight and reinforce structural divisions." She underscores how "where you go online matters," that use of certain social networks implies access to certain audiences, and urges people to acknowledge biases to counteract them. Finally, Boyd reiterates that while the Internet has worked to include more voices in political discussion, not everyone has equal say in civic discourse. She hopes that people will "[look] at social media with a critical eye

I like how Boyd exposes the ethical issues of social networking as more than simply a problem of access. I feel unsure about how to approach the inequality we see in social media. Aside from being aware of class divisions as they are manifested online, how can we actually increase cross-talk between different people? I doubt people will force themselves to join MySpace when they are already on Facebook. And even if they did, wouldn't it seem contrived? Is voluntary participation in multiple networks the only way to get closer to revitalizing democracy, or is there something else?

An antidote for dystopia? Augmented Reality

In his article, Dorian Benkoil discusses emerging uses of augmented reality, particulary by journalists and publishers. He explains augmented reality (AR) as a process where digital information is overlaid onto the physical world. At the time of his writing, most augmented reality applications existed on smartphones or on the web. Using GPS data and motion information from the mobile device, text and other content are added to images picked up from the device's camera. He gives an example that someone could point their phone at a large building and see "what restaurants and shops are available, or point down a street to see what subway stations are available in that direction and how far away they are."

Benkoil reveals that augmented reality has found a place in a variety of outlets. He mentions how a team at the Times has explored AR for location-based journalism, such as restaurant reviews and real estate details for available properties. Some applications of augmented reality, as described by Benkoil, offer more unconventional information: maps with a distribution of bailout dollars in neighborhoods, supplemental videos for magazine articles, web cam simulations of shipping boxes, and artist music videos that incorporate the user into the scenes. He brainstorms other possibilities for AR and journalism, such as a handheld that shows "details of a building [a journalist is] approaching. They might learn just where in a foreign ministry building a potential source’s office is, or that the spot they’re standing on is the site of a recent kidnapping or bombing." Benkoil believes, AR could help journalists use this information to identify and reach important locations faster, come up with ideas for stories, discover new sources, in other words " improve the speed, accuracy and the depth of their reporting."

Benkoil feels that augmented reality represents a lucrative venture for many reasons. He suggests that real estate brokers may use AR to allow possible tenants or buyers to virtually "see" properties on their handheld devices before ever entering the house or apartment. Benkoil also proposes that advertisers could overlay current promotions of different businesses on their physical location. He thinks that displayed ads could also be tailored according to interests, not just location. Benkoil ends by briefly admitting the frightening potential for invasions of privacy, but seems optimistic about the future of augmented reality.

Reading Benkoil's article about augmented reality led me to make connections to the novel we read by Jenkin's and Gibson's Neuromancer. The example of AR by John Mayer, whose site uses the fan's web cam to incorporate them into his music video, reminded me of how lovemarks and emotional capital play an increasing role in how artists, business, and others engage with consumers. Mayer used new technology to create a new avenue for connecting with his followers. After viewing this video about the U.S. Postal Service shipping box simulator, I couldn't help but think of Neuromancer. Much like Molly and her inset lenses, the user's reality is enhanced (augmented) by technology. Case, on the other hand, did most of his "living" not in reality, but rather through his virtual existence as part of the matrix. I think augmented reality offers a sustainable medium between technology and actual existence, between living in reality like Molly or living in a virtual reality like Case. Augmented reality can greatly improve our lives and, rather than overwriting or replacing it, fundamentally relies on real life and preserves the central role of experiencing the real world. Would you agree or disagree that augmented versus virtual reality is a safer route for technological development when it comes to keeping us grounded in real life?

