no gender bending on Chinese MMORPG

A Chinese Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG) called King of the World freezing the accounts of "male players who chose to play female in-game characters."

Slightly political... more than a little sardonic... So what does it mean?

Nathan hearts danah boyd

"...I totally have an academic crush..."

Nathan Scott (or is it Stephen?) Epley was born on May 26, 1968. That makes him 39 folks... danah is 29. Ten years is okay at this age, but a ten year old dating a fetus is disturbing. But that is beside the point.... actually there is no point. More info about nepley's academic crushee here: http://www.danah.org/aboutme.html.

Anyhow, she wrote a bunch of the stuff we were to read. Now that we've agreed upon that point, let's move onto something we might not agree upon. I say that social networking sites are destroying our families, and we need our churches and clergy to intervene before the sanctity of normal face-to-face interaction is lost to the whore-ish internet culture of the myspace generation. If we don't stand up against this attack on traditional family networks then our youth will continue down the path towards heresy and ultimately eternal damnation. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Mark Zuckerberg.

I'm not going to pretend you aren't part of the problem... Yeah YOU... reading this! You and your smarmy smirk. Smickity Smackity Smoo! That's religious for F*** YOU MYSPACE GENERATION!

Hugs and Kisses.

Dexter

Note: The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of the author. They are more likely the opinions of the author's avatar.

A world without net neutrality

from boing boing.

Also, there is evidence here and here that all this concern about net neutrality is not just a slippery slope argument. Big telecoms are already letting their own political interests decide who gets to connect on their networks. It would be one thing if we all had lots of choices about our ISPs, but as I price high-speed ISPs in Iowa city, I get to choose between two.

What's the deal with these kids on Myspace?

Sorry if this blog asks too many questions as apposed to evaluating the discussion material. I just wanted to get people thinking in a different direction, since we've already covered a lot in class discussions about online identity and privacy.

We seem to be stuck in the mind frame of evaluating what users of social networks are producing. I think it is more important to look beyond the "social implications" of what people are posting about themselves that may serve as a potential "risk." What are these kids doing on Myspace? How do they get these crazy ideas? What kinds of subcultures are spawning from the so called "Myspace generation" and how is it affecting communication for future generations to come? I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. There are pluses and minuses to every "technological revolution." So what makes social networking important, besides the fact that it is everywhere?

Boyd advises us not to be concerned with these so called risks, and instead looks at why the media has propelled this moral panic about "our children" exposing themselves so freely.

Nussbaum's social networking article took an interesting look at the sociology of the cyber phenomenon. She implies that users are behaving or performing for an "invisible audience." But she also recognizes that most users are careful to reveal or disclose just the right amount of information to interest "friends." Are there any parallels to the same tactics in real life? I believe so. In real life we can "edit" parts of our past and personality and decide what info to share with people that we meet. Social networks allow people to do the same, and beyond. Are users simply behaving as an editing version of their "self" or are they performing as an alternate entity?

Dude didn't even graduate from Harvard

I couldn’t use chat rooms because perverts raped kids on them. This didn’t make sense then, but (…and I know how it sounds), as I get older, I understand the fear that comes with putting too much of yourself out there for the world to take advantage of. In a sense anybody who doesn’t know exactly what they are doing with either a social network like MySpace or something like Second Life is a ‘kid’. This person is entering into a world that has eyes lining the walls. These networks and enjoyable systems are all still systems run by human beings with flaws just like suicide girls that let the whole world know too much about them. Stick your neck out and you’re bound to get somebody trying to cut off your head (and make money off of it). Communication is a market, ‘kids’ are a market, and whether or not the bad intentions are exact rape or not someone is out there ready to prey on both.

The Giant Log called WWW

There seems to be a common theme throughout the articles concerning the automation of information retrieval, logging, and processing that may ultimately threaten its subjects when it is collected by the wrong people. Marks focuses on the data-mining projects of the NSA, George and St. John look at potential employer reactions to the revealing personal pages of their applicants, and Gefter examines participatory services that keep track of our online footsteps. There are flaws in the assumptions of privacy users make with these circumstances, as most (if not all) the information mined is already made public electronically – as St. John puts it, the miner is just doing the “heavy lifting”. Take, for instance, the email you sent me last week. I’ve read the header, found your IP address, linked you with the campus directory, and maintain all this data in a profile of you along with a distinct 3D location I’ve created with Google Earth. At the push of a button, I can submit this information to millions of Google users, allowing access not only to your digital address but to a very specific real-world location. Imagine if I did that with every email recipient in my address book, along with a screenshot of their desktop (hey, did you pay for that copy of Office?). Online identity, while certainly fluid and potentially anonymous, issues no guarantees of privacy/anonymity. Digital documentation is considerably more dangerous than the traditional paper, as it brings copies, manipulations, and distributions to a new level – often without substantial evidence of the infractions taking place. No system is totally secure, so the only true safeguard is to refrain from use, and no one wants to do that. In the end, all you can do is limit. Just think of all the cool stuff Google knows about you.

Feed your inner voyeur

This link was buried in Andy's post from a while ago, but it is utterly fascinating (someone also explained this to me in class, but I didn't get it until I tried it). Go here. Type one of the search strings into Google. You will then see a surveillance camera somewhere. I watched puppies in Korea, a plaza in Austria, a construction site in Virginia, a computer lab at a school in Illinois, and, most interestingly, a residential quad at NC State. If we searched all the possible search strings along with the IP address range of UNI, would we find on campus security cameras right here?

Not a creative title

Reading about social networking and talking about it in class has honestly made me look at it differently. I know everyone has their own opinion about it, and I do also. When we first got to college, facebook was the thing to get. Everyone had it and we all immediately found our hometown friends and started modifying our profile. Or maybe that was just me. A few years ago when all this social networking stuff was new, that was fine. But as all things change and grow over time, things like myspace and facebook have become popular and available to everyone. With this openness, doors for internet predators open up all over the place. Because of this, I think the main thing is to just be smart about your profile. Don't put anything on there unless you it's ok for a stranger or a possible employer or a nosy parent to find.
Now I'm not saying I think that social networks are all bad. I think if used properly they can actually be incredibly useful. In the business world, its not what you know, but who you know. I can see people searching for friends they have in common, or being able to look at who other people know to help landing a deal or job. I can also see business being able to use these social networks as a way of doing business by searching for potential buyers. There would probably have to be certain modifications for this to happen, but social networks aren't done growing and changing just yet. I don't know that this is where they are headed, but I think it is a legitimate possibility.

Social Networking Help?

With all the talk about the many social networking sites, the discussion about surveillance of these sites has finally come about. We mentioned it briefly in class on Thursday, about certain companies that are willing to monitor the Web for an individual to make sure that no incriminating information is published without knowledge of the publications. Although the details of the service are sketchy, meaning we don't know what payment or the contract agreement would be, it seems the idea is good and should be adopted. There is a lot of really ignorant people that post random pieces of information on the internet, and there is a lot of simply dumb people that post all of that information knowing full well the consequences. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between the two types, but if people are conscious enough to realize they are at risk but are naive with electronics, a service such as this can prevent many problems related to identity and information distribution. Again, this type of service has many gray areas in concept right now, but I think it can prevent innocent people when they don't know any better.

