#arabspring and the social network revolutions

The #arabspring #mena lecture would have to have been one of the most interesting I have attended so far in my university career. On ya Ted. To be honest, although I had heard about the revolutions and uprising in the areas, I really knew very little about it.

Dubbed the ‘social network revolutions’, revolutions in many countries continue as citizens battle with their governments, police forces and at times, each other. Revolutions throughout Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Yemen have all been highly influenced by social media, which provided a role of mobilisation, coordination and dissemination of information. Those who were previously overlooked were suddenly empowered, as seen through the various women featured as leaders throughout the events.

Citizens took to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to get their message across, battling with governments shutting down Facebook groups and in some cases, access to the entire internet. Now I don’t know about you, but the fact that a government is able to basically shut down the internet to a country is amazing and incredibly scary to me. Although there were measures put into place to surpass this (such as the SMS to Twitter function) the immense effect a government can have to access to information is astounding. 

Although I will not argue as some are that social media was the cause of the revolutions, I do indeed believe social network can allow us to be heard in a way we never were before. The internet, being dialogic by design, possesses incredible political potential in the way of fast mobilisation, openness, involvement and civic engagement through decentralising information and allowing wide access.

Google and Apple. And the winner is...

The Apple vs Google debate is, in retrospect, one I knew little about. Yes, I knew Google had acquired Motorolla, however I was not aware this was because they had the patents from the first ever mobile device. The histories of both companies are dynamic, interesting, and quite different, each choosing different key philosophies and core business models. Apple, a considerably longer running business, has a walled-garden philosophy built around ‘closed appliances tethered to a closed system’ (Mitew, 2011). With a disregard for cross-platform development tools such as flash, Apple have created a system where you use only Apple products for a complete technological experience. With progression from the iMac (with many applications still used today such as Safari, iTunes etc) to the iPod, iPhone, iPad etc, the Apple family has expanded hugely. However, its much younger competitor Google, although not a manufacturer, has now obtained a huge market share of various online platforms. From the introduction of the Google Search engine, to maps, Chrome, Google Plus, ownership of YouTube, Blogger etc, and the introduction of Android, the Google brand has spread prolifically far. With a core business model of connectivity as a product and a philosophy that emphasises that information flow is the key, Google have come to dominate a much broader market.

A quick summary of the information given by Ted regarding Apple vs Android here, for a better understanding.

Information Appliance	VS	Computing Device
Apple	VS	Android
Closed devices Walled garden of apps (App Store) Complete control over platform, device and operation system 2007 iPhone Proprietary island Platform	Vendor Control	Open and free platform Open garden of apps (Android Market) No control over platform, content and user à300 000 activations/day 861% growth YOY 615% yearly growth in global market    share Generative Net Content

As can be seen through the table, the Google philosophy seems to be working out quite a bit better for them. Within the lecture, the question was raised however, do you choose comfort or freedom? Being an iPhone owner myself, and with many if not most of my friends also owners, the news that Australia is one of the last markets where the iPhone is the market leader was surprising to me. However, I am still a PC user, which appears to generally be behind the times. So, my answer to the question was, I choose comfort, and by that I mean, sticking to what I know. I am very comfortable in using both my current devices, and being fairly technologically illiterate, will probably re-purchase them.

Having said that, after the clear comparison between Apple and Android as platforms, maybe I will have to rethink. Stay posted.



Note: I find it interesting that to find any information on Apple, I first 'Google it'. Coicidence? I think not.

Hacktivism or Identity Theft; Wikileaks and the battle with institution.

The mainstream media representation of hackers, online activists and whistleblowers as a whole appears to generally have negative connotations. Although as a generation we are becoming more educated and sceptical about mainstream media in general, this is still often our primary source for receiving information regarding events and issues globally. When you think of hacking, do you think of people trawling through your personal information to steal your money or identity? Or do you think of people trying to explore and make sense of the information withheld from us, mainstream society. Although we, as digital communication students may consider both, I think often people would jump to the first conclusion when discussing hacking. To me, it appears our generation has come to value and even expect a level of transparency, and when we are shown evidence that this is not the case (for example, the ‘Collateral Murder’ video) we feel somewhat betrayed by whoever is concealing the information; whether it be governments, corporations or even our parents, we expect to know what is going on.

WikiLeaks can be considered an organisation of hackers, whistleblowers and online activists, attempting to reveal hidden information to society to make a point. Ethics and values of the group can be seen as rights to access, lack of secrets and authority, and a freedom of code and information. Through decoding encrypted information and leaking it to the public, Assange and his team of hackers (mostly volunteers) seek to change society through empowering the public with knowledge. WikiLeaks is currently being blocked by many of the banks in America, stopping people from donating and hence funding the organisation. Consistent attempts to stop the organisation from running have been undertaken, from governments, the army and through litigation, however so far none have been effective.