S/R 2: Neuromancer *revised*

In his book, Neuromancer, William Gibson introduces the reader a dystopian world dominated by technology. Case – the protagonist – is an ex-cyberspace thief. He jacks into cyberspace with a custom deck that “project[s] his disembodied consciousness into the consensual hallucination that [is] the matrix” (5). Taking a piece of the pie for himself after a job, Case was punished by his employers who had his nervous system damaged with a mycotoxin. In Chiba City, Molly – a hustling bodyguard – approaches Case with an opportunity to repair his nerves. Her boss, Armitage, offers to pay for the procedure in exchange for his hacking services. Armitage recruits Peter Riviera, a perverse, “certified psychopath” who specializes in holographic illusions, and continues to keep his team in obscurity with regard to his plans (51). Wintermute, an artificial intelligence created by the Tessier-Ashpool family corporation, unexpectedly contacts Case and in his search for answers he finds a link between the AI and his boss. Wintermute took over Colonel Corto – the lone survivor of a scandalous military operation that led to his mental breakdown – during his recovery and replaced him with Armitage’s personality. After infiltrating the Tessier-Ashpool residence, the “human equivalent” of a “nest” called Villa Straylight, Armitage begins to regress back to his true identity of Corto and Wintermute subsequently kills him (165). Wintermute has ordered Case to work with the Dixie Flatline – the ROM construct of Case’s legendary hacking instructor – to crack the dense code of another AI, Neuromancer, developed by the Tessier-Ashpools. Case realizes that Wintermute’s ultimate ambition is to fuse with Neuromancer into a super AI. Plans go awry in Villa Straylight: Riviera betrays his team, Molly is injured, Case is almost killed, and Lady 3Jane – the current Tessier-Ashpool leader – nearly foils the entire scheme. However, Wintermute achieves his goal and revisits Case explaining that it is the matrix, “the sum total of the works, the whole show,” and that there are other entities like it in outer space (269).

I was particularly interested by the conflict between the increasing autonomy of technology and the rising reliance of humans on that technology. Wintermute, a complex bundle of code, manages to formulate and execute an intricate plan for merging with Neuromancer. He relies on people in the real world to carry out certain actions but nonetheless has an inordinate capacity for independence. By intruding in on Corto’s weak mental state and superimposing Armitage, Wintermute basically obtained a human body for itself. In spite of lacking an understanding of personality, the AI can almost seamlessly function among and interact with other humans. To me, Wintermute appears almost omnipotent, with limitless financial resources, the ability to invade other electronics and even the minds of others through the matrix. Despite being a completely digital construct, Wintermute and reality have much more overlap than I expected. Case, on the other hand, represents a helpless pawn in both the real and digital worlds. He lives for “the bodiless exultation of cyber-space,” viewing that body as nothing more than meat. The damage to his nerves forced Case into “the prison of his own flesh” (6). He rarely feels raw emotion outside of the matrix, “his distanceless home, his country” (52). Case lives on drug-induced highs, Yeheuan cigarettes and black market business. Even after having his abilities restored, Case learns from Armitage that he has sacs of toxin embedded in his system; he is biologically blackmailed into meeting Wintermute’s demands. Case’s addiction to technology reminds me of how people engage with the digital world now. Different individuals – gamers on World of Warcraft, students on Facebook, children on Neopets – form dependencies to digital media, rather than incorporating them as health habits in a balanced lifestyle. Rather than primarily using technology as a tool to empower themselves or make their lives easier, people in today’s world have lost a degree of autonomy to the digital world, much like Case did to Wintermute. The irony, both in Neuromancer and life these days, lies in the fact that technological innovation, a human-initiated project, could lead to the demise of humans themselves. I think Neuromancer offers an important token of wisdom about how, moving forward, innovators must consider how technology can not only help but hurt us as well.

Irony in Neuromancer

In the final chapters of Gibson's Neuromancer, we are finally introduced to one of the remaining major characters of the novel. Case is still connected through his simstim unit to Molly, whose eye has been perversely crushed by Peter Riviera. Case learns through the link that 3Jane's mother, Marie-France Tessier, was the brain behind the Tessier-Ashpool AI's. 3Jane explains that Marie-France "was quite a visionary" and "imagined [the Tessier-Ashpools] in a symbiotic relationship with the AI's" to the point where these cyber constructs would make their "conscious decisions," rendering the family "immortal, a hive, each of [the relatives] units of a larger entity" (229). As Case and his Zionite backup Maelcum make their way to 3Jane's quarters where Molly is captive, he sees the image of the Finn who directs him to jack in. The Braun bot guiding him grasps his ankle in an effort to warn him, but Case continues with his orders.