Taser Pr0n

Earlier in the semester, Emily posted this video of a UCLA student being tasered while handcuffed (The U of Florida Student was tasered to facilitate his handcuffing). What strikes me is that the venerable non-violent protest tactic of "going limp" when being arrested is now going to be countered by the use of the taser. Tasers are used routinely on people who are already handcuffed, although some municipalities (e.g. Las Vegas) have banned the use of tasers on handcuffed people for years.
Referring to the Florida incident, Steven Colbert took your generation to task for not acting up not just once, but twice! Certainly, the angry response of the UCLA students (when they themselves threatened with tasering) puts in context Colbert's criticism of the Florida students.

Common Sense

This is going to sound like a massive reverberation of what I've been saying all along. No worries though because that's exactly what it is. Firstly, I tend to shun most of the slippery slope arguments that say that social networking will lead to fear, immorality and increased victimization. Yes, there are going to be cases of this. Nothing is perfect and there will always be flaws and social problems attached to any new technology. However, I feel that most if not all of the societal ills articulated with social networking can be ameliorated with the implementation of pure common sense. It's funny to me how the illusion of safety and privacy can be substituted for the concepts themselves. Unfortunately this is not the case. There's nothing about me on my facebook page that I wouldn't care if the whole world knew. There was never any mental split for me that caused me to think that people wouldn't be able to get their hands on my information. As to why some people believe this: Excessive belief in the illusion of privacy. While I in no way shape or form consider myself in the league with Thomas Paine, I do believe that a healthy amount of common sense could help us all.

Don’t let your fear raise your kids or I’m on MySpace because it’s SO 2006

Even though adults are online, it still scares them. And kids feel like they have nothing to fear because like Nussbaum says “they’re soaking in it.” ‘It’ being the Internet, social networking sites, brand new technology that makes it ten times easier to keep in touch with their friends. The parents’ fears (based on their lack of knowledge or tech savvy) of all of this, rather rational or not, are lodged in the back of their minds and influencing all their instincts in child rearing. Insofar, that children on the whole are more sheltered and under more surveillance than normal. Like Boyd says, children need a safe space to grow and mature. They need to make mistakes and learn from their own actions what is right and what is wrong. What parents need to be doing is educating their children on who to trust, who not to trust, and how to make good decisions – not keep their kids in so many extra-curricular activities that they don’t have time to socialize and find out who they are outside of classrooms, sports arenas, libraries, and their own homes. It is a big scary world out there, but it was when parents were young as well. I think it’s more productive to be wary of the predators that live in our neighborhoods or are members of families, than to be worried about the lurking creeps on MySpace.

Further, on Boyd’s points regarding the hegemonic teens of Facebook and the subaltern kids of MySpace – I agree with most of it. There is definitely a grittier edge to MySpace compared to the clean cut “Harvard” style of Facebook. Facebook looks more sophisticated, where MySpace has an underground-punk-Bohemianistic feel to it. I joined MySpace first, and Facebook much later. I had not even heard of Facebook until maybe halfway through my first semester here in January of 2006. I took a look at the login page and felt like I wouldn’t belong. I ultimately joined it because I was taking part in a group project and none of my fellow group members used MySpace: can you imagine how well I got along with them? Based on the opinions I just admitted to having, I’ll bet you can.

*Image from a boolean search on Google for "teens addicted to MySpace"*

Uncle Sam Watches You Brog

In an attempt to avoid controlled spaces, children find “youth Space.” If the quest for Youth space is monitored and catalogued by the NSA, I would seriously worry how my opinionated blog from my freshman year would affect my future as a politician. (not to mention these blogs) Many of the artifacts a person presents online are figuratively (or literally) snapshots of a person at a specific time. I no longer agree with many aspects of the above linked blog, but an out of context RDF reader wouldn’t know that.

The generalizations of accusation go further though, not only can a person be judged by what they put online, but also by what friends place online. If the NSA puts their rumored plans into action, simply knowing various criminals can make someone a suspect (Dick Cheney beware) What I worry about is the random friend requests I accept because people compliment my MySpace Page. If these people are guilty of illegal stupidity do I end up on a politically motivated watch list? How will that innocent mistake of judgment affect my political career?

The main idea of the articles is that the internet and technology offer an option to be someone other than who you really are. In the 'real world' exists your physical personality and in the online world you have another if not many other personalities. This is a quote from the Turkle article:

"...I'm just hoping that face-to-face I can find a way to spend some time being the online me."

Muds and the like are starting to widen the line between who a person is in real life and who they are in the online world. Even if a person tries to impose thier 'real world' personality online, it still isn't the same. The phrase 'multiple personality' really applies here. Having an online personality is not a disorder. Although, in some cases it could be a serious problem. If someone spends an unhealthy amount of time being their online self, could they drift farther away from the real world?

yawn.....

“…I feel very different online. I am a lot more outgoing, less inhibited. I would say I feel more like myself. But that’s a contradiction.”

No, it’s not. Building an online persona is like drinking alcohol. Both take away inhibitions. Inhibitions are those nasty things that make you think twice, or not at all, about doing or saying something. And what we do and say is what defines who we are to others. While our decision making when inebriated may not be as crisp, it is more primal and kept less in check. Being in touch with our primal being of self is sought after and is evident in our use of alcohol to get away from our “real-constructed” selves. The consequences just happen to much less severe online. When I was on Second Life, I started with a sense of inhibition. It took a little while, but I finally began to become someone other than my real self. I didn’t really care what others thought. It was then I decided to walk around with an enormous boner… Does size matter in Second Life? I don’t care. I’m hung like a Clydesdale on Viagra.

Critical Hit.

I couldn't disagree with the Turkle reading any more than I do right now... It seems that the author is simply taking the easy way out and saying that MUDs and MOOs are horrible way to interact within a society. None of the examples provided by the author show the entertainment invokedparticipants of these various activities. I remember spending hours with some of my best friends in high school doing what most people would consider nerdy. We played countless numbers of Pen and Paper RPGs based on the D20 system but the one I remember most was simply titled D20 modern. This involved rolling dice for stats, movement and most everything else. The D20 modern was, obviously, in a modern setting in an almost seemingly "real" environment. During one of our sessions one of our party-members notices some street racers participating in various competitions. Matt simply responds with "God Damn Street Racers!" and kills them all. Would Matt kill street racers in real life?...No This is where various authors fall short in my opinion.
Nakamura, however, has her head on straight. It seems that she understands how the Internet is slowly decaying to an entertainment only environment. This is a call for action in which I believe we need to realize. This author makes a comment about using the Internet for public response to various issues (such as a racist T-Shirt). Although this aspect of the Internet isn't entirely absent, we need to realize that there are other purposes than pr0n and fragging noobs. I envision the Internet being a way to transmit culture from one area to another. True, it may not be "real" culture...it could provide a digital replica for those who cannot travel to various art exibhits or concerts.

Lisa Nakamura: A wag o' the finger and a tip o' the hat.

I really liked parts of the Nakamura (2005) article on racial passing and yet other parts left me really confused. In the very beginning she writes that "in the medium of cyberspace, distinctions and imbalances in power between beings who perform themselves solely through writing seem to have deferred, if not effaced." Then the rest of the article seems to refute this. Am I missing something here? Was she saying that is seems this way but actually isn't? Throughout the article she writes about how race gets articulated and thematized on LambdaMoo and explains that there is still a pretty clear imbalance in power relations. In the end of the article she even cites Ross and Penley: "In spite of the claims that everyone is the same in virtual worlds, access to technology and necessary skills will effectively replicate class divisions of the rest of reality in the virtual spaces" and "will tend to reinforce existing inequalities, and propagate already dominant ideologies."