Wikileaks Banking Blockade

It is interesting to note within the Khatchadourian article (2010), Aftergood states;

‘The overclassification of information is a problem of increasing scale—one that harms not only citizens, who should be able to have access to government records, but the system of classification itself. When too many secrets are kept, it becomes difficult to know which ones are important’.

In the information economy that is today, this raises questions of both the organisations in question and the amount of information they are withholding.  Khatchadourian reasons in regard to this; ‘Unlike authoritarian regimes, democratic governments hold secrets largely because citizens agree that they should, in order to protect legitimate policy.’

So I will leave you with this thought; do you think we (general democratic society) are part of the problem? Do you think if we, as a whole, argued for greater transparency we would be effective in generating change? Do you believe hacking can be for the greater good, or secrets are secrets to protect us? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Khatchadourian, R 2010, 'No Secrets: Julian Assange's mission for total transparency, The New Yorker, June 7

Twitter, YouTube, News and Everyday Conversations.

I found the article ‘How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live’ to be very interesting. As a new Twitter user, although I often forget to Tweet when I’m not concentrating on my DIGC enterprises, I have definitely found myself immersed in following interesting people and trending topics. The ease of which you can skip from one persons thoughts to anothers and follow their conversations and topics to other peoples conversations and topics is astounding, however I too was very apprehensive about the platform when joining. The most apt quote for me within the piece is ‘we don't think it at all moronic to start a phone call with a friend by asking how her day is going. Twitter gives you the same information without your even having to ask’.

From a DIGC perspective, I could relate to the notion of the ‘open conversation’ explored throughout the reading in regard to our tutorials every week. Although Twitter allows for us to interact and participate in the conversation throughout, does this somewhat replace actual spoken conversation? Often two very different discussions will be taking place aloud and via Twitter. We have no problem Tweeting the person sitting next to us, but asking for a pen or about the course content? Noo sir, that’s a bit confronting. I agree that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter can be very useful and entertaining to be engaged in, however we must ask ourselves what this replaces within our daily lives.

According to Neilson (as shown), Australian users spend the most time visiting social networks and blogs. Perhaps this is because we are marked on it? Doubtful. ** However, as noted in the lecture, many of us have come to consider blogs and social networks to be valuable news sources. Although many of us (myself included) believed these sources often lacked credibility, due to scalability and the short feedback loop available to non-traditional news sources, often information is first dessiminated through these platforms. Yes, often I will Google the news to make sure the ‘news’ is not just rumours, and I definitely do not believe everything posted upon Facebook or Twitter, however often the rumours are confirmed. Living away from my home town, often I first hear local news from their on Facebook, and as such I do consider the information valuable. Although very open to global news, in this way social networking sites (SNS) are reflective of the very first newspapers, which were seen as hyper-local and important to that community.

Communication and news-sharing between many members of many different communities occurs daily via SNS, most broadly through Twitter. I believe Johnsons’ notion of ‘bridges made of pebbles’ is demonstrated nicely through a case I followed a while back. Up and coming Melbournian musician Ben Abraham (http://twitter.com/#!/benabrahammusic) created a YouTube video performing a song he wrote asking Canadian musician Sara Bareilles (http://twitter.com/#!/SaraBareilles) if he could perform a song with her on her forthcoming tour to Melbourne. To quote Sara ‘I received a video on Twitter, from like ten billion people’, and so they performed together. Very cool, and nicely demonstrates the impact an aggregation of Tweets can have, joining two previously completely unrelated people together.

Check it out; they’re both very cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG8cvlhKcYQ

**Interesting to discover Evan Williams, co-creator of Twitter also launched Blogger; coincidence we must use these platforms Ted?

Scarcity and Value in the Attention Economy.

The shift to a digital economy has had many adverse effects on various aspects of life which we have discussed in previous weeks. Shown through the ‘long tail effect’, it is clear to see how retail frameworks, processes and marketing efforts have been significantly effected by a shift to ‘e-tail’ and online shopping. As discussed in the lecture, content aggregators such as Amazon, Google and Netflix have come to dominate the market online, as well as offline. The Borders vs Amazon case clearly demonstrates the huge impact an online service provider can have on a more traditional ‘physical’ retailer, and how digital and hybrid retailers can break through the ‘tyranny of physical space’. The logistical aspects of digital retail demonstrate how this can occur; the Amazon warehouse does not require neat presentation, counter-staff or ordered shelf space, and instead can be utilised so that consumers pay the lowest possible price for their desired products. This is important as price transparency is increased online, with prices easily comparable. Through lower prices and recommendation engines (such as Google), users are driven down the long tail to find obscure products you cannot find anywhere but online.

