Kazaa is a free file sharing website enabling users to upload and share music. In 2005 Kazaa was taken to the Australian Federal court by numerous record labels for infringement of copyright acts (AustLII 2005). The judge ruled Kazaa had breeched the copyright act, and was ordered to pay damages to the record companies (AustLII 2005). Stories saturated the media about consumers as young as 12 years old arrested for using Kazaa to illegally download music (FOX News Network 2003).
At the time I was regularly using Kazaa. I didn’t realise it was illegal and in a panic I went to my dad and explained how I could be arrested for downloading music. He immediately uninstalled the program and that was the end of it.
During a recent tutorial discussion the issue of copyrighting emerged. It struck me again how such an innocent mistake on my behalf could have such ramifications. I thought I would take this opportunity to explore the issue of regulation and the internet, focusing mainly on the problems that arise from the collaborative nature of this format.
Many believe that the internet should use formal, traditional regulation in order to create order and stability within the online environment (Harvard Law Review Association 2008, 1387). In the music industry record companies are reporting losses due to the increase in sales of pirated CDs as well as illegal file sharing (Easley 2005, 165). I believe lack of regulation makes it hard to judge the quality of material produced on websites, as producers have a hard time standardising and monitoring all information created (Bruns 2008a). For example Wikipedia is open to public collaboration, nevertheless it is monitored by the Wikipedia community panel in order to remove offensive content and maintain a consistent level of quality (Wikipedia 2008).
The open source format of the internet makes regulation difficult (Bruns 2008b). Some believe that regulation will hinder the creative flow of information, and halt collaboration and interaction (Harvard Law Review Association 2008, 1405). Furthermore the argument is made complicated by claims that there is a fine line between file sharing being illegal or just immoral behaviour (Easley 2005, 166). Amid the ethical dilemmas and strong push for deregulation, strict governmental standardization and regulation of the internet would be a challenge (Harvard Law Review Association 2008).
Another view is that the internet, through its self-governed and evolving nature, is creating its own form of regulation (Harvard Law Review Association 2008, 1388).
"The Principles show that cyberspace is evolving toward a model of negotiated self-governance against a background of legally enforceable rules. The very need for the Principles illustrates the failure of traditional law as a sole, sufficient solution to the problem of online copyright infringement, but the Principles nevertheless build upon traditional law" (Harvard Law Review Association 2008, 1388)
I believe this statement adequately sums up the model of internet regulation. Even though file sharing still occurs within my social network, I have noticed that it is no longer socially acceptable. Now that users are aware they are breaking the law, even though their chances of getting caught are remote, they’re still reluctant to participate because of the moral and social ramifications.
AustLII. 2005. Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd (with Corrigendum dated 22 September 2005) [2005] FCA 1242 (5 September 2005). http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2005/1242.html (accessed April 30, 2008).
Bruns, A. 2008a. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 10 Podcast: Citizen Journalism. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 30, 2008).
Bruns, A. 2008b. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 9 Podcast: Open Source Software.
http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 30, 2008).
Easley, R. F. 2005. Ethical Issues in the Music Industry Response to Innovation and Piracy. Journal of Business Ethics 62 (2): 163-168. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=54&did=936338271&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1210148533&clientId=14394 (accessed April 30, 2008).
FOX News Network. 2003. 12-year Sued for Music Downloading. FOX News. September 2003. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html (accessed April 30, 2008).
Harvard Law Review Association. 2008. The Principles for User Generated Content Services: A Middle-Ground Approach to Cyber-Governance. Harvard Law Review 121 (5) 1387-1408.
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsh&AN=31392588&site=ehost-live (accessed April 30, 2008).
Wikipedia. 2008. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia (accessed April 30, 2008).
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
further...
To elaborate further on the points made in the previous blog, I thought I should highlight the fact that on top of a significant increase in the use of YouTube by political candidates, this forum has also enabled voters to get active and voice their political opinions.