One part that really worked for me was how she explained that the nondiscolsure of a racial identity was read by others as a disclosure of a white identity. This is similar to a concept that I am writing about in my thesis; there is a default/assumed identity that exists until there is reason for doubt. I think an example of this is all of the talk abut Hillary Clinton being a lesbian. First of all, I am pretty sure that everyone assumed she was straight from the get go. However, in light of her glbt-friendly policies (and other things as well) many people have started to suggest that she is in fact a lesbian. She briefly responds to these claims in the latest issue of the Advocate. I think this is an interesting implication of a default identity, anyone that even discusses issues about the non-default identities is presumed to no longer identify as the default identity.

If You Break the Looking Glass, You Get 7 Years of Bad Luck

Yes, I have made fun of the "emo" kids on Myspace, who love taking closeups of themselves with their hair covering their faces and piercings galore. I have also laughed at the "losers" wasting their entire lives playing MMORPGs, obsessed with their alternate personae. And I scoff my acquaintances , consumed by an odd mixture of Death Metal and anime, as they are "performing themselves as Asian through on-line textual interaction" (Nakamura.)
But these are all stereotypes, or extremes, that we choose to pick out to criticize. We assume that these archetypes must not have lives or that they do not know who they truly are. I think that each and every human being who interpersonally communicates, online or in "RL", is a social actor. We act in different situations in our everyday lives--at school, work, and with our friends, so why not online as well? I for one, have posted blogs and pictures online that are ambiguous, and not connected to what most people would consider my true personality. I use anonymous online outlets to explore my curiosities. I have posted as a African American male in an online "free-style" rap battle forum. I have also made graphic art exclaming "I'm so goth, I shit bats" and posted them randomly on my friend's sites. These things are all apart of me, somewhere deep inside.
Like Russian filmmaker Dziga Vertov, I believe that no medium can truly capture "reality."

New media thrives off active consumption

While all of the articles commented on the roles we take as computer-augmentation beneficiaries (technobodies), none of them fully addressed the role of the programmer. Computer code may not require the most exquisite and efficient form conceivable, it certainly demands acceptable syntax and procedure. There becomes a conflict between the immaculate and the hack: a question of right/wrong even though both get the job done. This is pushed to "a relaxed attitude toward sentence fragments and typographic errors", leading to the assumption that we've forgotten how to write. Reading into the effects of technology on identity, Turkle comments that "computer science has contributed to [a] new way of talking": paths, like circuits, marked by the programs we run and how manipulate them. Like a good software program, the out identities must be multiple as we are forced to multi-task and diversify in order to survive. This is no longer a society of individualized, do-only-this-and-go-home career system. As e-media majors, especially, we must hone a plethora skills in order to be marketable. The cosmic implications are readily apparent within the program: your photo editor loads an entire toolkit of smaller applications designed to capture and refine your images, each likely coded by separate programmers. All of this runs on a system built of object on top of object, each determined to run properly without complete knowledge of the environment they are running within. We, too, act as objects within our own systems, and whatever control there is either given inherently in the form of permissions or taken by some exploitation of the working environ. Turkle points out how these program politics have manifested themselves through MUD hackers like Mr. Bungle: whose understanding of the command system allowed him to digitally rape other users. Even the programmers, the assumed gods of the medium, did not have the panoptic ability to observe every bitwise movement of the attacker. Internet content is much like any other artistic medium in that it can choose to integrate more than pure spectacle - it can assume mathematical, philosophical, and political positions, as well intrinsic flaws. With every new digital structure there becomes greater opportunity and choice. You are the child of binary; embrace your future.

Online Dave is an asshole......

http://blogonomicon.eponym.com/blog/Humor/_archives/2007/6/17/3028535.html

As a young adult who is a member of two social networking sites (facebook and myspace), an online gaming community (x-box live), and a few message boards; I can say that I know about the difference between online Dave and real life Dave.

I like to believe that real life Dave is a reasonably nice guy and fairly intelligent. But like a lot of people, my online personality is far different. I steer clear of anything racial and extremely derogatory, but I am fairly competent at breaking a newbs spirit. Part of playing an online game for most people is getting the other team so angry that they play bad or say something stupid so that you get a laugh out of it. There are common insults that you hear online include; “that’s what she said, “your mom (something sexual or derogatory)”, or something as simple as “you such at this game”. Time to think of an insult while in the midst of a frag fest is limited so you mostly get the most simple of insults. This mostly applies to x-box live where the main form of communication is talking to each other over a headset.

Message board Dave is generally more thoughtful than x-box live Dave. Since the form of communication is slower, I generally think about my responses longer. I tend to use more thought out insults and attack people more thoughtfully. I am also generally a nicer guy.

Yes I am a different person online, as are most people. Since there are fewer barriers to separate people in cyberspace, we get less self censorship. What are the consequences of being an asshole online? Pretty much nothing; you may get banned from a message board or have your virtual profile get deleted, but it is nothing detrimental. Who really cares about how we are perceived online when location and identity are not an issue?

What really is our identity over the internet and world wide web? Are we posers, or actually portray our own unique personality with a slight twist. I think it's the case for some, who realize they're not going to be judged based on their race, religion, age, or sex. You could also look at RP or RPG (Role Playing and Role Playing Games) and see how people change their identities via the internet / web. Take for instance any MMORPG ( massive multiplayer online role playing game) such as WOW, DAOC, Everquest, etc. and see how so many millions of people are sucked in that they lose sight who they are in real life, and are "role-playing" online and becoming something else. http://www.worldofwarcraft.com How far will people take it when their identity is only known online, and their character is deleted, stripped, re-named and made fun and forced to face reality again? (I swear that never happened to me playing MMORPG's) !

Definations

What kind of loss is humanity really suffering if all of the world's population is not logged into the internet for the same reasons? I know the potential of the internet is to use it as a resource for getting information and providing a 'utopian' society in which race fail to matter but who is to say what the defination of information even is? As seen in the Nakamura essay, the study shown for use on the internet between races fell under five catagories such as for seeking information, fun, etc. They use this information of tell of the divide among cultures on the internet. What a study like this fails to do is idenify that not every culture (or even every person) has the same words for fun. Looking up a collection of sites that idenify with culture under the ACRL on African Americans is pure proof of this (list of sites found-http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crlnews/backissues1999/january1/africanamerican.cfm). African American history is steeped in the importance of music and dance but under the Pew system (in the article) these things fall under the heading of 'fun' when it could be done for history or for empowerment of the past. So the question is this- is the use of the internet to create one culture actually positive? In the process of doing so, people can lose track of their past and the importance they found in it (would you call this reverse racism even while the internet tries too hard to have one culture?) It seems we keep creating new technologies only to bash them down for being morally wrong but here I think something different is present. It is not the problem that we have more than one culture on the internet, the problem lies in our accepting

On-line or Out of Touch?

