En Pointe

You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours” (Patel, 2012). Really?

‘I accept’….

New media has inevitably made our lives more virtual, with a great percentage of many people’s lives being on the Internet. Virtual worlds, spaces, chat forums, social medias, Dropbox, Google continue to assist our lives, but at what cost? New media dependence is greater than ever, therefore the need for regulation is more necessary than ever. Taylor’s blog The Media Sheriff of Nott-in-g-here asks the questionof who should be responsible for governing online content? Furthermore, Lauren’s Blog Regulation is in the eye of the beholder’s keyboard mentions how regulation has shifted to now being the under the responsibility of the consumer, suggesting that we are to consider heavily what we are placing on the Internet and the further consequences of this material.

Patel’s (2012) article Is Google Drive worse for privacy than iCloud, Skydrive, and Dropbox conveys the underlying terms and conditions traps behind such web pages as Google, Dropbox, iCloud, Skydrive and more, allowing us to feed these webpages with information that is able to be tampered with made profitable. “Google is giving itself all the permissions it could possibly need” (Patel, 2012). 

To read about just one case of regulation failing internet users, read Kathleen’s blog Rape in the Virtual World.

References

Patel, Niley. 2012. “Is Google drive worse for piracy than iCloud”, The Verge. Accessed May 6, 2012.http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud

Facebook allows for us today to read into people’s lives easier than ever – we are agreeably able to make judgments, criticise, assume personalities, but ultimately we are able to stalk others.

Many of us consider ourselves to be ‘private’ but how true is this opinion when we add our friend Google into the equation? Google has undeniably blurred the boundaries between what is private and what is public in accordance to the lives of us all (Leong, 2012).

Thompson (2011) stated that the “…. distinction between the public and the private is not unique to modern societies…” This statement suggests several ideas on todays perception of the boundaries between what is public and what is private… in today’s world with new media; Facebook, twitter, tumblr and virtual realities, it is harder than ever not to judge a book by its cover, look further into someone’s life, sadly now and then put our name or someone else’s name into Google and do a ‘simple’ check up – aka a cyberstalk.

Undeniably it is hard not to give in to a give Facebook stalk, ex boyfriends, ex girlfriends, sisters, brothers… new media today allows us to commit this act which some may argue it is unethical, but hey, if your profile on Facebook is not on private then your book is wide open. 

10 Reasons You’re a FACEBOOK STALKER

Reference List:

Leong, S. 2012. KCB206. New Media Transgressions: Week 8. Accessed April 27, 2012. Lecture notes. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/.

Thompson, J. 2011. Shifting Boundaries of Public and Private Life in Theory Culture Society 28(4), pp. 49-70

Brodie’s Blog posed the question of whether or not New media makes it too easy… for jobs, for living, socialising and more. Is our reliance on new media becoming risky towards aspects of our lives socially and for work? New media has allowed for us to visualise a desirable working life, working in home with the computer doing all the work, but what will the consequences be? “Every rose has its thorn, and new media is one hell of a garden.”

Do we control new media or does new media control us?

Inevitably we are forced (to a degree) to work with new media in our daily lives, whether it be for work, University, school or simply to contact a person. It is inescapably being continuously adapted into our lives and the decision has to be made whether to develop with these technological advancements or be ‘left behind’.

The change has been introduced, whereby society has altered from an industrial society to a post-industrial society - the information age (Leong, 2012). New media allows for communication to flow more freely than ever before, allowing the acquiring of knowledge to be easier than ever before.

In today’s working world, knowledge is power with 28% of the workforce made up of knowledge workers who “have high degrees of expertise, education, or experience, and the primary purpose of their jobs involves the creation, distribution, or application of knowledge” (Davenport, 2005) with and in new media. From this, it proves the significance of adapting to the new media world around us and broadening our knowledge in the information age.

New media is significant within businesses and for the growth of a business. Businesses are heavily reliant on new media in order to communicate and keep in touch with the world but more importantly to keep up-to-date with the world. Business are becoming so reliant on new-media that the shift from a tangible office is newly developing and transforming into a virtual world where human contact is increasingly becoming a thing of the past…

Evidently, new media is inescapable for businesses and for educational practices. New media is changing the way that businesses operate, how people are educated and overall the lifestyle of the world. In some cases, new media is being utilised to the extent where human interaction is no longer necessary for business deals, conferences or important meetings soon to become entirely unnecessary. Is this practical? Has new media become so developed already that people no longer need to tangibly operate a business?

New media may well control us one day….

SIRI WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD

Reference List:

Leong, S. 2012. KCB206. Working In / With New Media. Accessed 23rd April 2012. Lecture notes. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/

Davenport, Thomas H. 2005. Thinking for a Living. United States of America: Harvard Business School of Publishing. Accessed April 23, 2012. 

Google search*: “I have a fever and I am always tired”… Google says*: Cancer…

An “…increasing number of people are accessing health-related material online” (Lewis 2006,524). As the rates of broadband Internet access increases, the number of people accessing health and medical information online also increases, but; how credible is this information and should people really sought their information from the worldwide web?

Google has controversially become an increasingly popular source for health and medical advice. New media, no doubt, has increased the accessibility of knowledge and advice (useful or just BS) on most controversial topics in this world. Type ‘rash symptom’ into Google and you have access to over 51, 400, 000 information resources of which very few are actually valid. How is this information source affecting people?

