In an effort to link this particular post to both the reading, 'Personal Relationships: On and Off the Internet', and the lecture content about video games, I have examined the effects that video games can have on personal relationships and social behaviour. But first, allow me to raise the point that prior to today's lecture I was unaware of the amount of study that is conducted concerning video games. The approaches of Social Science, Humanities and Industry and Engineering give insight into the degree of research that is conducted for a variety of reasons, some of which may include improving the gaming experience, determining the effects of gaming on people and discovering the semiotics of video games. My narrow mindedness in relation to video games is, in my opinion, a result of my lack of interest in video gaming. This lack of interest is one reason why I was amazed by the sheer amount of research, problem-solving and deep thought that is demonstrated when designing and studying the web of interconnected compontents that make video games what they are. According to Lievrouw and Livingstone, 2006, the detailed analysis of games has been a fairly recent development. This is perhaps another reason to explain my lack of awareness.
Within the article, 'Personal Relationships: On and Off the Internet', is a list titled the 'Social Affordances of the Internet'. The list details the social aspects of the internet and makes comparisons to 'real-life' experiences. Upon contemplation, it appears that video games can now be almost as social as other experiences on the internet. Video games can be played on the internet against other people, as a form of social interaction, which is heightened if the games are linked to social media sites. Despite the beneficial social interactions when playing video games, there also exist negative consequences related to video gaming. Health, particularly for children, is an issue if they are performing sedentary tasks for long periods of time. This, however, has been lessened by the introduction of the Wii and XBox Kinect. Another consequence, which was mentioned in the lecture, is the spill-over effect, in which learned ideas or behaviours can actually be exhibited by people in real-life, having some degree of consequence in their off-line life. 'As media becomes more prevalent in people's lives ... the line between video games and real life can begin to blur' (Wolf, 2008).
Boase, J., & Wellman, B. (2006). Personal relationships: On and off the internet. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 709-723). Cambridge.
Lievrouw, L. A., & Livingstone, S. M. (2006). The handbook of new media: Updated student edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Wolf, M. J. P. (2008). The Video Game Explosion. Westport, C.T.: Greenwood Press.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Lecture 5 - The Copyright Middle Ground: Creative Commons
Prior to 2003 there was no middle ground between a work being labelled 'Copyright' or the complete absence of Copyright. The term, Copyright, refers to a creator or author exercising ownership rights that prohibit any other person preparing a derivative, copying or expanding upon works that were created by him/her (Davis & Fiander, 2001). At present, copyrighting is so interwoven in our culture that creators' works are automatically assumed to possess copyright, even without written confirmation.
Prior to the Creative Commons (CC) lecture, I was oblivious to the concept. I have always held the belief that if someone has created or written something, it is their right to bar anyone else from taking, altering or plagerising the work. CC, as opposed to copyright, contains a set of guidelines that allow for creators to relax the copyright regulations to allow their work to be distributed, improved upon or altered. CC has 6 core licences, allowing the creator to select the licence that best suits their needs (Creative Commons Australia, 2011). The CC basic guidelines require the user of a work to show 'attribution', meaning that the work is still to be identified as that of the creator and the user is unable to gain financially from the work. In addition to the standard guidelines the creator is provided with the option to specify whether the user can create modified or 'derivative' works, whether the same terms for use are to be imposed on the modified work and whether the user can make commercial use of the work (Doctorow, 2007).
As was stated in the lecture, historically, the creation of computers and software was established and improved upon through the sharing of works, ideas and making modifications. The climate changed dramatically when Bill Gates began imposing strict copyright regulations and selling his creations. In my opinion, CC has led the way in taking a step back from profiteering and restrictions, and is paving the way to bring back elements of past sharing, for the good of all. As a consumer, I applaud creators who distribute their work freely for the greater good. However, I can also see the multitude of arguments that can be made to support both copyrighting and CC. The debate looks likely to continue for a long time to come!
Creative Commons Australia. (2011). Licences. Retrieved January, 21, 2011, from http://creativecommons.org.au/learn-more/licences
Davis, T. L., & Fiander, P. M. (2001). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Key Issues for Serialists. In J. C. Harmon, P. M. Fiander & L. F. Griffin (Eds.), Making waves: New serials landscapes in a sea of change (pp. 85-104). San Diego, CA: University of California.