There are many online sites dedicated to political and social commentary, mostly in the form of spoof videos. I believe that while candidate-sponsored videos provide great insight into the strategies and positioning of politicians, these spoof videos provide insight into the minds of politically active voters, and how they utilize this technology. It is interesting to note the different strategies employed by voters to get their message out to others on the internet.
Sites such as JibJab feature comic skits of President George W Bush, other previous presidential candidates, as well as spoofs of campaign slogans and debates.
While this communication is not commissioned by the presidential candidate, it can have significant impact on the views and opinions of certain demographics such as youth who find ‘traditional’ communication techniques dry and boring (Gibson and Ward 2002).
My favourite video is one of the ‘Classics’ from JibJab outlining the Bush v Kerry campaign of 2004.
Gibson, R. K. and S. Ward. 2002. Virtual Campaigning: Australian Parties and the Impact of the Internet. Australian Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 99-129. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=105&sid=7fb71dd8-b37b-484b-bfa2-b7a18826f587%40sessionmgr109 (accessed April 24, 2008).
There are many online sites dedicated to political and social commentary, mostly in the form of spoof videos. I believe that while candidate-sponsored videos provide great insight into the strategies and positioning of politicians, these spoof videos provide insight into the minds of politically active voters, and how they utilize this technology. It is interesting to note the different strategies employed by voters to get their message out to others on the internet.
Sites such as JibJab feature comic skits of President George W Bush, other previous presidential candidates, as well as spoofs of campaign slogans and debates.
While this communication is not commissioned by the presidential candidate, it can have significant impact on the views and opinions of certain demographics such as youth who find ‘traditional’ communication techniques dry and boring (Gibson and Ward 2002).
My favourite video is one of the ‘Classics’ from JibJab outlining the Bush v Kerry campaign of 2004.
Gibson, R. K. and S. Ward. 2002. Virtual Campaigning: Australian Parties and the Impact of the Internet. Australian Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 99-129. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=105&sid=7fb71dd8-b37b-484b-bfa2-b7a18826f587%40sessionmgr109 (accessed April 24, 2008).
Monday, April 21, 2008
To Tube or not to Tube, that is the question
Politics and the internet. There are two main points to consider when discussing this “new phase in political communication” (Farrell and Webb 2000; Norris 2000, in Gibson and Ward 2002, 99). Firstly why has there been such a push in recent years for virtual campaigning, and secondly what are the relevant issues to creating a successful e-campaign? This blog will focus mainly on political campaigns and the use of YouTube.
As mentioned previously, the phenomenon Web 2.0 has enabled a participatory culture (Jenkins 2006), from which a number of subcultures have emerged (Bruns 2008). While I often think of subcultures as those who listen to the same music or like Latin dancing, subcultures can also include political parties or factions, able to get their message across on a cheap and flexible forum (Bruns 2008). Not only do parties have access to this online forum, the internet allows political parties to access certain demographics that may be harder to reach through more traditional methods. “Narrowcasting” (Gibson and Ward 2002, 102) can be used to target segments such as youth who are more accessible through the internet (Norris 1998, 1999, in Gibson and Ward 2002, 102).
Saunders explains that the success of the internet lies in the “broadening of political perspectives, broadening of contributors [and the] broadening of styles” (2008). Gibson and Ward claim its success in that the internet allows parties “twenty-four-hour access and instant updating [it] also allow[s] for the continuous distribution of campaign news and rapid rebuttal of opponents’ attacks” (2002, 102). Either way you look at it, the internet has the potential to be a highly successful communication tool if used efficiently and effectively.
There are two examples of virtual campaigning on YouTube I will focus on: John Howard and Barack Obama. The success of these campaigns has been under serious public scrutiny. Howard posted a video on YouTube in July 2007 tackling the issue of climate change. The video (below) was received with mixed reviews. Some believed this was an effort to counter claims that Howard was “getting on and out of touch” (Bannerman in Tobin 2007). Others believe it was simply the right message on the wrong forum (Tobin 2007). I agree with the latter. To me, Howard looks uncomfortable in this medium, and as an internet user pointed out “YouTube is meant to be some funny videos, but not some serious thing” (Tobin 2007). Within hours of the original posting users got their "funny videos" as thousands of spoofs began to emerge (see Clarke and Dawe below). Lorann Downer, campaign speech writer for the Queensland Government, states Howard was attempting to bring an "old product into a new environment" (2008). This, she explains, is probably why he had little success. With this in mind overall I think it was a valiant effort, but probably damaged his credibility within the youth demographic, more than it helped his campaign.