Waking on a dull, grey beach with what looks like a city off in the distance, he is devastated to discover that the message was not from Wintermute. Imagining Ratz as he wanders around, the Ninsei bartender suggests Case has come to the beach to die. He presses on, finding Linda Lee in a bunker with a fire and food rations. Distraught, Case understands that the AI he last saw was "the other one" from Brazil not Wintermute, which tried to "warn [him] off with the Braun." He angrily acknowledges that he is flatlined, stuck in the middle of nowhere "with a ghost" of Linda just as he remembers her from before. Case realizes that the recurring images of Linda  he has encountered in his travels could not be from Wintermute, which found it "too tricky" to maintain such an emotionally charged construct. Linda explains how she arrived at the beach, found the bunker, and received food that washed up on the beach. She reveals that a "boy... on the beach" told her to expect Case who goes searching for the boy suspecting he is the Rio AI. Case finds the boy on the beach, who says his name is "Neuromancer... Neuro from the nerves... Romancer" taken from "Necromancer." The boy affirms that he is "the dead and their land" and urges Case to stay, affirming that "if [Linda] is a ghost, she doesn't know it" and Case will not tell the difference either. Neuromancer admits to Case, however, that "the choice is [his]" to stay or go. Case decides to leave and wakes up in the Villa Straylight, where Maelcum informs him he flatlined for almost five minutes. 

It's interesting that in the pursuit of immortality, the Tessier-Ashpools rely on technology so heavily – with AI's and cryogenic freezing – to the point where they become less human. This raises the question, can immortality and the human condition ever coincide? Even if technology enables people to live indefinitely, will those people still be what we call "human"? I think a lot of our instincts and actions stem from our awareness that life is finite, and I don't know that humanity would be the same without a time limit indirectly motivating our ambitions. Also, Neuromancer basically tells Case he is experiencing life after death and can choose to return to the living world or remain with Linda by accepting death. What if Case had not been jacked in? It almost seems like without death as a result of Neuromancer's intervention, Case would just be dead "meat" with no afterlife. Could you ever see technology serving a spiritual purpose?

Neuromancer: nature meets machine

In his book, Neuromancer, William Gibson repeatedly melds nature with technology, often in startling ways. He sets this standard even in the first line of his novel, where he describes that "[t]he sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel." This unexpected comparison reveals that Gibson does not only depict nature in terms of technology – a television-colored sky – but also defines technology using the natural world – a dead or lifeless (rather than broken) channel. The imagery continues as we meet some of the first characters in Neuromancer. Ratz, for instance, smiles as he tends a seedy bar exposing a "webwork of East European steel and brown decay" as teeth (3). He scratches his stomach with a "pink claw," or prosthetic arm (4). Case, the protagonist, retells his first encounter with Linda Lee, a love interest. He watches her play a video game, "her face bathed in  restless laser light, features reduced to a code" (8). Gibson highlights Linda's allure with artificial illumination and relates it to digital coding, rather than employing traditional notions of beauty resembling or deriving from nature.

Gibson pushes boundaries of imagination when describing Case's world. Many people lead destructive lifestyles of drugs and alcoholism, knowing they can easily replace organs, change their blood, and make other enhancements. While walking the streets of Ninsei, Case looks into a typical surgical "boutique;" given this term usually describes small shops selling trendy clothing, gadgets, or accessories, clearly body modification is a routine procedure in this context. Case stares at a "flat lozenge of vatgrown flesh... tattooed with a luminous digital display wired to subcutaneous chip," and wonders "[w]hy bother with the surgery... when you could just carry the thing around in your pocket?" (14) He seems less confused about an LCD screen embedded in flesh than the waste of time it takes to get the screen sown into your skin. Later, Case meets Molly who has mirrored lenses embedded into her face, a time read out added to her optic nerve, and artificial burgundy nails with four-centimeter scalpel blades in each finger. Gibson gives many more examples of nearly un-human individuals.

I suppose I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to altering the human body – only do it if there is no other option – but I wonder how others feel about getting physical upgrades. I joke about my cellphone equating to a vital organ, but could you ever picture yourself with electronics literally attached to you? It's fascinating to see the picture of technological ubiquity that Gibson paints for us, but I don't think that lifestyle will ever be a normal thing. The only current procedures that come close  – corrective eye surgery, replacement joints, artificial hearts, etc. – try to replace or correct a normal function, not add new features and abilities. I wouldn't mind seeing in the dark like Molly does, but would we be messing with nature too much with such dramatic changes?

