THE AGE OF THE KEYBOARD WARRIOR

While the internet has opened up channels for dialogic exchange between producers and users, I have not really partaken in the practice beyond simple comments about my friends posted material. In this environment, the banter is restricted to a select network of people that can openly poke fun at each other with little recourse. The issues arise when the discussion environment grows to include anyone who wants to be heard. Issues of anonymity, trolling, moderation and regulation are all areas of concern regarding these open exchanges on the web.

Fiona Martin (2011) discusses these concerns in relation to ABC online forums in her article “Vox Populi, Vox Dei: ABC Online and the Risks of Dialogic Interaction”. Martin covers some of the ways that institutions such as the ABC are attempting to control the flow of discussion including the pre-moderation of comments (pg. 184) and the inclusion of a “three strikes holding policy”(pg. 186) where users that breach the code of conduct have their posts withheld for hours or days (2011).

Tanja raised some interesting discussion points regarding how to balance the two sides to this development. How can we have anonymity and community at the same time? How can we promote the free flow of ideas without allowing for heated debates and most importantly, how can all of this be regulated? Or can it at all? 

I’m a strong believer that the majority of what we do on the internet is self-regulated.  It is up to us to determine what is suitable to present on the web. We can be open to an extent but when it gets to the point where it causes emotional harm, individual morals and ethics should come into play. I believe institutions still have a massive part to play in the regulation of online discussion, but I am more concerned about the number of people out there that join online communities with the sole intention to harm others.

References

Fiona Martin (2012) ‘Vox Populi, Vox Dei: ABC Online and the risks of dialogic interaction’, in Histories of Public Service Broadcasters on the Web, editors, N. Brugger and M. Burns. New York: Peter Lang. pp. 177-192 

INCLUSIVE TECHNOLOGY

Gerard Goggin and Christopher Newell discuss the struggles and even absence of accessible and inclusive technology for disabled people in their article, ‘The Business of Digital Disability’ (2007). They begin with a story where they empathically check in at an airport in the mind frame of a blind person while questioning airport employees on the accessibility of their technology for disabled people at each step. They continue discuss reasons that companies do not consider people with disabilities in the design of technology such as increased expenses (2007). Conversely, they make numerous references to the potential markets being underutilised by excluding these considerations.

It is hard to dispute these claims without sounding insensitive to disabled people. In the airport story, Goggin and Newell state that disabled people have to resort to using the traditional help desk instead of easy check-in technology (2007). From the airports point of view, I can see how this is much more financially viable over tailoring their technology for disabled people. Furthermore, to put myself in a blind persons shoes (as Goggin and Newell did), I think I would want a human presence helping me through the process; but I guess that’s just me.

In terms of business, I think inclusive technology and all other technology have become separate. It seems that most companies don’t see inclusive technology as a viable option and the ones that do, are specialty manufacturers that specifically tailor technology to the disabled; and I don’t think this is a particularly bad thing. There is currently amazing things being done to improve the lives of disabled people. One great example is the development and combination of brain-computer interfaces and smart-home technology to help the severely disabled (Graham-Rowe 2011).

References

Goggin, G and C Newell (2007) ‘The Business of Digital Disability’ The Information Society: An International Journal, Volume 23, Issue 3, 159-168

Graham-Rowe 2011 ‘Control your home with thought alone’, New Scientist, July 5, accessed 14/5/2013, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128195.200-control-your-home-with-thought-alone.html

WHITE BREAD MEDIA

Racialisation

When considering the idea of ‘white bread media’, I feel that two main aspects come to the forefront of this debate; the negative portrayals of particular races by the Australian news media and the lack of diversity in Australian television dramas. Tanja Dreher discusses both of these issues in her chapter, ‘White Bread Media’ (Forthcoming 2014).