John Howard’s 2007 YouTube Campaign
Spoofs Clarke and Dawe: YouTube spoof
Applying the same logic, Barack Obama brings a new product to a new environment, successfully promoting his 2008 campaign for American president on YouTube. In my opinion his most mentionable video was a video called “Yes we can”, featuring a number of celebrities supporting his campaign.
“Yes we can”: Barack Obama
Unlike Howard’s campaign Obama does not directly speaking to his audience, rather he relies on an emotive appeal with an entertainment value. As an avid supporter of Barack Obama, I was thrilled to see how well this emotive and effective piece of communication was received in the wider community. A comparison of both campaigns demonstrates that while the internet is a growing platform for promotion of political messages, it is neither a simple nor always effective communication avenue.
Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 6 Podcast, Online Communities. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 24, 2008).
Downer, L. 2008. KCB302 Political Communication: Week 10 Lecture, Political Campaigning. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29177_1 (accessed May 12, 2008).
Gibson, R. K. and S. Ward. 2002. Virtual Campaigning: Australian Parties and the Impact of the Internet. Australian Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 99-129. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=105&sid=7fb71dd8-b37b-484b-bfa2-b7a18826f587%40sessionmgr109 (accessed April 24, 2008).
Jenkins, H. 2006. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century (Part One). http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006/10/confronting_the_challenges_of.html (accessed April 24, 2008).
Saunders, B. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 4 Lecture, Cultural Diversity Online. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 24, 2008).
Tobin, M. 2007. PM: Howard joins YouTube generation. http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1981103.htm (accessed April 24, 2008).
As mentioned previously, the phenomenon Web 2.0 has enabled a participatory culture (Jenkins 2006), from which a number of subcultures have emerged (Bruns 2008). While I often think of subcultures as those who listen to the same music or like Latin dancing, subcultures can also include political parties or factions, able to get their message across on a cheap and flexible forum (Bruns 2008). Not only do parties have access to this online forum, the internet allows political parties to access certain demographics that may be harder to reach through more traditional methods. “Narrowcasting” (Gibson and Ward 2002, 102) can be used to target segments such as youth who are more accessible through the internet (Norris 1998, 1999, in Gibson and Ward 2002, 102).
Saunders explains that the success of the internet lies in the “broadening of political perspectives, broadening of contributors [and the] broadening of styles” (2008). Gibson and Ward claim its success in that the internet allows parties “twenty-four-hour access and instant updating [it] also allow[s] for the continuous distribution of campaign news and rapid rebuttal of opponents’ attacks” (2002, 102). Either way you look at it, the internet has the potential to be a highly successful communication tool if used efficiently and effectively.
There are two examples of virtual campaigning on YouTube I will focus on: John Howard and Barack Obama. The success of these campaigns has been under serious public scrutiny. Howard posted a video on YouTube in July 2007 tackling the issue of climate change. The video (below) was received with mixed reviews. Some believed this was an effort to counter claims that Howard was “getting on and out of touch” (Bannerman in Tobin 2007). Others believe it was simply the right message on the wrong forum (Tobin 2007). I agree with the latter. To me, Howard looks uncomfortable in this medium, and as an internet user pointed out “YouTube is meant to be some funny videos, but not some serious thing” (Tobin 2007). Within hours of the original posting users got their "funny videos" as thousands of spoofs began to emerge (see Clarke and Dawe below). Lorann Downer, campaign speech writer for the Queensland Government, states Howard was attempting to bring an "old product into a new environment" (2008). This, she explains, is probably why he had little success. With this in mind overall I think it was a valiant effort, but probably damaged his credibility within the youth demographic, more than it helped his campaign.