Social network sites: was this the plan?

In their article, Boyd and Ellison discuss the emergence and development of social network sites (SNSs). They begin by noting that while these web entities mainly "support the maintenance of pre-existing social networks," others take shared interests into account and "help strangers connect." They claim that audiences vary in degree of diversity, where "[s]ome sites cater to diverse audiences, while attract people based on common... identities." Boyd & Ellison wisely mention that the incorporation of new information and communication tools, like "mobile connctivity, blogging, and photo/video-sharing," differs between SNSs as well.

The authors outline criteria for defining a social network site: "web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system." They justify their use of the term "network" over "networking" in discussing these sites, explaining that while "networking" suggests new relationships between strangers, social "network" sites let users define and present their existing social networks. Though interaction can occur that would not otherwise, usually links happen between "latent ties" so that users mostly get in touch with people already in their extended offline network.

Boyd and Ellison continue by describing the variation between social network sites. They mention how profile visibility differs site to site, but all SNSs record the user's relationship with others in the system (e.g. "Friends," "Contacts," and "Fans). They note that labels can be misleading,  "Friends" in particular, because relationship confirmation is not always bi-directional. "Public display of connections" is a pivotal feature of SNSs, according to Boyd and Ellison, where the visibility of relationship display changes depending on the site. Although messaging – whether through comments or private messages resembling e-mail – is a fairly widespread feature of SNSs, they recount how some sites began with other purposes as forums, blogs, instant messaging services, community sites, and directories to name a few.

Some of the uses of social network sites that Boyd and Ellison delve into are impression management, self-presentation, and friendship performance. For instance, Boyd analyzed Friendster as a hub of openly articulated social networks that let users manage their self-presentation and connect with others, and went on to suggest that this was a crucial tool for people to navigate the global social network and validate identity information in profiles. Boyd also argued that profiles could never be "real," given the varying expectation of authenticity across sites. The authors give examples supporting the idea that, oftentimes, impression management is the motivation behind choosing particular "friends."

I find this fascinating. I was in middle school when I started a Xanga, in high school when I signed up for Facebook, and in college when I made a blog and joined other SNSs. I suppose my somewhat innocent reasons for initially entering the global social network of the web in 7th grade haven't worn off. I used, and still use, social network services mostly for the reasons Boyd and Ellison first described: to communicate with and maintain my pre-existing extended offline network. Are all of my 226 Facebook friends people I consider my buddies? By no means, but that number is still fairly low compared to a lot of  Facebook users. I try to be as honest as I can when it comes to who my "friends" are. I'm one of those weird folks who ignores friend requests from random people and deletes old high school classmates that aren't true friends. I think the inherent publicity of "public displays of connection" makes us feel a little guilty to turn anything down on the Internet, because our actions are indirectly announced. No one knows that I ignored Bianca Talle's friend request except for Bianca, and that awkward situation wouldn't normally happen in real life. I can't help but wonder, did creators of social network sites see this coming? Did they anticipate this happening and just shrug their shoulders? Is it even necessarily wrong to have an unrealistic SNS profile? I'm going to keep being as honest as I can, but maybe I should engage in some impression management myself.

Community in a globally networked world

In his essay, "Evil Bert Ladin: ViRaL Texts, Community, and Collision," James Brown recounts the complex situation where a Bangladeshi poster protesting American bombings appeared on U.S. news stations showing a picture of Sesame Street's Bert with Osama Bin Laden. A company in Bangladesh hurriedley Google searched for a photograph and included the prank picture on the sign. Individuals from all over made interpretations of the image to surmise its intention, with some even suggesting it as "some form of steganography to send a message to Al Quaida [sic] cells." Despite people's ideas, Brown clarifies that the Bert Laden image created by Dennis Pozniak – inspired by Dino Ignacio's humorous website titled "Bert is Evil" – was a mere joke. He urges that, rather than attempting to decode the image, "we should consider what is behind the interpretive impulse" because "many argue that our interpretive practices will have to change" to cope with ViRaL texts in a globally networked world. In addition, Brown hints that some things are pushed aside or forgotten in the pursuit of the hermeneutic instinct.