Doctorow, C. (2007). Creative commons. Locus Online. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/11/cory-doctorow-creative-commons.html
Prior to the Creative Commons (CC) lecture, I was oblivious to the concept. I have always held the belief that if someone has created or written something, it is their right to bar anyone else from taking, altering or plagerising the work. CC, as opposed to copyright, contains a set of guidelines that allow for creators to relax the copyright regulations to allow their work to be distributed, improved upon or altered. CC has 6 core licences, allowing the creator to select the licence that best suits their needs (Creative Commons Australia, 2011). The CC basic guidelines require the user of a work to show 'attribution', meaning that the work is still to be identified as that of the creator and the user is unable to gain financially from the work. In addition to the standard guidelines the creator is provided with the option to specify whether the user can create modified or 'derivative' works, whether the same terms for use are to be imposed on the modified work and whether the user can make commercial use of the work (Doctorow, 2007).
As was stated in the lecture, historically, the creation of computers and software was established and improved upon through the sharing of works, ideas and making modifications. The climate changed dramatically when Bill Gates began imposing strict copyright regulations and selling his creations. In my opinion, CC has led the way in taking a step back from profiteering and restrictions, and is paving the way to bring back elements of past sharing, for the good of all. As a consumer, I applaud creators who distribute their work freely for the greater good. However, I can also see the multitude of arguments that can be made to support both copyrighting and CC. The debate looks likely to continue for a long time to come!
Creative Commons Australia. (2011). Licences. Retrieved January, 21, 2011, from http://creativecommons.org.au/learn-more/licences
Davis, T. L., & Fiander, P. M. (2001). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Key Issues for Serialists. In J. C. Harmon, P. M. Fiander & L. F. Griffin (Eds.), Making waves: New serials landscapes in a sea of change (pp. 85-104). San Diego, CA: University of California.
Doctorow, C. (2007). Creative commons. Locus Online. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/11/cory-doctorow-creative-commons.html
Lecture 4 - Privacy and Flickr
In an effort to delve deeper into the issue of privacy and social media, the Terms of Service (TOS) and Privacy Policy of Flickr have been closely examined. An interesting point to note is that Flickr shares the TOS and Privacy Policy of Yahoo!7. This does not come as a surprise as Flickr was purchased by Yahoo!7 in March 2005 (Wang, 2007), but I thought it noteworthy to mention that Flickr does not have its own specific TOS and Privacy Policy. My attention was also drawn to the frank statement that '...all information is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such Content originated' (Yahoo!7, 2011a). In short, this statement absolves Yahoo!7 of any responsibility or duties regardless of what becomes of such content. Yahoo!7 provides a blanket description of the available services, listing 'various communication tools' and 'personalised content' in a long-winded paragraph that neglects to identify specific features pertaining to Flickr, such as image uploading.
Quite the opposite is experienced when reading through the terms of Member Conduct. Blatent and concise dot points display the array of conditions under which members are required to abide, leaving no room for misunderstanding. Upon contemplation I would suggest that the TOS (unsurprisingly) allows for more freedom of interpretation concerning the interests of the service provider, rather than its members.
Another aspect of concern is the admission in the Privacy Policy that 'Yahoo!7 allows other companies that are presenting advertisements on some of our pages to set and access their cookies on your computer. The way other companies use their cookies is subject to their own privacy policies...' (Yahoo!7, 2011b). This statement again waives responsibility on behalf of Yahoo!7 and subsequently increases the difficulty for members to keep track of how their content is being accessed. The ambiguity and presence of concerning privacy admissions of aspects of the TOS and Privacy Policy indicates the importance of thoroughly reading policy terms and conditions. I must admit, I am the first to skim TOS and Privacy Policies, often preferring to put faith in the service providers rather than spending ten minutes deciphering conditions and terminology. Perhaps, in the wake of my eyes being opened to the substantial lack of privacy associated with the internet, it would be a wise decision to take the time to understand how my privacy can be invaded when joining any social media or internet site in the future.
Wang, P. (2007) Community model - Flickr case study [Electronic version]. Teaching Support Materials for E-Business (TAFE), 16-18.
Yahoo!7. (2011a). Yahoo!7 Terms of Service. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Yahoo!7 Privacy. (2011b). Yahoo!7 Privacy Policy. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/au/yahoo/
Quite the opposite is experienced when reading through the terms of Member Conduct. Blatent and concise dot points display the array of conditions under which members are required to abide, leaving no room for misunderstanding. Upon contemplation I would suggest that the TOS (unsurprisingly) allows for more freedom of interpretation concerning the interests of the service provider, rather than its members.