John Howard’s 2007 YouTube Campaign
Spoofs Clarke and Dawe: YouTube spoof
Applying the same logic, Barack Obama brings a new product to a new environment, successfully promoting his 2008 campaign for American president on YouTube. In my opinion his most mentionable video was a video called “Yes we can”, featuring a number of celebrities supporting his campaign.
“Yes we can”: Barack Obama
Unlike Howard’s campaign Obama does not directly speaking to his audience, rather he relies on an emotive appeal with an entertainment value. As an avid supporter of Barack Obama, I was thrilled to see how well this emotive and effective piece of communication was received in the wider community. A comparison of both campaigns demonstrates that while the internet is a growing platform for promotion of political messages, it is neither a simple nor always effective communication avenue.
Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 6 Podcast, Online Communities. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 24, 2008).
Downer, L. 2008. KCB302 Political Communication: Week 10 Lecture, Political Campaigning. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29177_1 (accessed May 12, 2008).
Gibson, R. K. and S. Ward. 2002. Virtual Campaigning: Australian Parties and the Impact of the Internet. Australian Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 99-129. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=105&sid=7fb71dd8-b37b-484b-bfa2-b7a18826f587%40sessionmgr109 (accessed April 24, 2008).
Jenkins, H. 2006. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century (Part One). http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006/10/confronting_the_challenges_of.html (accessed April 24, 2008).
Saunders, B. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 4 Lecture, Cultural Diversity Online. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 24, 2008).
Tobin, M. 2007. PM: Howard joins YouTube generation. http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1981103.htm (accessed April 24, 2008).
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Site Under Construction … (still)
A lot of debate surrounds the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. It is not exactly clear when Web 1.0 evolved into Web 2.0. There was no precise moment that Facebook, Flickr or Myspace opened their sites to the public and said ‘produse me’. There was no fancy cocktail party, or long emotive speech about changing the face of technology and social interaction. More likely a bored teenager sat online reading about the Italian Renaissance and decided that rather than submit a photo of Michelangelo’s David, he would enhance poor David’s nether regions and post that instead. Finding this concept undoubtedly humorous one of his friends would then take his image and superimpose a picture of President George W Bush’s head on David…and so begins “produsage” (Bruns 2008a). A rather crude example I am aware, however it perfectly sums up not only my brother’s social life, but Bruns’ argument that “produsers engage not in a traditional form of content production, but are instead involved in produsage – the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement” (2008a, 1). In effect, these images and sites are always under construction.
With recent and rapid changes in technology consumers have begun to form and change to suit this new collaborative environment, thus forming the creation of social software or the phenomenon Web 2.0 (Bruns 2008b). The most significant change in the use of technology comes from the development of open source software (Bruns 2008c). Rather than software programs managed by software managers, open source software relies on “peer review and transparency of process” (Opensource.org 2008), developing programs as a community for the broader community (Bruns 2008c). This breaks down the commercial barriers, and enables users to contribute, feedback, collaborate and create (Bruns 2008c). Consumers are now “working towards collective intelligence” (Bruns 2008c). As Bruns explains this development is hardly surprising, as the net was created by people with these backgrounds, as technology changes so does peoples curiosity in how it works (Bruns 2008a).
The development of open source software enables the development of four distinct DIY communities. There are online publishing, media sharing and creative practice, knowledge management and reviews and viral marketing (Bruns 2008c). All actively participating in their communities, creating, sharing and redistributing work within the constraints of their ability (Bruns 2008a). This creates a “fluid role” (Bruns 2008a, 3) for the individual who is required to move through the stages of produsage in order to be a functioning member of the community.