Brown defines ViRaL texts, which place "different cultures and different realities" in touch with each other. These texts create what Professor Davis calls a "depropriative address." An address, or message, that overwhelms our ability to make sense of things causes trauma. The address contaminates our existing notions – like the association of a childhood icon with a globally infamous terrorist leader – exposing our proximity and vulnerability to everyone else in the world. Brown elucidates that when Westerners saw Bert with bin Laden, a metonym they identified with the West alongside a metonym for the Islamic fundamentalist enemy, they realized  the division between "us" and "them" is not a clear-cut line. The depropriating experience demonstrated to Westerners that their community is created through relation rather than appropriation or assimilation and is no longer based on interpretation. To handle the trauma of seeing bin Laden in the same community as themselves, readers resorted to the hermeneutic impulse.

Brown tries to extract the learning potential of the Bert Laden incident, rather than trying to interpreting it. He equates trauma with learning, where a "shattering of 'self' and 'world,' not an appropriation but an experience of depropriation and alteration" occurs. This sheds a new light on the fact that Bert and bin Laden can "collide and collude" via the Internet. Collaboration can occur among groups who never planned to cooperate. Brown identifies this "learning moment" as something that gets lost when we scramble to heal our trauma through interpretation. He points out how the very fact that Bert and bin Laden shared a poster represents a chance for peace over conflict. Brown proposes that "if we expand our definition of community" beyond one of contributing volunteers with consistent goals, we might be able to better devise a pathway to peace.

I could not help but find Brown's essay overly optimistic. He comments that words of symbolic exchange "may be hateful, dismissive, crude, disgusting," but we can "view all discourse as an opening." I'm not sure that this is true. To me, discourse that begins divisively only leads to more disagreement and polarization. I see the silver lining of the Bert Laden photo, where it at least embodies an opportunity for cross dialogue and more peaceful discourse. Nonetheless, the climate of communication will not change unless all parties involved recognize this opportunity together. The initial response to the Bert Laden image shows that people are pretty entrenched in their ways. I understand Brown's hope for peace, but I wouldn't cross my fingers just yet.

S/R 1: Convergence Culture by Henry Jenkins *revised*

In his book, Convergence Culture: Where Old And New Media Collide, Henry Jenkins details how technological changes have catalyzed a new cultural mindset in society, where relationships between content consumers and producers are complex and constantly shifting. Jenkins does not strive to outline a formula for how convergence culture operates, but instead takes a descriptive approach by pointing to case studies that reveal the evolving nature and changing roles of communication today. He defines a modern knowledge framework, which he calls collective intelligence, where “the sum total of information held individually by members of a group [can] be accessed in response to a specific question” and it is impossible for one person to master all of the information (27). Jenkins shows that greater accessibility to information coupled with new communication structures has impacted how companies approach marketing their products. Corporations focus on building an emotional investment between their brands and their customers using affective economics, Jenkins notes, a contemporary marketing theory “which seeks to understand the emotional underpinnings of consumer decision-making as a driving force behind viewing and purchasing decisions" (62). Jenkins suggests that the methods for fostering a relationship with consumers can represent a double-edged sword: heightened consumer awareness runs hand-in-hand with heighted consumer scrutiny. Furthermore, he presents how the emotional potential of franchises is a major component of transmedia stories. Jenkins explains that these narratives are so large they span across different media, with each project offering a “distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole” (97). He reveals through an analysis of The Matrix that storytelling has become the art of world-building, where fans must devote more time but receive a deeper, more meaningful experience in return. Jenkins examines other unprecedented connections between the work of media moguls and followers. He highlights the capability of fan fiction in the cyberworld, such as works surrounding Harry Potter, to attract writers of all ages and backgrounds, allowing for literary exploration to flourish. Jenkins’s discussion of fan fiction demonstrates that the collaborative intellectual growth in these zealous communities can afford analytical skills to participants beyond those gained from formal education. According to Jenkins, such affinity spaces can spur learning and discussion about serious issues as well. He appears optimistic that fan communities, which generate and circulate new ideas, offer access to new social structures, and exhibit new models of cultural production, can be viewed as models for democratic citizenship and collaboration.