Another aspect of concern is the admission in the Privacy Policy that 'Yahoo!7 allows other companies that are presenting advertisements on some of our pages to set and access their cookies on your computer. The way other companies use their cookies is subject to their own privacy policies...' (Yahoo!7, 2011b). This statement again waives responsibility on behalf of Yahoo!7 and subsequently increases the difficulty for members to keep track of how their content is being accessed. The ambiguity and presence of concerning privacy admissions of aspects of the TOS and Privacy Policy indicates the importance of thoroughly reading policy terms and conditions. I must admit, I am the first to skim TOS and Privacy Policies, often preferring to put faith in the service providers rather than spending ten minutes deciphering conditions and terminology. Perhaps, in the wake of my eyes being opened to the substantial lack of privacy associated with the internet, it would be a wise decision to take the time to understand how my privacy can be invaded when joining any social media or internet site in the future.
Wang, P. (2007) Community model - Flickr case study [Electronic version]. Teaching Support Materials for E-Business (TAFE), 16-18.
Yahoo!7. (2011a). Yahoo!7 Terms of Service. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Yahoo!7 Privacy. (2011b). Yahoo!7 Privacy Policy. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/au/yahoo/
Lecture 4 - Privacy Matters
Having explored the concept of social media and identity, more specifically Facebook and identity, in a previous post, my attention is now turned to the aspect of privacy and social media. As you could have guessed Facebook will again be the target of my rant. The Facebook account that I possess is private. My privacy settings have limited my status updates, photo viewing and profile information for the viewing pleasure of purely my Facebook 'friends'. No one else can access or view my personal information, right? WRONG!
The focus of today's lecture was the subject of privacy, with the resounding question of 'is what I post on the internet truly private?' The social media site, Facebook, came under close scrutiny as we examined the hidden methods used on Facebook to access 'private' information. As a regular visitor to Facebook, I regret to say that I have become a complacent user; giving little thought to the possibility that someone may be 'virtually' looking over my shoulder. Issues that were raised during the lecture indicated that strangers are indeed peering over our virtual shoulders when accessing social media sites, biding their time until an opportunity arises to effectively 'steal' personal information. Who would have thought that a lovely game of 'Farmville' could have something more sinister lurking beneath, a part of the application that not only has gained access to the players information, but also quietly invites itself into each of the players 'friends' Facebook accounts. Ever wondered how Facebook decides which friends to suggest? Or how radically the Facebook advertisements change if your profile is updated to include children or potential marriage? The answer's fairly simple - someone is watching. Each click, search and scroll is noted, the information available to advertising companies and a host of other interested parties. In short, there really is no true privacy.
The blog article, 'Facebook Terms of Service Compared with MySpace, Flickr, Picasa, YouTube, LinkedIn and Twitter', by Amanda French, 2009, exemplifies the lack of privacy and rights Facebook grants its users. In short, the Facebook Terms of Service declare that Facebook retains all rights to anything posted by its users, and even goes so far to suggest that placing a Share on Facebook link on your webpage is enough to surrender your rights to your webpage content as well. Further, as if Facebook is not greedy enough, it is stated that Facebook retains rights to all posted content on its site even after the event of account deactivation or content deletion. The list of Facebook rights vs user restrictions is a bold affair. Bold, because boldness is what Facebook is exhibiting within their Terms of Service.
So what do we do about this privacy breach? One solution is to boycott the internet (or just Facebook), a virtually impossible feat in this day and age. Another, wiser solution is to just be aware. As was summed up in the lecture, never post anything on the internet that you would not want the whole world to see, and once something is posted it then becomes the property of the world!
French, A. (2009). Facebook terms of service compared with MySpace, Flickr, Picasa, YouTube, LinkedIn and Twitter. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://amandafrench.net/2009/02/16/facebook-terms-of-service-compared/
The focus of today's lecture was the subject of privacy, with the resounding question of 'is what I post on the internet truly private?' The social media site, Facebook, came under close scrutiny as we examined the hidden methods used on Facebook to access 'private' information. As a regular visitor to Facebook, I regret to say that I have become a complacent user; giving little thought to the possibility that someone may be 'virtually' looking over my shoulder. Issues that were raised during the lecture indicated that strangers are indeed peering over our virtual shoulders when accessing social media sites, biding their time until an opportunity arises to effectively 'steal' personal information. Who would have thought that a lovely game of 'Farmville' could have something more sinister lurking beneath, a part of the application that not only has gained access to the players information, but also quietly invites itself into each of the players 'friends' Facebook accounts. Ever wondered how Facebook decides which friends to suggest? Or how radically the Facebook advertisements change if your profile is updated to include children or potential marriage? The answer's fairly simple - someone is watching. Each click, search and scroll is noted, the information available to advertising companies and a host of other interested parties. In short, there really is no true privacy.