For example, imagine if Wikipedia.org did not enable cross examination or development, once an entry was posted there would be no adjustment or correction. Students would be reading about information technology developments relevant when the site was first published in 2000. This would NOT include:
One point I strongly agree with is that online communities self organize and manage themselves, lending themselves to multiple leaders of expertise, whereas traditional labour jobs are run on a more hierarchical basis, sometimes regardless of individuals potential (Bruns 2008c). As a casual retail assistant I often find that I am more than capable of doing managerial roles and often pick up slack of full timers, yet I am never acknowledged as a co-contributor to my working community. As an online participant I organize social events and manage online tournaments, I am also a participant in some tournaments and attend social events and forums which I have not developed, lending myself as a produser and a leader. With such open creative lease this phenomenon poses interesting questions about copyright and license of intellectual property, and interesting discussion for another day...
Bruns, A. 2008a. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 7 Podcast DIY Media and Collaboration. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 22, 2008).
Bruns, A. 2008b. Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 22, 2008).
Bruns, A. 2008c. The Future Is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 22, 2008).
Opensource.org. 2008. Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/ (accessed April 22, 2008).
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Joining the League of Cyber Nerds
Social online communities often appear to be developed without boundaries. They emerge as a coming-together of like-minded individuals, in a forum to share thoughts, interact and play (Flew 2004). However, as can be evident in a number of online communities, there are plenty of boundaries.
Without the typical geographical restraints of most offline communities, online communities can incorporate people from all over the world. This globalisation, while integrating a diverse range of cultural opinions and perspectives, can also become “insular” (Bruns 2008), operating within their own boundaries, vehemently excluding divergent views. While this is narrow-minded and exclusive, the format of the internet can appear to promote this, as it is a forum where individuals are allowed to express their views almost entirely without consequence. This creates a number of problems, in particular where social groups support causes generally considered to be socially disruptive in their views (Bruns 2008).
It is not necessarily only that these opinions exist, more so that the creators of these sites are able to manufacture the illusion of fervent support, deluding the less technologically literate into believing their charade. Possibly an extreme example of manipulation, however there are a number of cases, in particular socially or politically active groups, who manipulate the use of the internet to create false support and isolate communities of opposing beliefs (Bruns 2008).
The importance therefore of social norms is highlighted. Communities develop these norms in order to aid productivity and harmonious interaction (Bruns 2008). These social norms can range from group connectivity and frequency of meetings to acceptable social practices and expression of ideas (Bruns 2008). Flew points out that interaction in these online communities seems to stem from a general “dissatisfaction with the limitations of ‘real’ communities” (Flew 2004, 69). In online communities members can create their own sets of rules and standards, not limited by society’s manufactured social norms.
Benedict Anderson also points out that this notion of virtual communities sharing and creating can be used to describe a much broader concept (2004). He also claims that this idea precedes the Internet, rather it relates directly to the idea of national cultural beliefs that all members of a nation share, sometimes unknowingly (Anderson in Flew 2004, 69).
Some believe that online communities should be an amalgamation of online and offline communities, not separated from each other (Slater in Flew 2004, 66). There is growing studies that support this theory (Dahlgren 2000, 339). As a member of a number of online communities I agree with this concept. I have a Facebook, Myspace, MSN, del.icio.us and now a blogger.com account. I use the functions of these interactive mediums to stay in contact with overseas or interstate friends; arguably this act is a subset of previous offline interactions. However I am also a member of an online gymnastics club, political party and Scrabble tournament via these platforms. Without the ability to find other ex-acrobatics gymnasts, or Scrabble enthusiasts I would lack this important social interaction. I now regularly catch up with an ex-gymnastics partner from 5 years ago, all because I had the ability to find her using these online communities. By combining my online and offline networks I am effectively extending not only my social network but actively contributing to my community.
Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 6 Podcast, Online Communities. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 15, 2008).
Dahlgren, P. 2000. The Internet and the democratization of civic culture. Political Communication 17 (4): 335-340. https://cmd.qut.edu.au/cmd/KCB302/KCB302_AR_82736.pdf (accessed April 24, 2008).
Flew, T. 2004. New Media: An introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Without the typical geographical restraints of most offline communities, online communities can incorporate people from all over the world. This globalisation, while integrating a diverse range of cultural opinions and perspectives, can also become “insular” (Bruns 2008), operating within their own boundaries, vehemently excluding divergent views. While this is narrow-minded and exclusive, the format of the internet can appear to promote this, as it is a forum where individuals are allowed to express their views almost entirely without consequence. This creates a number of problems, in particular where social groups support causes generally considered to be socially disruptive in their views (Bruns 2008).