I'm trying to understand how and why people enjoy participating in MUDs. Supposedly, they get to interact with different people, they feel they can be less inhibited, they can work on improving their "RL" personality, etc., etc. All this sounds great, but what happens after you log-off? What happens after the factor? I use to chat on-line long ago, back in 1997 or so. I thought it was great fun at the time and looked forward to it everyday. Only problem was after logging off I felt I had wasted my efforts and wasted a lot of time. Had I been improving anyone else's life, or even my life for that matter? I think not. Most of the time was spent trying to convince people to think like me or agree with me, but in the end what I said didn't really matter to anyone but me. That is where I see a problem. To me, most people are involved in on-line communities for purely self-promoting behavior. They are not involved in the give-and-take that coincides with real human to human relationships. Maybe I've been out of the game too long, but being accepted on-line by people I'll probably never encounter in any real life setting isn't on the top of my list of things to do (not that being accepted by real people in the "real world" is either). But the fact of the matter is online you can be anyone, with any problem, with any occupation, with any personality you see fit, and who cares if that persona is anything like the real you. All I am saying is people should be wary of what they take out of their on-line relationships, and also how much of their personal time and energy they put into them. Because in reality, relationships and persona's on the web are anything but reality. It is digital images and written text that people manipulate and use to put out the image they want. If written text and images was all a person needed to express their real self, the total embodiment of themselves as a human being, I feel that human being would be severely lacking. If it's a way for someone to be entertained for a few hours a week, that's great. The problem begins when people spend hours a day on-line, when the believe they are the most "themselves" on-line, and when they start losing touch with the "real world" and the real people surrounding them. Within Turkle's book one user comments on how it is an addiction. Similar to a narcotic addiction. People depend on narcotics to feel like they are themselves and face their realities (or blur them). It seems that some of these MUD users feel the same. They become obsessed with being on-line and must do so to feel they are themselves. If people become so dependent living on-line lives or altering their identity what is to become of actual face-to-face interaction. What of human-to-human relationships? I'm almost too scared to think about it.

I Hate D&D

Turkle's reading gave me a new interpretation of the use of such things as MUDs. I had thought of these interfaces as something along the lines of super-uber nerds that would not be able to deal with social situations. I sound mean for the fact that before reading this article, I had to pity those that engage in the use of MUDs. But after the readings, I did not realize that MUD use had a psychological impact on those that use it on a regular basis.86 Before I discovered this, the information provided wasn't encouraging to the therapy standpoint. When the hour statistics were compiled on a few of these subjects, I had thought of these people as addicts.119 What I now think of those that use these programs? I feel that they are people that have unknowingly created a whole new way of feeling better about themselves and help them with their personal problems.

We are words

Something I have always enjoyed is comedy, mostly stand-up, but all true comedy represents my point here. There is a neutrality to someone who tells a very funny joke. They could be a handicapped transvestite, but if the punch line works than who cares? The comedian represents their joke even though in reality the joke truly reflects very little about this person besides their ability for clever wordplay. Something I have noticed about comedians is that they are not the same off stage as they are on. Whether more charismatic or less when off stage they are not very effectively personified when they are “on” for a crowd. I’ve always been and, as it seems, I will always be very infatuated with finding out who these people must really be when life isn’t as funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX8_M-KI7IQ

I have to wonder why people insist on masking their identities and creating "pretend lives." I can't say that I understand or can relate to the type of virtual realities described in our readings. Nakamura describes these fantasy worlds as a vacation from fixed identities and locales and it offers the satisfaction of a desire to "fix the boundaries of cultural identity and exploit them for recreational purposes." I can understand the wish or fantasy to be part of something where anything is possible and you can go anywhere or be anyone, but I wonder about appeal of living separate lives. The whole idea of changing your entire identity interested me, but I guess the question I wonder is why, I mean if you're really that unhappy with your true identity, then why not try to improve upon that instead of creating an entirely new identity? The Internet has become a common tool for communication, traditional boundaries of socialization and status, and their inflicted constraints are increasingly obsolete. Social virtual realities are primarily dependent on how and what one chooses to communicate about themselves. People create new, alternate identities, without the physical boundaries of race, ethnicity and gender, the Internet becomes a place where people can put aside many of the inequalities of real life. Going back to Turkle's article, multi-user domains allow identity developments (link) that include anonymous social interaction where you can play a role that is as close or as far away from your real self as you choose.

The readings assigned for this week expanded on many subjects we have touched on already. Obviously we have talked a lot about avatars and different identities while on the Web. I was very curious, however, about the new readings of race and ethnicity as a particular context within the internet. I was especially interested in her idea of how minorities missed the "golden age of cyberculture". I am going to be outnumbered in my view on this, and I know since I am Caucasian I can never truly understand the minority views and opinions, but I believe this to be extremely ironic. One of the ideas of the internet and the world wide web was accessibility for everyone and anonymity of everyone, and then this article says the two are actually not evident. Discrimination still exists online, even when people make up new identities for themselves. I do not agree with Lisa however, when she says minorities missed that age of cyberculture. She argues that this medium of new media has translated to a less educational system in which I disagree. Yes, there are different subject matters readily available, but I personally believe the same educational value exists online now as when it was at an "educational peak".

Race

Lisa Nakamura's article dealing with the internet and race was rather interesting. I really felt like this article made a couple of points, and the first one is that the internet can erase race. Everyone is anonymous on the net, so no one knows really who you are. The other part I saw in this was the studies seemed very racially stereotypical. Hispanics and blacks are the lowest users of the internet, while whites are in the middle, and asian's are rather high up on the highest number of people who use it. Not saying stereotypes are true, but saying blacks and hispanics are poorer and perhaps couldn't afford internet fits with this, as does saying asians are smarter and much more technically savvy. Just an interesting observation. I must say though, on a personal level, I had a major disagreement with this article from the beginning. It said that people who don't watch tv are thought of as more respected, smarter, and understand mass media more then many others. Is this implying that i'm not intelligent because I like to watch a game of football, or an episode of the Simpsons or Family Guy? I don't think so.

Selection and Deflection

A pervasive human characteristic is the desire to alter one's consciousness as one sees fit. It is an extremely rare occasion to find a human being entirely satisfied with his/her current state of being. It is with the aforementioned concept in mind that I say that I am not surprised that people use the Internet to become who they want to be. What does surprise me (albeit only on a minuscule scale) is that people would lose themselves to this alternative. The case studies presented by Turkle did blindside me a bit. It seems foreign to me that so many people would succumb to unadulterated simularcum. (I assume this is why postmodernism takes center stage here.)
However, the concept seems to be anything but new. Haven't we been selecting and deflecting our own realities our entire lives. We select the personality tidbits we tell other people. We harbor resentments, we keep secrets. We wear our hearts on our sleeves. We make attempts to appear the way we would like ourselves to be. It is a ubiquitous concept that blurs all racial and gender lines. In a sense we are all participants in our own simularcum. Mudds, The Internet, and RPG's have not solely created this phenomenon, they have however significantly contributed to it's massive and complex proliferation.

MUD Slinging

Is it really that odd that online avatars don’t necessarily look or act like the people controlling them? Isn’t that exactly what the Dramaturgical Perspective is about? There seems to be an awful lot of significance in people using imagination when the tools are available. In many ways the “Real World” is a lot more fake than any MUD, people wear makeup, get botox injections, and have plastic surgery done to lie about who they are and how they look. Online nobody really cares if you are who you appear to be, it is almost assumed that you aren’t. in my travels in SecondLife I once spoke with an owner of one of SL’s strip clubs, he said flat out that he didn’t care if his dancers were male or female, the income is the same either way.

On the topic of race on the internet; I personally don’t think it plays much of a role in how people are treated online, but I’m a white male, and am therefore not reminded of race daily. As we have said in class, there are other groups that are hated more than racial groups, like noobs, and Leroy Jenkins.

(Ironically all of the YouTube videos about noob hatred are very badly produced, making THEM noobs by E-Media standards.)