Racialisation occurs when complex social or political issues are explained in terms of race/ethnicity/religion (Dreher 2013). For example, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Muslims became “the folk devils of our time” (Dreher 2014). More locally, this racial generalisation occurred following the ‘ethnic gang rapes’ in Western Sydney. In 2012, the initial coverage of the ‘Sydney riots’ (Gridneff 2012) racialised Muslims yet again. It wasn’t until later reports were Muslim representatives given a chance to explain that “the actions of a very small minority should not be used to tarnish the reputation of the whole community” (Willan 2012). In each of these cases, the Australian news media helped fan the flames in terms of racialisation by blaming an entire race for the actions of a few and essentially, gave the enemy a false face.

These misrepresentations could be a major contributing factor to the lack of cultural diversity in Australian soap dramas. However, having never watched a soap opera in my life, my opinion is purely speculative. After considering secondary research (Dreher 2014, Kalina 2012) and discussing the issue with friends, I tend to agree with the Neighbours’ executive producer that “there is more sound and fury about this issue in the media than among viewers”. However, I also agree that if these soaps are trying to create a realistic representation of life in Australia, a multicultural cast is necessary.

References

Dreher, T (forthcoming 2014) ‘White Bread Media’ in The Media and Communications in Australia eds. S Cunningham and S Turnbull, Allen and Unwin

Dreher 2013 ‘White Bread Media, lecture, BCM310, Emerging Issues in Communications and Media, University of Wollongong, delivered 6 May 2013.

Willan, F 2012, “Muslim leaders respond to riots”, NINEMSN, September 18, accessed on 20/09/2012, http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8534458/muslim-leaders-respond-to-riots-live-stream

Gridneff, N 2012, “Fury at Sydney protests”, The Sydney Morning Herald, September 16, accessed on 20/09/2012, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fury-at-sydney-protests-20120915-25z0a.html

Kalina, P (2012) ‘Diversity still out of the picture’ Sydney Morning Herald available online at http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/diversity-still-out-of-the-picture-20120229-1u1jg.html

THE iMANOR

The feudalisation of the internet is an issue of much debate amongst scholars and passionate users of technology alike. However, it could also be argued that this seamless transition is going unnoticed by a large percentage of users with many too young to know any better. The basic idea revolves around the internet reverting back to a centralised network. The central network comprises of multiple terminals that are connected to one ‘mainframe’ computer (Mitew 2013). This model has since developed into a ‘distributed network’ which means the terminals are all connected to each other with no central computer (2013).  While the internet enjoyed a period of free-flowing information, Ted Mitew compares today’s digital environment to a feudal society whereby ‘users are technically speaking free, but content industries control all aspects of information use’ (2013).

Based on the ideas of Mitew (2013), Zittrain and Doctorow (2011), I can definitely see a huge power shift between users and content industries in favour of the latter. In terms of reverting back to a centralised network, instead of one mainframe computer, there are now many; each represented by a content industry. For example, Facebook could represent one of these ‘mainframe’ computers. As within a feudal society, users are nominally free but realistically, Facebook will dictate what you do within their ‘walls’ (Mitew 2013). Apple could represent another mainframe computer, showing their power by ‘locking down’ generativity within their products (Doctorow 2011). The most alarming development for me is the idea of ‘tethered appliances’. Put simply, tethered appliances are always connected to their vendors (Zittrain). Companies such as Tivo and Apple have the power to access and change the product from remote locations and that only scratches the surface of their power.

It could be argued that this transition makes using technology easier, more convenient and even safer, but I can’t help but feel powerless. I don’t like the idea of living in a feudal society; even if it is a metaphorical one.

References

 

Doctorow 2011, ‘The coming war on general-purpose computing’

http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

 

Mitew 2013 The Feudalisation of the Internet, lecture, BCM310, Emerging Issues in Communications and Media, University of Wollongong, delivered 29 May 2013.

Zittrain, 'Thethered Appliances, Software as Service, and Perfect Enforcement'. In The Future of the Internet and How to Stop it, Yale University Press, New Haven, ppp.101-126; [URL: http://futureoftheinternet.org/static/ZittrainTheFutureoftheInternet.pdf]