The blog article, 'Facebook Terms of Service Compared with MySpace, Flickr, Picasa, YouTube, LinkedIn and Twitter', by Amanda French, 2009, exemplifies the lack of privacy and rights Facebook grants its users. In short, the Facebook Terms of Service declare that Facebook retains all rights to anything posted by its users, and even goes so far to suggest that placing a Share on Facebook link on your webpage is enough to surrender your rights to your webpage content as well. Further, as if Facebook is not greedy enough, it is stated that Facebook retains rights to all posted content on its site even after the event of account deactivation or content deletion. The list of Facebook rights vs user restrictions is a bold affair. Bold, because boldness is what Facebook is exhibiting within their Terms of Service.
So what do we do about this privacy breach? One solution is to boycott the internet (or just Facebook), a virtually impossible feat in this day and age. Another, wiser solution is to just be aware. As was summed up in the lecture, never post anything on the internet that you would not want the whole world to see, and once something is posted it then becomes the property of the world!
French, A. (2009). Facebook terms of service compared with MySpace, Flickr, Picasa, YouTube, LinkedIn and Twitter. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://amandafrench.net/2009/02/16/facebook-terms-of-service-compared/
Lecture 3 - Asolescents, Identity and Social Media
On a tangent, relating to the previous post and my experience with adolescents during the undertaking of my teaching degree, I researched an article relating to adolescent identity formation and social media.
The blog article, 'How Does Maintaining an Online Identity Affect Adolescent Identity Formation?' by Lesley Cowie, highlights the notion that adolescents (and some 30 year old women) use '...social media to create a completely new and unrestrained personality that they would never show in real life' (Cowie, 2010). The concerning issue relating to adolescent identity is the belief that adolescents are being caught between a manufactured and 'ideal' identity created with the assistance of social media sites and their own natural identity developed through self-discovery and growth. This leads me to the question, what impact will this 'identity in limbo' phenomenon have on people in the future?
As I have previously posted, I believe that it is all too easy to concoct a different identity or make alterations, with the assistance of social media sites. I cannot help but feel that the identity seeking confusion that faces adolescents is sometimes heightened through the use of social media and that adolescents caught in 'identity limbo' may experience difficulty finding their place in the world as adults.
Cowie, L. (2010). How does maintaining an online identity affect adolescent identity formation? Retrieved January 19, 2011, from http://lcowie.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/social-medias-influence-on-adolescent-identity/
The blog article, 'How Does Maintaining an Online Identity Affect Adolescent Identity Formation?' by Lesley Cowie, highlights the notion that adolescents (and some 30 year old women) use '...social media to create a completely new and unrestrained personality that they would never show in real life' (Cowie, 2010). The concerning issue relating to adolescent identity is the belief that adolescents are being caught between a manufactured and 'ideal' identity created with the assistance of social media sites and their own natural identity developed through self-discovery and growth. This leads me to the question, what impact will this 'identity in limbo' phenomenon have on people in the future?
As I have previously posted, I believe that it is all too easy to concoct a different identity or make alterations, with the assistance of social media sites. I cannot help but feel that the identity seeking confusion that faces adolescents is sometimes heightened through the use of social media and that adolescents caught in 'identity limbo' may experience difficulty finding their place in the world as adults.
Cowie, L. (2010). How does maintaining an online identity affect adolescent identity formation? Retrieved January 19, 2011, from http://lcowie.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/social-medias-influence-on-adolescent-identity/
Lecture 3 - Social media and identity
The term 'social media' refers to media that is used for social interaction. Sites such as Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Live Journal, etc fall under the umbrella of media used for this purpose. As an avid user of the social media site, Facebook, I find it somewhat alarming that identities can be reconstructed and deconstructed to suit the identity goal of the individual. What I mean by this concept is portrayed through the cartoon caption, 'No one knows you're a dog on the internet'. The lack of face to face contact and 'anonymity' provided courtesy of the internet, allows any person that has the cognitive ability to access social media sites and remember a username and password free reign to invent themselves any way they see fit. As a parent, I have been briefed countless times on the ease at which false identities can be created to prey on the vulnerability of the young and naive.
The suggestion that people can reinvent their identities using social media sites does not always refer to a dramatic change in identity, for example, a middle age man posing as a teenager in order to woo teenage girls. It could be as simple as my own experiences involving the careful selection of material I choose to display on my Facebook page. Posting photos, videos and status updates that illustrate the aspects of my life that I wish to reveal to the masses; painting the picture of an adventurous, fun-loving person, whose life is a whole lot more exciting than the stone cold truth. The persuasiveness of my Facebook identity is sustained and perpetuated by the fact that only a handful of my so-called Facebook 'Friends' are actually my real-life friends, the remainder are limited to virtual path crossing on Facebook.