Feeling Trapped by Design?

*Sorry, Guys, this is kind of a long one. I tried to make it as short as possible, I promise!*

I was surfing YouTube while reading these three articles and realized a theme: performing a self-identity on the Internet and what people do to perform the identity of their choice – or protect it. Several of Turkle’s case studies focused on people using MUDs to achieve some type of identity that they felt was lacking from their “RL” identity.

Then I came across this Chris Crocker video (which is kind of vulgar, just a warning for anyone who may be offended) in which he asks: “What is the difference between a man and a woman?”

“Design” is his answer. Our physiology: as he makes reference to genitalia being a major difference. But goes on to say that his “dick doesn’t define him.” Of course, this led me right back to Turkle’s article where some of the male case studies didn’t let their genitalia define them while participating in the MUDs, and played out the desire to be more like aggressive women. Women were the same way, not letting their biology define them online while pretending to be men in order to be more aggressive as well. The anonymity of the Internet frees us from our given design, if we so desire.

Crocker also makes the statement that gender/individuality (ultimately identity) is about “creating yourself,” and having a freedom from “physical bodies” like Barlow mentions in The Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace allows people to make a psychological/ physiological change that would otherwise be difficult offline. Turkle comments that a user must “come to the game with a self that is healthy enough to be able to grow from relationships” (205). If, like Stewart, a player can’t find themselves in the character they create, self-esteem can get even lower.

I’ve had to face “constructing an online identity” with creating a profile on a couple different social networking sites (MySpace, Facebook), but it seems from the readings that anything anyone puts “out there” is up for judgment against who one “really” is. Like Nakamura’s articles about race and online activities: being honest about one’s race can incite direct harassment or assumptions about how one’s specific online hobbies can reflect on an entire race (Example: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans seek out more “fun” activities compared to Caucasians seeking out “major life practices” or “transactions.”)

Should I be worried about the message I send to people about the design of the “real” me when I say that Green Day is my favorite band, my favorite genre of movies is horror, and that I’m a liberal feminist who practices non-denominational Christianity? What message does it send that I voluntarily watched a Chris Crocker video on YouTube? And that’s only the tip of the iceberg…

This is what you find while Googling at work...

I was randomly searching Google today at work, bored out of my mind (Don't tell my boss). Anyway, I was looking for feminist/feminism desktops and on page 2 or 3 of the results I came across this image. Immediately triggering thoughts of Snow Crash and cyborgs, I had to email the link to Nathan. This image is from Mothers Against Video Games and Violence (there's also a Wiki page), by Eran Cantrell or Pyxelated found on deviantART. I must give Nathan credit for finding all of this information, I merely sent him the link of this image from a random profile.

Oh Big Brother Where Art Thou?

Certainly NOT on the moon I trust... suckers.

After reading the case study from Harvard at first I would have immediately have hired her, due to the fact that she has the credentials and knowledge. But upon reflection I realized maybe this girl is a huge threat and will endanger our overseas expansion, then again I’m sure if people saw all of my online meanderings I wouldn’t get many jobs (especially in childcare). Regardless of what I say it comes down to Fred’s decision, I believe he is a reasonable person.

Big brother has been looming over our heads for the past number of years and this video just proves that it has gotten a little out of control. Whether it was in class or on a television show I recently heard that all of this reality TV is basically just preparing us to be survailed 24 hours a day and to think that it is “cool”. Well I for one have this big fear that one day this will come true, and if Stephen King hasn’t writing the book yet he is way far behind. However if it turns out that I am the star of my very own “Chrenen Show” I suppose I wouldn’t mind that much… who better than I to entertain MILLIONS?! Possibly U2.

In Gillespie’s piece he brings up “technological fixes” and relates them to what the big brother video had to say about the facial recognition and the ability to follow people, good or bad, around throughout towns. Sometimes I believe that these fixes are attempting the fix a problem that isn’t even there. Much like at Tires Plus or Jiffy Lube to name the only two companies that do this often, they tell you stuff is wrong that actually isn’t wrong… it may go wrong eventually but not that day. Then they sucker idiots like me into handing them my wallet along with power of attorney. The problem of terrorists and whomever walking around is there eventually, but what they are doing to fix the problem is only breaking things for us.

rectitudinal exactitude

I don’t believe surveillance exists. As far as I know, my emails are read only by whom they are intended for. I doubt the government has actually put anything in orbit around the Earth that could follow our movements. Just think about it; orbit. What an outlandish concept. How is anything going to stay up that high? And what kind of camera can get a picture from that far away? Duh. None, that’s what kind. Am I supposed to believe that the government can see more of me at the airport than what is visible to their eyes? Come on. Don’t be naïve. X-rays and such are only comic book fodder intended to excite the schoolboys. And as long as I whisper, nobody out of earshot can hear a word I’m saying. See, I just whispered something and I’d bet my balls that you didn’t hear it. So give up on the whole “we are being watched” thing. The only people who know about your pissing fetish are you and me…. and I’m thirsty.

Big Brother is Watching...

I have never thought so much about how much we are really watch throughout our everyday lives… From the surveillance cameras in every store we shop in, to the camera that overlooks Lawther field. Just the other day at work my boss commented on how much I was yawning…he was in a different room, but he could see everything I was doing. I think the most important aspect to remember about surveillancing is that it is intended to be used for the good of the society, not as an invasion tool. Much like the article, “We Googled You,” people are not intentionally trying to uncover something threatening about a person, but sometimes with the advancement of technology, the information just falls in a person’s lap. As an RA, I was friends with many of my residents on facebook, and very often pictures of my underage residents drinking in their rooms would pop up on my screen, I was not intentionally trying to find any “dirt” on them. I think it is intriguing to people to watch something they are “supposed” to be seeing… Andrejevic made a good argument when he said that reality TV is dominating the ratings and taking over the most coveted time slots. I think reality TV is a way for people to escape their own mundane everyday lives and explore the lives of others through cameras, but when does it go too far…

Its your own fault

I have personally never really thought much about my privacy on the internet. My first realization about how much information I put out on the internet was our first day in class when Megan found my myspace page where I (for fun) joined the group “I Sleep Naked”. Now seeing as I sleep with clothes on I was wondering what on my facebook or myspace account could be taken literally or the wrong way. I adjusted all of my privacy settings on facebook, but I could not find the privacy settings on myspace nor could I find how to delete groups. Facebook by far has better ways to control who sees your profile.

At this point it seems that my only option if I really want to completley control my privacy is to just delete my whole profile. One fell swoop and I don’t have to worry about anything. Sure I couldn’t see drunk pictures or my friends or see that my best friend is married to another guy (hilarious let me tell you), but then I wouldn’t have to worry about the wrong people finding out what I am interested in.

In regards to the article involving employers using google to find out more about their employess, this is a different case that I have heard discussed in classes before. In this case it was a reported article, not something she put out there for people to see on a website like facebook or myspace. I believe in this case an more detailed interview would be needed to determine if her past actions would be a problem. If the information would have been on a website myspace or facebook where she posted it on there I could see the possible employer dissmissing the person on account of that.