It is not necessarily only that these opinions exist, more so that the creators of these sites are able to manufacture the illusion of fervent support, deluding the less technologically literate into believing their charade. Possibly an extreme example of manipulation, however there are a number of cases, in particular socially or politically active groups, who manipulate the use of the internet to create false support and isolate communities of opposing beliefs (Bruns 2008).
The importance therefore of social norms is highlighted. Communities develop these norms in order to aid productivity and harmonious interaction (Bruns 2008). These social norms can range from group connectivity and frequency of meetings to acceptable social practices and expression of ideas (Bruns 2008). Flew points out that interaction in these online communities seems to stem from a general “dissatisfaction with the limitations of ‘real’ communities” (Flew 2004, 69). In online communities members can create their own sets of rules and standards, not limited by society’s manufactured social norms.
Benedict Anderson also points out that this notion of virtual communities sharing and creating can be used to describe a much broader concept (2004). He also claims that this idea precedes the Internet, rather it relates directly to the idea of national cultural beliefs that all members of a nation share, sometimes unknowingly (Anderson in Flew 2004, 69).
Some believe that online communities should be an amalgamation of online and offline communities, not separated from each other (Slater in Flew 2004, 66). There is growing studies that support this theory (Dahlgren 2000, 339). As a member of a number of online communities I agree with this concept. I have a Facebook, Myspace, MSN, del.icio.us and now a blogger.com account. I use the functions of these interactive mediums to stay in contact with overseas or interstate friends; arguably this act is a subset of previous offline interactions. However I am also a member of an online gymnastics club, political party and Scrabble tournament via these platforms. Without the ability to find other ex-acrobatics gymnasts, or Scrabble enthusiasts I would lack this important social interaction. I now regularly catch up with an ex-gymnastics partner from 5 years ago, all because I had the ability to find her using these online communities. By combining my online and offline networks I am effectively extending not only my social network but actively contributing to my community.
Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 6 Podcast, Online Communities. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 15, 2008).
Dahlgren, P. 2000. The Internet and the democratization of civic culture. Political Communication 17 (4): 335-340. https://cmd.qut.edu.au/cmd/KCB302/KCB302_AR_82736.pdf (accessed April 24, 2008).
Flew, T. 2004. New Media: An introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Welcome to the Mind of Lady Em
Vincent van Gogh said:
"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced."
For the life of me I can't write. I'm an awful speller and can't ever remember whether it's 'i' before 'e' or 'e' before 'i'. In fact at any particular time I have so many thoughts circumnavigating my head I may simultaneously combust! I've sat in front of the computer monitor for 10 minutes contemplating my first blog entry and low and behold even minutes after beginning I am already feeling less overwhelmed about the weeks to come.
As part of an assignment for university I am required to maintain blog with regular entries showcasing my opinions about unit topics. A challenge more suited to journalism students than me who couldn't possibly submit an assignment without spell-check! However I will endeavour to surpass expectation and provide an insightful collection of memoirs for Virtual Cultures.
That's enough fluff for today.
Until next post,
Peace out Precious!
"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced."
For the life of me I can't write. I'm an awful speller and can't ever remember whether it's 'i' before 'e' or 'e' before 'i'. In fact at any particular time I have so many thoughts circumnavigating my head I may simultaneously combust! I've sat in front of the computer monitor for 10 minutes contemplating my first blog entry and low and behold even minutes after beginning I am already feeling less overwhelmed about the weeks to come.
As part of an assignment for university I am required to maintain blog with regular entries showcasing my opinions about unit topics. A challenge more suited to journalism students than me who couldn't possibly submit an assignment without spell-check! However I will endeavour to surpass expectation and provide an insightful collection of memoirs for Virtual Cultures.
That's enough fluff for today.
Until next post,
Peace out Precious!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