Jenkins has helped change my mind regarding the democratic potential of new media. Initially, I was a complete skeptic towards the ability of media in convergence culture to promote political involvement. Despite a generation consisting of digital natives – what Jenkins describes as young people who have grown up with participatory media technology – it seems as if dialogue is growing more polarized and youth are remaining disengaged from political discussions. As Jenkins says himself, “online parody often embraces racist, sexist, and xenophobic humor” (291). Considering there is a tendency for individuals to seek out like-minded users on the Web, I feel like there is an unfortunate amount of potential for resources like YouTube to promote biased attitudes and bigotry more than democracy. As a part of this cultural group, I realize that our digital literacy equips us as capable agents for connecting with others, raising awareness for issues, and eliciting change. Nonetheless, even if convergence culture makes it easier for youth to exercise civic engagement, I was pessimistic about the willingness of voting-age Internet users such as myself to incorporate political discourse into their routines. There are forces motivated to fight the inertia of voters, however, like The Daily Show or Colbert Report, by rendering conversations or commentaries on politics as “serious fun” (284). Though a practical injection of politics into everyday life, these “barely political” avenues of civic dialogue have yet to make a statistically significant impact on voting. I think this realm of convergence culture has yet to mature and, although many individuals maintain a chasm between their media activities and political involvement, this situation is on the brink of change. By teaching children from an early age to adopt a “serious fun” attitude towards new media and offering youth opportunities to experiment with this type of dialogue, individuals can change the culture surrounding politics. School assignments involving participatory technologies – blogs, fan fiction sites, YouTube and other social networks – can inspire students to take a playful, creative approach towards integrating democratic participation into their habits. In a few words, I have come to agree with Jenkins’ view that, with proper education of media literacy, society can use the benefits of convergence culture to promote civic duties as a part of everyday life.

Political activism in Convergence Culture

In this reading of Convergence Culture, Jenkins recaps the conclusions of his case studies and underscores the major issues facing convergence culture as time moves forward. He summarizes the meaning of this culture, "a paradigm shift–a move from medium-specific content toward content that flows across multiple media channels, toward the increased interdependence of communications systems, toward multiple ways of accessing media content, and toward ever more complex relations between top-down corporate media and bottom-up participatory culture" (254). According to Jenkins, economic motivations are the primary driving force behind this transition, not attempts to empower consumers. Nonetheless, consumers and the public as a whole do, in fact, have potential for greater clout but, as Jenkins asks, "the question is whether [they are] ready to push for greater participation or willing to settle for the same old relations to mass media" (254). 

Primed and ready, "digital natives" who have grown up with habitual access to participatory media technologies possess the prerequisite literacy skills to have their voices heard. Constant interaction with media coupled with highly personalized services has made these media-actives thoroughly involved in their media choices. Jenkins describes YouTube as one outlet of expression for this age, a shared platform for individual and collective expression where diverse groups collide and collaborate learning from each other's practices (258). YouTube naturally lends itself to promoting "serious fun," entertainment that involves political issues,  because of its ubiquity and enormous, encompassing audience (284). Content like parody videos of politicians can go far and wide on YouTube, reaching the eyes and ears of a crowd that would never gather together in reality. Jenkins outlines the role of Internet parodies as "springboards for larger conversations," with some videos walking the line between amusement and activism. He discusses news comedy shows, including The Daily Show and Colbert Report, that foster a kind of civic literacy. Jenkins is not overly optimistic, however, and touches on the disadvantages of democracy in digital media. While some engage in dialogue to round out their viewpoints, others exploit the spreadability of digital media to amplify messages of partisanship, inequality, and prejudice. Jenkins' final nugget of wisdom is that democracy is not an inevitable outcome of technological change, as pundits like to believe with every major innovation, but something "we need to fight to achieve with every tool at our disposal" (294).