Information = Power

Surveillance can have some benefits, but as a whole, the general population likes privacy. It seems as if people don't want others knowing stuff about them. So, surveillance is definitely a form of privacy invasion. The people that are watching are the one's that are gathering information. This collection of information leads to a level of control. The idea is that whomever has control of the information has control of the people. Certain tidbits of information are given public domain and can be difficult for the individual to control who receives it. Like your address for example. When it comes to the internet however, the individual has control of what he or she could potentially upload. Take Facebook for example. I just read an article in which they stated that they will soon be selling information to corporations. This is a slow gradual process which will lead to custom-tailored advertisements. Anyway, the point is that the Chief Security Officer for Facebook stated that if users don't want their information sold to third parties, then they should use discretion when uploading information. That means a lot when it is coming from the CSO. None the less, it is true. People get mad when companies sell their information. With something like Facebook though, they can simply delete their account if they don't like it. It's the solution to everything... Just delete it.

Control...not just about whips and chains anymore.

This week's readings essentially cover the idea that we are being controlled through surveillance technology. They reading I am going to focus the most on discusses the idea of Taylorism, which is a strategy for running a business with the incorporation of the idea that an employee will be hired or fired based on his or her performance. These actions form control over the employees in the sense that if they wish to have a long-lasting job, they will perform to their best ability.
The other idea of control comes from both the video on YouTube, as well as the short article discussing the woman who was denied a job based on their previous actions. This is where surveillance technologies begin to have too much control over others. If protesting an for a just cause may prevent you from being hired by an employer in the future, would you still attend that protest? Does one sacrifice their beliefs simply because an employer could potentially not hire them based on these beliefs? These problems prevent surveillance technologies from becoming all that they could be.

The personal and professional and other false dichotomies

The "We googled you" reading does a nice job of highlighting a couple of my own pretty routine internal debates. First, I struggle with the division of what happens in a person's personal and professional life. Often times I would like to think that those are two separate categories but I am generally more apt to believe that the division is artificial; much of what I do in either area of my life impacts or is impacted by the other area. If in my personal life I do something that demonstrates that I make ethically and morally bankrupt choices I am not sure that I should have a job teaching college students. Although I can easily understand that not all choices indicate a lack of ability to do one's job. Second, I think many people have a difficult time dealing with the changing dimensions of what is public and what is private. It seems that less and less is actually private information anymore - for better or worse cameras, recording devices, satellites, the internet, etc. have all impacted what is considered public. When I hear someone say that their private information was taken from facebook or the University directory I am inclined to respond that when that information was put on a website it was no longer private. I think it would be interesting to hear how Mimi responds to this scenario. So, would I hire her? Probably. Anyone I hire is going to have some dirt on them - it is only a matter of time and searching ability before it is found. When we did the searches the first day of class the person searching me kept saying how professional I was and how there was no good dirt on me and anyone that knows me very well at all would probably assure you that they didn't find anything good due to lack of searching not due to the lack of existence.

I very much enjoyed "Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched". I thought it brought up some very interesting points and explained quite well the significance of them. First off, I would have to agree that reality television has caused some major changes in television and what is being watched. I don't know whether the good aspects out weigh the bad, but at least it is something different. I will admit openly and freely that I do partake in certain so-called reality television, (only good shows of course)ha, ha. But to me, reality television really started way back in 1991. I believe that was the airing of the first season of "The Real World". Back in the good ol' days I was a major fan of this show. Today, is another story. But I would like to comment that those early seasons of "The Real World" were much more complex and diversified than they currently are today. It wasn't all drunken college rich kids getting it on with a different cast member each night. It may also just be that I was a lot more younger and naive than I am today, but I don't think so. While I do believe that reality television has seriously taken a turn for the worst the general idea of it is beneficial to society. The idea of celebrity in our country has become utterly ridiculous. These so-called celebrities, or hyper-rich, or superstars, etc. etc. should be called what they really represent to us: royalty. It is sickening that as a society full of people where most live at or below the poverty line we look up to all these arrogant, eccentric pricks. I admit that I am probably just as guilty as the next when it comes to obsessing over celebrity idols, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. That is one of the reasons I like reality television. It is kind of like a slap in the face to a certain portion of the thespian community. Now your neighbor next door could be the next big thing. And why shouldn't they be, I am sure they have hopes, aspirations, and dreams bigger than their two-bedroom apartments can hold. It gives us "little people" hope that maybe we do matter in the end. One other reason I feel that reality television has positive aspects is the connection we can achieve through it. The fact that we get to watch in on other people's feelings and ideas. These ideas and feelings may be quite different from our own, and they may help us to broaden our views of the different people we are surrounded by everyday.

From Interviews to Google to Rights

I was very interested in the Harvard study entitled "We Googled You". This is very similar to conversations about various social networks like Facebook and MySpace. The interesting point about the whole ordeal is whether or not we should use it. Everyone has seemed to have been talking about video surveillance and reality TV, but the Google issue is also debatable. I personally believe the designer clothes company that was "researching" Mimi Brewster was in the right. If it is on the world wide web from a credible source, we should use it. Why not? Interviews will always leave something out because we are there to make ourselves look good in that interview. Of course we will omit incriminating facts. This is why we use the resources like references, which can also be bias, to look at past history. By using the web we can see even more credible information to make judgements about people. I believe it was Michael that said people believe they cannot be hurt by their own information if it is on the web. I agree with this idea that people can be ignorant to how easy it is to access information. In the case of Mimi Brewster, who was an ivy-leaguer, she should know better to have incriminating information of her in very public places. Again, I believe the company should do what is in their best interest regarding ALL information about their applicant, not just what she provided. It's the reason they wanted a dossier on her in the first place!

I finally got this thing to work

Although we are suppose to believe that the bigger the screen the cooler we are, it seems to me that the idea of things like Youtube is a stark contraction. The whole premise of YouTube and it's runaway sucess is that anyone can be famous. Of course, it doesn't seem to matter that the majority of the world does more posting than actual viewing (a fact that seems to contradict with the idea of the internet being a place to express ideas) the point is that we can see ourselves on the screen. Anyone can be a star. With all the hatered over Reality TV, it still remains exceedingly popular. Why? Sure some will say there are alot of idoits out there but the real reason is the same as that behind YouTube. Anyone can be famous, we can look at something and say, "Well, I can do a much better job than that" and believe ourselves to be superior because these aren't professionals that we are comparing ourselves with. It's average people that very well could have been us. So, could we say that the premise over YouTube and Reality TV are the same? They hold true to the fact that anyone can express their views and explain who they are. So why does Reality TV cause so much hatered among electronic media scholars? In essence, it is there to capture the very thing that we work for, isn't it? The ability for technology to convey the ideas and situations of the public. So why the backlash? Don't get me wrong- I can't stand reality tv, I believe that people on it are whiny and irritating while expressing views that I really don't care about. But some of the same can be said about the videos on YouTube. I am just sick of hearing all these raunts about the hatered for reality tv done by people who will than log out and go straight to posting on YouTube. I don't really see a difference between them even though I know I will be blasted for saying so. This is why they probably will soon combine to create a reality show posted through the internet(http://www.bruceeisner.com/mindware/2007/06/the_next_intern.html). It will definatly sell as they are cut from the same branch. I don't have a place for reality tv but to deny it's importance in the use of technology and economy in the entertainment industry is ridiculous and looking down on it form advid YouTube goers is contradictional as well as just snobby. Why do we think we are better than the likes of Reality TV? Quite ironic.

I'll watch a reality show only if the contestants can use shotguns...

I will not bash reality TV as an innovative new television programming, but what I will bash is the fact that plotlines are becoming shaky indeed. I mean, come on. A reality show creating a political candidate for office (Andrejevic reference)? But this is something that should be of concern. With such plotlines, it could show that reality TV might be trying to influence a society in the wrong ways by undermining the very basics of society.