Long-tail effect for retailers

The shift from the ‘hit-driven model’ to a ‘mass market of niches’ allows more obscure products and trends to become popular, with memes and social networks helping to spread awareness of alternative music, fashion, movies and art amongst other things. One of the most interesting concepts I have found over the course of DICG202 is the importance of scarcity, and its impact on demand and value. In regard to this week’s discussion, I believe the notion that ‘abundance of information leads to scarcity of attention’ needs to be bought to be highlighted, as this is extremely important to consider in a digital economy. Compared to traditional media, the internet providers easy access and no risk, zero entry or user costs, no quality filters, and free publishing and access for users. Although this is seen by many as huge benefits of the internet, for companies wishing to gain attention or sell their products (whether tangible or intangible) this can be a major problem. With scarcity comes attention (and value); using more literal examples, this can be seen through water and bananas. Prior to drought, water is considered necessary and precious, however to a much higher value when it is scarce than when it is abundant. Bananas are the same; few people considered them as a highly valuable product until there was a shortage. Now a quick search for bananas on Facebook leads to groups such as ‘showing off your banana at school coz you’re a rich ****’ (with 46 000 fans).

The same can be said for many other tangible products, as well as information. In regard to scarcity, I believe Kelly sums up the paradox well, stating ‘when copies are super abundant, they become worthless. When copies are super abdundant, stuff which cant be copied becomes scarce and valuable’. I would be interested to hear your opinions on whether you agree with this also?

Convergence Culture.

Convergence is a topic I have discussed in many subjects, focusing on many different aspects. Jenkins (2006) and Deuze (2007) are both highly regarded academics on the subject, and these two readings have provided even further insight into convergence for me. First of all however, I would like to discuss my own thoughts on the matter.

In today’s digital society, I definitely consider myself to be a prosumer/produser. I own an iPhone, and tried to narrow down the importance of its functions for me for the purpose of this blog. The list was not short. I think this is mostly due to the fact that since I have owned the iPhone, many other products have become obsolete to me. Pre-iPhone I owned a mobile (Samsung flip phone, worked fine), an iPod (again, functioned well) and a camera (not so reliable). Now, I am totally reliant on my iPhone for music listening and photo taking purposes. Prior to owning it, I was completely sceptical and somewhat condescending toward ‘those people’ who always raved on about them, but I often find myself wondering what I used to do before it. For example, during a trip to the supermarket this week I: had the list of items I needed in the ‘notes’ application, looked up a recipe, called a friend to check what I needed and transferred myself some money. All while actually in Woolies. Although the SmartPhone is only one example of convergence, it is clear the impact this has had on my life (and organisation skills).

Web 2.0 is probably the largest example of convergence, with a plethora of different uses available. You know the drill; tv and radio, movies and music, blogs and news, encyclopaedias, tutorials, textbooks, rah rah rah…. Social media platforms echo this, with Facebook used to share photos, videos, links and news, chat to friends, and organise events. During exams my friend asked me to temporarily change her Facebook password so she would not be distracted (a sad but effective practice). Although she did not feel she was very disadvantaged or disconnected for the period of time without it, it was clear that the events application in particular was pushing her out of the social loop. Constantly people would be talking about events happening that she had not yet been invited to, because invites were issued solely through Facebook.

Although these are just somewhat superficial examples of convergence, it is clear that convergent medias are considered to be the norm in this day and age, often pushing products with one sole into obsolescence. Adverse to this, Jenkins (2006) states ‘old media are not being displaced. Rather, their functions and status are shifted by the introduction of new technologies’. I would be very interested to hear which of these ideas you agree with?

Creators and Copyright.

The issue of dispute in regard to copyright and creativity in my mind is this; if you create something, you should be recognised for it. Definitely. No questions asked. However, what if what you create is built off someone else’s creation? A remix or Machinima? Is it yours or theirs? This issue has been contentious since the creation of copyright, when prior to this, the notion of ownership was simply in regard to physical and scarce property. I find it very hard to fully imagine the idea of a world prior to copyright, where everyone blatantly copied everyone else’s work with no repercussions.

However, although I do believe it is necessary to stop blatant copying from occurring, in my opinion many copyright law suits today may be deemed unnecessary if the original idea is not damaged and being used creatively. Although having said this, I do believe authors should be recognised. The notion of ‘fair use’ may come into play here as a defence, however I believe many law suits would be easier/wiser not to begin anyway.

 Using music as an example (though I believe it may be applicable to many other sources), it is clear to see the blurred lines between who wrote/owns what, and who exactly is the original creator. With an abundance of co-authorship seen through different songwriters, producers and performers for one song or album, as well as a healthy remix-culture, music in particular can be quite hard to attribute to a single person. Even if the one person writes the music and lyrics, performs and produces the piece, you could argue that the music would most likely be inspired by other musicians, songs or previous styles of music, therefore, is it truly original. Much of popular music today includes sampling or remixing others work, and I know that many of our generation are blind to the fact that quite a lot of music we listen to is not exactly ‘new’.

However we do need to ask the question; if culture is appreciated, does the ownership and authorship even matter? In response to these questions, many current and emerging artists are choosing to allow their work to be downloaded for free online, and instead choose live shows as their profit-making method. 

 In my opinion, CreativeCommons licensing is a great alternative to regular copyright licenses, where content creators can have the amount of control they desire over their work, while allowing freedom for those who simply want to share.