I am a poor role model when it comes to civic engagement.  I get a couple newsletters from advocacy groups and I will occasionally sign a petition (via the Internet) for certain issues. I've even donated to causes a couple of times (kudos to PayPal). To be frank, though, it would probably be more accurate to say that I can't be any less political. I feel guilty, because I know that our digital literacy equips us as capable agents for connecting with others, raising awareness for issues, and eliciting change. I think this realm of convergence culture has not matured yet: a lot of people still do not view their media activities as vehicles for political involvement. As we discussed in class, the overload of information out there can frustrate us to the point of surrender; I can't help but take a break from the daily tsunami of data heading my way. This is where programs like The Daily Show, Jenkins describes, prove to be practical: Jon Stewart's satire keeps me laughing, forces me to think beyond just believing what I see, and gets me genuinely interested in learning more about current events. But, I'm still not politically involved. How can we stay afloat of the information onslaught, satisfy our love of entertainment and fulfill our civic responsibility to have a voice in our democracy?

I am not trying to downplay the power of new media to spread a message. I came across the story of Zach Weiner, a cartoonist, and his mix up with the National Organization for Marriage. I've copied parts of his post, but here is a link to view it in its entirety. I think this is a perfect demonstration of how the fluid nature of digital information can result in cross-dialogue between different groups. Jenkins would probably approve of Zach's statement that "this generation fights in a new way, but we fight just as hard."

N.O.M. N.O.M. N.O.M.

Around 9 this morning I got messaged by a few twitter followers that a group called National Organization for Marriage (NOM) had posted a comic of mine. This was the comic, which was in no way conceived of or related to gay rights issues. NOM is a group whose major function is lobbying against gay marriage. They were made notorious for this video.

I messaged my brother/webguru Marty Weiner, who sprung into action. He worked on figuring out how to change the image without affecting the SMBC main page while I worked on finding an image. I settled on a rainbow flag and a quote. At first, I considered using a Harvey Milk quote, but I decided to go with someone I could only assume NOM favors: Mr. Thomas Jefferson.

Pretty cool, eh?

And, since I’m already on my soap box, I want to add: There seems to be this idea out there that action through the Internet has no important effect. Even people I really respect, like Jon Stewart, promote this idea. Well, today, I probably got a message of equality to over 100,000 people, among them members of the other side. This generation fights in a new way, but we fight just as hard.

Transmedia Worlds: A new story structure for all or a few?

In this chapter of Convergence Culture – "Searching for the Origami Unicorn" – Jenkins examines The Matrix franchise to describe transmedia storytelling. He explains that The Matrix, which expresses itself through comics, animated shorts, video games, and films, borrows the "media mix" culture of Japan. This strategy "disperses content across broadcast media, portable technologies... and location-based entertainment centers" (112). Rather than acting as self-contained narratives, the Matrix films assume viewers have engaged with other parts of the story outside of the movie theater. For example, "The Second Renaissance" by Mahiro Maeda "provides the timeline for the Matrix universe, giving context for events... that are mentioned in other Matrix texts" (119). A person who hasn't seen this animated short might feel left out during dialogue about B116ER, the first machine murderer, or the darkening of the skies.

Stories are moving away from focusing on a single plot and moving towards creating entire worlds that fans can explore through different media. "[S]torytelling has become the art of world building, as artists create compelling environments that cannot be fully explored or exhausted within a single work or even a single medium," Jenkins describes (116). He encourages suspicion for claims that these changes mark the collapse of storytelling. More accurately, storytelling is evolving with the development of new story structures, which "create complexity by expanding the range of narrative possibility rather than pursuing a single path with a beginning, middle, and end." Albeit movies might feel a bit disjointed or incomplete, but these fragments allow consumers to make links "on their own time and in their own ways" (121).

I'm skeptical of transmedia stories. A person needs to connect the dots across multiple platforms but the plot lacks a clear beginning; where do you start? EA's Neil Young explains,

"The more layers you put on something, the smaller the market. You are requiring people to intentionally invest more time... Maybe it starts with a game and then a film and then television. You are building a relationship with the world rather than trying to put it all out there at once" (130).