Harm is also a factor. The show Kid Nation is now coming under fire for the simple fact that it is kids put into the same sort of conflict situations as portrayed in Big Brother, which could be psychologically harmful in the long run.

We are not far from physical harm in reality TV. Simply put, has anyone ever seen the Schwarzenegger movie The Running Man? You can see my point.

Language of Surveillance

Where is the reality? In the scene, situation, or equipment? As Andrejevic states, "[reality television] itself reinvents conventions of prime-time programming". What's the difference between Survivor and Jeopardy? After all, both use real people, aware of studio-grade cameras, culminating to a "relatively inexpensive and profitable entertainment product"(Andrejevic). While this may be one reason the Emmy's reality awards are split between the 'game show' and 'real-life' formats, it also reveals a particular problem with reality TV - it normally has a staged or fictitious element. While Big Brother and The Osbournes are differing formats, both take place in real houses - and each house becomes a stage/studio for all its camera-aware actors that prance by the kino-eye. There becomes a sort of grotesque voyeurism for any cheap spectacle. Hegenomy in its purest, there occurs "a recording of tastes [and] surveillance of consumption... all reflect[ing] a more nationalised and regulated way of life"(Robbins and Webster) which Americans are embracing. There becomes the obvious dissonance between what knowledge expansion surveillance may provide versus the control it maintains, especially when all surveillance power is granted to the state. With all technologies, there is an accompaniment of proper-use responsibility, and we've certainly seen this with security cams. Many movies have explored this principle, and even developed a language by which we understand given visual conditions as "security footage". A major question begs, "If we are always under surveillance anyway, how far off are we from being part of our own TV-show called LIFE?" Given that most reality TV involves amateur actors on professional sets with studio equipment, it's not going to take long before it reinvents itself with semi-believable stories on pre-installed surveillance equipment on college campuses everywhere. Considering the expense-profit ratio, that's just smart economics.

Resistance is futile

Why do we naturally seem to resist companies conforming to our buying habits. sure its a step toward Big Brother, but is that really the end of the world? I think its a combination of a mistrust of strangers and our dislike of commercials more than a feeling of invasion of privacy.

Do we really own our information though? People collect data about us all the time, what we look like, the things we buy, favorite sexual positions, it seems that just because the information describes us we think we somehow own it, and that it was taken from us. I wonder why this is.
For the most part, our most confidential information was randomly assigned to us (SS# Credit card #s) and as far as buying habits go, Walmart was going to sell me crap anyway, so how much does it really matter if they conform and advertise only the things i want to buy anyway.

I Spy

Ever watch Dejavu, and get that feeling that people are constantly watching you or that eerie feeling that someone's watching you when you're in the dark? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0453467/ From public surveillance, to reality TV, to even internet google searches, do our lives really seem or feel that private anymore? Take reality TV for instance, survivor was one of the first reality tv shows I ever watched. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_(TV_series) I enjoyed it for the first two seasons until every show on TV turned into reality TV. Were people really giving up the privacy of their lives to have a camera crew follow them around and make a name for themselves? Not much of a name to be creating when you're on the Real World making an ass of yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_World It's crazy to think what you can find on the internet. Most people don't realize the incriminating pictures of their college social life can potentially bite them in the butt when trying to find a job. Ya it's cool to put your college videos of you beer bonging and puking on your girlfriend, but what happens when employers are spying on your facebook and myspace profiles? Food for thought.

Hippie Liberal Douche

Big Brother system... ooo... scary.. they are all watching us... Good! Watching this short video I thought I was seeing a wrap up of the movie Enemy of the State ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/ ) cameras, tracking devices, high tech cool stuff... so ok.. we know that the government has cameras and are able to hone in on a single person at will and monitor them. What bothered me is when the video said people who will give up freedom for security deserve neither... wtf!! I want people monitored! I want to know who's doing what.. the people who say this stupid shit are the people who apparently have something to hide. I don't care if the government can zoom in on my face from outer space. Face of the matter is, they won't have to because I'm not planning a terrorist attack on the US! If they intercept something that will save lives, then its well worth it. Unless it would have saved the lives of people who believe this crap. Then thats just too bad. Ok so people want their privacy.. thats fine. Unless you are being really stupid and using a few key words together in your e-mails.. like, oh say.. "bomb the US" or something to that nature, you are gonna be ok. I'm pretty sure the government doesn't care about your love letters, and thank you e-mails to Aunt Viv.

I see London, I see France, I see your mother in her underpants through her bedroom window as she gets ready for bed.

Curiosity leads to a lot of things. If you are on facebook you can look at the profiles of your “friends” and even check out pictures that they have posted of a vacation or a big party they had. If you find a sexy individual in one of those pictures who you do not know, but wished you did you may click on a link to his/her profile and begin to get to know them in the same way most stalkers get to know their victims. Reality TV does much the same thing for our inner voyeur, we get more information about an individual than we should know. Surveillance and intrusion are not the same idea. However, what is happening is that there are people who have much more power to view than most of us who don’t. What is scary is that those big brothers have the same urges as the common people of the internet and want to make sure we are all “safe” from each other and ourselves. With the level of surveillance that is outright promoted in this country and others there is a diminishing capability for personal privacy/safety and it should scare us much more than it does.

My Dilema

Those who come to know me for a length of time eventually find out that I am in constant idealogical struggle with the rationality and common sense of my brain, and the unadulterated emotion, and fervor of my heart. That being said, I can apply this concept to an issue I find very relevant to the readings.
It does not surprise me that today's society in virtually overrun with surveillance, voyeurism and control. It also does not surprise me that it somehow stems from the "invisible hand" of the market. It seems to me that the primary motivators for a lot of societal ills happen to be money, control, fear, or an amalgamation of all three. I digress. As I contemplate my own stance on the issue of surveillance and control, I find myself unfortunately torn. As of yet I have been unable to label my mental state as one of youthful apathy, hegemonic consent, both or neither.
At face value I am opposed to the overuse and abuse of state sponsored surveillance. I privacy to be a necessary human need and right. As I listen to stories of the government possessing the legal right to tap phones, trace e-mails, utilize hidden cameras etc. I am generally taken aback (yes I am opposed to the Patriot Act.) However, there is another part of this issue with which I have had a tumultuous struggle: It's very hard for me to care. As I think about my role in the world I think about the common sense that I try and take with me with whatever I do. And, with that in mind I start to wonder why it is that I would worry that anyone is constantly watching me. Yes the idea of anyone standing right behind me observing everyone of my actions is simultaneously disgusting and unnerving. But for some reason, the idea that the staff of my local police department might know that I frequent coffee shops, and happen to enjoy the missionary position doesn't bother me much. After all....It's not as if I'm calling Afghanistan on a daily basis, or sending subliminally malicious messages to authority figures.
My heart tells me that I should be more opposed to control than I already am. If anybody wants to help me shatter my delusion I would be most appreciative.

"Open the door and let them in..."

There were two types of surveillance described in these articles: Orwellian surveillance and surveillance that feeds into the voyeuristic desires of the masses. Robins and Webster talk mainly of the Orwellian surveillance used as mind/thought control and compiling information that will give one group power over another. Andrejevic mentions this, but focuses on fulfilling our voyeuristic fetishes and how that displays itself in reality TV and various other consumer/viewer-based media.