A quote from the article, 'Studying Internet Studies Through the Ages', aptly describes why identities can be bolstered or altered:
Wellman, B. (2008, November 20). Studying internet studies through the ages. Draft of a Contribution to the Blackwell Handbook of Internet Studies (2009). Version 1b, University of Toronto.
The suggestion that people can reinvent their identities using social media sites does not always refer to a dramatic change in identity, for example, a middle age man posing as a teenager in order to woo teenage girls. It could be as simple as my own experiences involving the careful selection of material I choose to display on my Facebook page. Posting photos, videos and status updates that illustrate the aspects of my life that I wish to reveal to the masses; painting the picture of an adventurous, fun-loving person, whose life is a whole lot more exciting than the stone cold truth. The persuasiveness of my Facebook identity is sustained and perpetuated by the fact that only a handful of my so-called Facebook 'Friends' are actually my real-life friends, the remainder are limited to virtual path crossing on Facebook.
A quote from the article, 'Studying Internet Studies Through the Ages', aptly describes why identities can be bolstered or altered:
'while all this razzle-dazzle connects us electronically, it disconnects us from each other, having us “interfacing” more with computers and TV screens than looking in the face of our fellow human beings.' [Texas
Thus, affording people greater opportunity to invest more time in creating identities online, rather than in the physical world. Wellman, B. (2008, November 20). Studying internet studies through the ages. Draft of a Contribution to the Blackwell Handbook of Internet Studies (2009). Version 1b, University of Toronto.
Lecture 2 - Life, Death and Internet History
As a person studying to be a primary school teacher, I am well aware of the influence that technology has on the lives of all people, particularly children. Children born in the 21st century have grown up alongside developing technology and the expectation of instantaneous gratification through their use of technological devices. I, on the other hand, have really only started to embrace and appreciate the full functionality of technological devices, particularly the computer and internet, in the past few years.
When reading the article, 'The Life and Death of Online Communities', it dawned on me that although I was in high school throughout the life of GeoCities I have no recollection of the site and would have continued being blissfully ignorant had fate not stepped in. According to the article, the concept of the early social networking site, GeoCities, provided a 'blue print' for other social networking sites, such as Facebook, a site that I have familiarised myself with over the past few years. If it weren't for the GeoCities article written by Phoebe Connelly I would have been none the wiser about the demise of GeoCities in October, 2009 and still wrongly assuming that internet sites and content are 'immortal'.
With the GeoCities article in mind, I feel the need to ask the following questions, will this be the experience people encounter when Facebook runs the gauntlet of its technological life? Should we make more of an effort to preserve the history of the internet in order to better understand technology, human interaction and its role in society? Archiving and preserving internet history '... has the promise of being a key resource for historians and those who study the Web itself' (Thelwall & Vaughan, 2004). Beneath the inane chatter stored on various social networking sites, lie informative and valuable clues about modern communication, social order and culture. In my personal opinion, we would be foolish not to archive internet history for the education of future generations.
Connelly, P. (2009). How online communities are born and what happens when they die. The American Prospect. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=neo_cities
Thelwall, M., & Vaughan, L. (2004). A fair history of the web? Examining country balance in the internet archive. Library and Information Science Research, 26(2), 162-176.
When reading the article, 'The Life and Death of Online Communities', it dawned on me that although I was in high school throughout the life of GeoCities I have no recollection of the site and would have continued being blissfully ignorant had fate not stepped in. According to the article, the concept of the early social networking site, GeoCities, provided a 'blue print' for other social networking sites, such as Facebook, a site that I have familiarised myself with over the past few years. If it weren't for the GeoCities article written by Phoebe Connelly I would have been none the wiser about the demise of GeoCities in October, 2009 and still wrongly assuming that internet sites and content are 'immortal'.
With the GeoCities article in mind, I feel the need to ask the following questions, will this be the experience people encounter when Facebook runs the gauntlet of its technological life? Should we make more of an effort to preserve the history of the internet in order to better understand technology, human interaction and its role in society? Archiving and preserving internet history '... has the promise of being a key resource for historians and those who study the Web itself' (Thelwall & Vaughan, 2004). Beneath the inane chatter stored on various social networking sites, lie informative and valuable clues about modern communication, social order and culture. In my personal opinion, we would be foolish not to archive internet history for the education of future generations.
Connelly, P. (2009). How online communities are born and what happens when they die. The American Prospect. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=neo_cities
Thelwall, M., & Vaughan, L. (2004). A fair history of the web? Examining country balance in the internet archive. Library and Information Science Research, 26(2), 162-176.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)