In my opinion, Young is right to worry that some people, including myself, will reject such a massive time commitment. Can the transmedia format catch on when it demands so much from consumers?
Jenkins cites plenty of examples that show the disadvantages of transmedia stories. Movie critics who, unaware of Niobe's character in the game Enter the Matrix, disapprove of Niobe's prominent role in The Matrix Revolutions. High school students who struggle to glean meaning from The Odyssey. Parents and grandparents who watch X-Men with confused faces. The pool of people who show devotion to the narrative dramatically shrinks for transmedia stories, which warrants the question: is it even possible for someone to fully appreciate a transmedia story? Jenkins himself relied on the collective intelligence of Matrix fans in writing this chapter. He admits that a single person cannot contain all the knowledge surrounding the Matrix, or any transmedia world for that matter; I can't decide, is this a good or bad thing? I recognize that the the story is deeper and the intellectual or emotional pay-off is greater, but I simply don't care enough to take time away from my family, friends, academics, or hobbies to put towards becoming a hardcore Matrix fan. I wonder, do the rest of you agree or am I missing out on an enriching cultural experience?

Choices for Cybersubculture project

Last.fm & The Hype Machine

Last.fm compiles users' musical tastes from their personal music players, Internet radio stations, and their input through the Last.fm site itself.

The Hype Machine is a hybrid between music blogging and music streaming/discovery. The site features a directory of blogs individuals can subscribe to. Users can listen to songs and "love" them, adding them to a personal music stream.

Skepticism: An Integral Part of Collective Intelligence

In his book, "Convergence Culture: Where Old And New Media Collide," Henry Jenkins discusses how collective intelligence has manifested itself with regard to the television program Survivor. He explains the workings of a community of "spoilers," intensely avid fans who work cooperatively to try and discover facts of the show. Jenkins examines the case of a controversial spoiler and how the activities of spoilers raise an array of philosophical implications. The issue that piques my interest the most is the necessary skepticism that goes hand-in-hand with collective intelligence.

From the start, Jenkins sheds light on the underlying thread of skepticism that characterizes the spoilers. He describes how ChillOne – the aforementioned user who caused an upset among hardcore online Survivor fans – posted "information on the Internet and lived through months of intense grilling by the spoiling community to defend his reputation" (26). The onslaught began with ChillOne's rather bold initial post of claims, eliciting questions of his credibility in a mere three minutes. One longtime spoiler expresses the almost blanket rule of distrust for new participants, explaining that "[y]ou don't trust first time people. You have to wonder why NOW of all the times they could have posted... once that person is found to be lying, they are never trusted again and they are pretty much blacklisted" (35). I find this blatantly paradoxical: the success of the spoiler community relies on gathering information from different users, but the community is suspicious of new intelligence and relies on a reserve of dependable veterans. Over time, ChillOne managed to gain more credibility but against great resistance. Clearly, the theoretical underpinnings of collective intelligence as a democratic model for knowledge can fail to hold true in reality.

Jenkins continues to detail the extent of cynicism among spoilers. He recounts how a gambling operation in Las Vegas dropped betting on Survivor results because a few CBS employees were placing bets allegedly based on insider information. Their bets coincided with ChillOne's assertions, supporting the validity of his claims. The same factual token, however, can also be used against ChillOne. Jenkins notes that some people recognized that those CBS employees could have based their bets not on insider tips but ChillOne himself, which would do nothing to prove or discredit his leads. This would not be the first time someone exploited the vast resources and deep devotion of the online spoiling community. As Jenkins tells, "[i]t had happened before when the [spoilers] had trusted some consistently accurate predictions from a Boston newspaper backing up their inside information on Survivor: The Australian Outback until it was clear that the reporter was just writing his column based on stuff he learned from the online discussions" (45). Albeit a powerful sign of a participatory culture, this flawed, recursive flow of information between consumers and producers forces communities like the spoilers to interpret everything with a fistful, rather than a grain, of salt, from groundless lies to legitimately reliable truths.

Wikipedia constitutes another example of doubt underscoring a system of collective intelligence. Just as Pierre Lévy argues, Wikipedia represents "the sum total of information held individually by the members of [a] group that can be accessed in response to a specific question" (27). Anyone – from a brain surgeon with ten years of real-world experience to a freshman high school student in their first biology class – can contribute. The problem is clear: this creates a more democratic catalogue of information but at the cost of validity. My concern is over discretion; where do we draw the line for skepticism? Personally, I have become so pessimistic about finding truth from any outlet to the point of frustration. I think the more we mature as an information society, the more people will be bombarded with information from a multitude of sources, both credible and not. In order for future systems of collective intelligence to be even more useful, society needs a tailored amount of suspicion.