We like to watch, and according to Andrejevic, we want to watch more people like us. Fading are the days of watching Hollywood elites pretending to be the “average Joes or Janes,” when it is possible to watch the real thing. I think this can ultimately result in a softened view of surveillance, and that this desire to see “real” people in “real” situations is founded in the basest of psychological desires.

Now, I don’t think because people want to watch others or want to be watched that we will allow ourselves to become subject to Orwellian surveillance. However, I do think that our voyeuristic tendencies could be taken too far when government officials are stating that new “security” technologies would only be used as a crime deterrent or to keep our computers safe – like the YouTube video argues. We need to be aware of what the government is preaching about closed circuit cameras or television services and safe computing scanning: we could lose the freedoms given to us in the Bill of Rights to a security feature that invades more than it protects.

My second point is founded in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. One of those needs is belonging. We all want to feel like we belong somewhere or within some group of people. Watching people whom we can relate to on TV, makes us feel like we belong – like we aren’t alone. It lets us think, “Hey, I’m kind of like Jane Doe on Amazing Race – I could win that race if I wanted.” Having the reality TV genre as a kind of mirror for the “average Joes and Janes” who watch works as justification or validation for how “real” people live. Granted, some things are scripted to create drama. But it’s still real people “acting out” the script.

Rapid Change

We live in a world where technology is already dominant. But what if it gets to the point where it dominates every aspect of our lives? I.E. we do everything through our computers on the internet and world wide web. Could the idea of the Matrix and virtual reality actually be possible in the future? I guess i wouldn't mind learning mixed martial arts and how to fly a helicopter in a matter of seconds. There are many things to think about when we are faced with such rapid change. I personally think the idea of Cyberpunk gets more and more realistic everyday as we develop new technologies and communication technologies. We enjoy the aspect of being lazy and having technology make life easier. So the future asks the question, how far can we go?

Snow Crash/Prophetic... yada yada yada

First off, I am really excited to finish this novel. Not only does it have some hysterical, yet intriguing concepts (i.e. A pizza delivery chain owned and run by the head of the mafia... hmm... GODFATHER's anyone? *insert sarcastic LOL here.*) Even if you're not into the book, you have to give Stephenson credit for his imagination. I assume he spent years before the book's publishing in '92, creating the very complex, futuristic world. In terms of technology, early 90s computer capabilities did not even come close to resembling the crazily, stunning visual ideas this guy was coming up with.

I mean, most computers looked like this:

The Macintosh Classic,

Apple's early 1990s budget model.

His computer was sleek, with thin fiber optic cables and optic lazers for a 3-D monitor.

Besides being visually creative, the book also explores social, political and economic issues, which in agreeance with many of the bloggers are almost shockingly prophetic. The CIC "stringers" add tons of gazillions of information files to the library. Some are glanced over, but some make a huge impact. I was just "wiking"/"googling" around and came upon this blog about the "UCLA Taser Incident",which I'm sure many of you may remember. If you don't know the incident, an Iranian-American UCLA student was repeatedly tasered by police for refusing to show ID (very reminiscent of the Y.T./Metacop incident coincidentally.)

One student uploaded the video to Youtube from his camera phone, and the issue spread like wildfire. It caused great debate about the particular case, and showed that Youtube can be used for more than... what was it? "Video-taping your untalented skate-boarding friend or your ugly baby falling down the stairs" (not a direct quote, but Epley said something similar in regards to Youtube earlier in the class, which got a decent laugh.)

Anywho, It is cool to see how depictions of "Reality" can almost foreshadow the future, through either great imagination, social examination, or maybe coincidentally. You be the judge.

The Future Looks Bright?

To begin with I found "Snow Crash" to be very interesting, but also a little frightening. It parallels the current world in many ways. The Metaverse is strikingly similar to what is happening on-line right now. Like the book, there are many people out there who are very interested in their on-line persona and their network of friends and associates who they know through the web. I found it very interesting that Stephenson wrote this book all the way back in 1992. He foresaw what is going on right now. I liked his vivid descriptions of what this Metaverse looked liked and how it ran. I believe that the possibilities of what you can do on-line are amazing and I can understand why so many people devote a lot of time and energy into it. I am sure if I had the pleasure of owning a computer I too would be a lot more heavily involved in on-line entertainment and networking. The thing about the book that scares me is the current condition of the world they are living in. A dystopic future is what they called it in the cyberpunk article. Instead of a central government that controls and handles everything it is the huge financial corporations that run the show. And if they run the show, they also make the rules. How many different sets of rules would there be to follow? How would you know who was in charge and who or what to believe? Not to mention the separation of all the different social groups and classes. It seemed evident in the book that people associated with other people of their same background and ideals. It also seemed that these conflicting groups would be more than ready to fight and defend people of their social groups against other groups. This may lead to an eventual breakdown of society. Another area of the book I found a little scary is all the scanning devices that were used. Y. T. is covered with these to gain access to different areas and places. It does not seem too far-fetched that this type of control may be used in Reality in the future. It seems to me like that would be an end to a lot of our freedom as we know it. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like people having access to my entire life history just by scanning a bar code I wore on my shirt. It could be the beginning of a bad situation. Keep in mind Big Brother is always watching.

Speaking of poor predictions…

The Wikipedia entry on cybepunk explains that “Cyberpunk stories have also been seen as fictional forecasts of the evolution of the Internet.” Similarly, some of you (Mrknight and Reece) have posted about Snow Crash as feeling a bit prophetic or predictive. In one of my previous posts I wrote about how the internet opened up the possibility to foil objectivity. I keep thinking that it is at least a condition of possibility for multiple (conflicting) voices to all exist at once. Even if Snow Crash isn’t predictive it has at least helped envisioned how my prediction could fall short; the CIC. In Snow Crash the CIC seems to control so much knowledge which is all stored in this central database. The vast majority of the most useful information is all in one place controlled by one group. In some ways it reminds me of Wikipedia. For the sake of space I won’t get into how it becomes a commodity worth money but I think that fits into some of our class discussions pretty well. Finally, as far as predictions go, Stephenson describes all of the identification that is located on Y.T.s chest and then yesterday I read this: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/09/rfid-implants-linked.html

Cyber drugs in the form of baseball cards?

I never realized I was such a fan of this cyberpunk stuff until I actually had a name for it. It’s funny we sometimes don’t group things together until we have a name for it. I had never read anything from the cyberpunk genre until “Snow Crash”. I loved its blatant sillyness which ranged from the main character being named Hiro Protaganist,(hero main character) to talking penis avatars.

The main character in the book is the definition of a cyberpunk main character. He is the anti-hero; a man who seems contempt living in his U-Store-It, plugging into the metaverse, and delivering pizza than actually getting a real job. But who could blame him when the real world is so crappy anyways.

I found it very interesting that the author created a world operated by corporations. Things like “Admiral Bobs National Security”, the corporate controlled roads, privatized police force that requires payment, and privatized jails all show a complete lack of a higher authority. Everything is studied carefully to maximize efficiency. In this world you have to go to school for four years to become a pizza delivery man in a highly competitive field. Software engineering has become like factory work and quality is no longer an issue with most products. I would have to dissagree with an earlier post saying that this world is monopolized, there is still competition in some areas. Like for highway usage and police forces.

And by the way, Second Life would have been a perfect example to unveil during our discussion tommorow but SOMEBODY (Michael) used it last week. Not to point any fingers (Michael), but I would have liked to use it this week.