To some degree, health and medical advice being accessible via the Internet is beneficial but people need to take responsibility for how they use this information and what actions they take, in Leong’s words “manage your own health” (Blackboard, 2012). One major negative impact caused from this readily available medical advice is Cyberchondria: derived from the Internet age. kcbljones explains the affects of cyberchondira in more detail in their blog post “Cyberchondria Anonymous.” Many of us are guilty of resulting to the Internet to answer medical questions we have or get an answer on why we have a suspicious cramp, and many of us have been lead to life threatening disease for an answer when that is hardly the case. 

Realistically and comparatively, the credibility and tangibility of visiting a doctor cannot be replaced. 

Reference List:

Leong, S. 2012. KCB206. New Media, Health and Wellbeing, week 5. Accessed 1^st April 2012. Lecture notes. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/

Lewis, T. (2006). Seeking health information on the Internet: lifestyle choice or bad attack of cyberchondria? Media, Culture & Society, volume 28, issue 4: 521-539

I agree with Caitlin Says’s recent blog post: Immorality and the Internet and the idea that the process of regulation seems impossible. The Internet allows for an uncharted amount of lies, gossip, abuse but more significantly offensive and illegal materials that continue to go unnoticed or unregulated. Hamelink’s statement mentioned in Caitlin Says’s blog makes a very valid point: “The speed of digital communication does not create new forms of immorality, but it makes it possible to commit immoral acts so fast that one hardly notices” (2006). 

“In the conventional mass media we find considerable volumes of lies in the format of misleading messages in the news, advertising, and entertainment” (Hamelink 2006, 116). Media should be objective and offer alternative perspectives (Leong, 2012) however with the Internet’s accessibility and allowance for anonymity, it is forever allowing lies and deceit to be more widespread than ever and cause issues for social, professional and personal moralities (Hamelink, 2006).

Amongst Hamelink’s article he accumulated several questions form several authors about the ways of the Internet: “Can one remain anonymous? Is it acceptable to use pseudonyms?  Can the choice of a fictive personality (“persona”) do harm to other users?… Are you responsible for decisions taken by your personal digital assistant?… How well should one protect one’s privacy?” (2006, 118). Ask yourself these questions or apply them to your knowledge on the Internet… what are your answers?

From several online platforms, the ability to be anonymity is more possible than ever and this “…anonymity makes lying very easy and difficult to detect” (Hamelink 2006, 117). One major and well-known example of a controversial yet powerful anonymity is Wikileaks.

Through anonymous information sharing, Wikileaks exposes secret government operations because as an organisation it believes in freedom of information. How politically correct is this? Explained in Nadinej29’s* blog is how Wikileaks reinforces the public’s trust through this freedom of information.

We can share our beliefs and share our opinions anonymously or not, we can tell lies and be whoever we want. We have he ability to express our opinions louder than ever or state controversial topics in the public sphere. Ethical or unethical, moral or immoral? Is it our fault, our moral decisions, or is it the Internet, which allows for this?

To read more on ethical considerations of the Internet, visit kcbljones’s blog. 

Reference List:

Hamelink, C. 2006. The Ethics of the Internet: Can we cope with Lies and Deceit on the Net? In Ideologies of the Internet, K. Sarikakis & Daya Thussu, pp. 115-130. New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Leong, S. 2012. KCB206. New Media Amusement Arcade: Music, Games and Films: Week 3. Accessed 16th March 2012. Lecture notes. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/

New media is “…reinventing the notion of identity…” (Fisher, 2012), in some ways it is becoming an essential to the establishment for one’s ‘self’ (Fisher, 2012). Evidently, new media has allowed for an increase in participation worldwide, influencing the evolution of several entertainment platforms; social networks, blogs, virtual worlds and more.

Stephen Levy’s 2006 publication The Perfect Thing illustrates how one platform of new media, the iPod, reveals a sense of identity for an individual. As outlined by Levy, “[a]ll someone needs to do is scroll through your library… and, musically speaking, you’re naked (pg. 26). 

In another view, social networks are forever allowing access to an increasing amount of knowledge on individuals’ lives whenever and wherever one may be (assuming there is internet access); with this said however, privacy is increasingly becoming a thing of the past.

Aside from new media’s cultivating impact on individuals’ identity, new media has transformed and continues to transform the music, gaming and film industries. With an increase in participation, connectivity, innovation and collaboration has never been easier amongst these industries.

Casey Pugh’s ‘Star Wars Uncut’ is a prime example of collaboration through a new media platform (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ezeYJUz-84). ‘Star Wars Uncut’ is a collaborative YouTube film made up of 15 second clips gathered from all around the world from people unknown to each other, combined through “networked individualism” (Leong, 2012), to recreate the original ‘Star Wars: A New Hope’.

Ultimately, new media is forever allowing for participation and influencing the notion of collaboration worldwide.

Reference List:

C, Pugh. 2009. Star Wars Uncut: Director’s Cut. Available online at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ezeYJUz-84

L, Fisher. 2012. “Why Social Media Is Leading To A New Era Of Identity”. Acessed March 16, 2012 from http://www.simplyzesty.com/social-media/why-social-media-is-leading-to-a-new-era-of-identity/

S, Leong. 2012. KCB206. New Amusement Arcade: Music, Games and Films: Week 3 [Lecture Notes]. Accessed March 16, 2012. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/

S, Levy. 2006. “Identity” In The Perfect Thing: How the IPod Shuffles Commerce, Culture and Coolness. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. Accessed March 16, 2012 from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au

test post